1964-05-01

Mr, Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Douglas:: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Nielsen:: -affecting all hon. members of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I am faced with two questions of privilege. Is the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam rising on a question of privilege?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, I am.


Erik Nielsen: I too am rising on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members of this house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My question of privilege has to do also with the rights of members of this house, and I would like to state it.


Mr. Speaker:: In cases of doubt, I have to give it-


An hon. Member:: To the official opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you; the Chair is able to make up its own mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to make the judgment of Solomon, and little factors have to be taken into consideration. I must say that the hon. member for Yukon did speak to me just before the opening of the sitting, and he did say he would raise this question.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question of privilege involves two matters the first being of serious concern to all hon. members of the house. It would appear that it arose for the first time last evening. It concerns the application of new provisional order No. 39 and the belief, mistaken in my view, that the strict application of the rule would mean that no questions of privilege or points of order can be
raised between 10 and 10.30 p.m. I suggest, sir, that the rule be again considered by yourself and clarification brought down to the members of the house in this regard, or referred back to the rules committee.
I will be very brief on this particular aspect of the question of privilege. If Your Honour will refer to Votes and Proceedings for April 20, Your Honour will notice that the last paragraph of provisional rule 39(5) stipulates as follows:
There shall be no appeal against any decision made by Mr. Speaker under the provisions of this subsection.
The provisions of this subsection refer to the rule that the discretion of Your Honour is to be accepted as to whether a particular question asked on orders of the day is urgent. I submit to Your Honour that the provision prohibiting an appeal relates strictly to a decision of Your Honour on a question of urgency. If Your Honour rules a question out of order on any other ground except that of urgency, I submit that the ordinary rules apply.
The second part of this matter relates to the absence of any reference in the new rule to points of order and questions of privilege being raised in the half hour between 10 and 10.30; the new rule is absolutely silent on this matter. If it was the intention of the rules committee that there should be no questions of privilege or points of order raised in this half hour, I submit it should have been so stated in the new rule. As it stands now, the new rule being silent on the subject, it will be my submission that questions of privilege and points of order can be raised, under the ordinary rules of the house. I submit that we need clarification on these points from Your Honour or by reference back to the rules committee.
The other portion of my question of privilege has to do with the circumstances as they did arise last night. On the orders of the day the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) raised an absolutely planted and connived question with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill)-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: -with respect to a national air policy. The Minister of Transport was obviously prepared to answer on orders of the day; he had a written statement in his hand.

Question of Privilege
He was prevented, however, by Your Honour from doing so; in other words Your Honour ruled the question out of order and it was transferred for debate on the adjournment at ten o'clock last night. The question was again raised last night and a question of privilege was attempted to be raised by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume), when we got into this situation.
The situation would never have arisen if the minister had followed the usual custom and practice of making government policy announcements on motions, even if he had to resort to the practice followed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) the other night when he asked at six o'clock to revert to motions in order to make an important announcement concerning government policy. We have had the occurrence time and again throughout this session of ministers leaking or releasing information on government policy to the press before the members of this house are informed.
The vehicles that are used, too, come in for some criticism. Here we have a publicly owned broadcasting system for which the minister is responsible, or which at least reports through the minister to parliament; and he uses his position of responsibility in order to make public announcements over the C.B.C. This practice of the minister is quite reprehensible to me, and I am quite sure to a good many other members in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre just a day or two ago expressed his view to the minister that we should not submit to having to read announcements on government policy in the press. That is what happened. The Toronto Globe and Mail was on the streets this morning at 8.30. It contained the release about which the house has still not heard because of the minister's disregard of the rules in not making an announcement on motions yesterday. The Globe and Mail had the information by five o'clock yesterday, and I had that information from the Globe and Mail office by seven o'clock.
The house is entitled to an explanation of this conduct-this disgusting conduct, since | the minister himself used that phrase last night-in making this type of release outside the house. We have been waiting for weeks for an announcement on air policy. Hon. members have been asking questions since as far back as February 26. The minister,
IMr. Nielsen.]
in contempt of the rights of the members of this house, has chosen to release the information to the press, as he has on other occasions, before informing the members of this house. This is a practice which we think is in need of correction, and in order to bring it forcefully to the attention of the government benches it seems that a substantive motion is in order. Accordingly I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler):
That this house condemns the action of ministers from time to time in announcing outside of the . house policy decisions which should be announced An the house, an example of which being the announcement yesterday outside the house by the Minister of Transport of air policy, such action being a flagrant disregard of the custom, practices and privileges of this house and its members.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour decides whether there is a question of privilege, and since the hon. member invited me to make an explanation, perhaps I might be permitted to explain the circumstances attending this whole matter.
I considered very carefully last Friday morning whether the very tentative decision which was taken by the government to carry on another stage in the formulation of air policy, which has not yet been formulated and which I am sure will not be formulated for at least another month, justified my coming to the house and taking up the time of the house in making what might be called a progress report of what the government is doing about this matter.
I came to the conclusion that I should abide by the rules of the house, which, as I have always understood them, provide that ministers should not use the period on motions-and there have been many complaints about this on the other side-for propaganda purposes to advance the position of the government by way of trial balloons. I understand the rules to provide that ministers should not make statements on motions unless they are factual and deal with some matter which has been definitely decided and is final, and which would then require action of some kind by parliament in due course.
In other words, if I had had anything to say which would have led immediately to legislation, I think it would have been a discourtesy to the house to make the statement elsewhere. If I had had anything to say which was definite and would involve a request for expenditures, then, since the government is responsible to the house and cannot spend public money without a vote of the house, it seems to me that one should not make these

statements outside the house, when the house is sitting, without first letting the house know that the government is going to ask for that expenditure to be made; in other words that is a matter which is going to become the business of the house. However, if it is an ordinary part of the administration entrusted to the government, about which hundreds of statements are made every day, we would have no time left for the carrying on of the legislative and other business of this house if the time of parliament was cluttered up with matters of that kind.
Having considered that very carefully, I came to the conclusion it would not be a proper thing to do on motions, then or later, nor was it a matter that necessarily needed to be announced to anyone at all. But after I had met the presidents of the two railways and the presidents of the two air lines on Monday morning, it was drawn to my attention that they had themselves been seen coming into my office and that there was some curiosity about this. I was approached by several people, and I indicated to them that there was nothing secret about this matter, and if anyone made any inquiry about it 1 would indicate to the public exactly what I had intended to indicate to the air lines as to the lines along which they were being asked to proceed.
This is not government policy. This is just a stage in the formulation of government policy; and when an hon. member asked a question about this matter, as was done in the house yesterday, I would have responded except that the Speaker decided the question was not of that degree of urgency. The hon. member then put it down for debate after ten o'clock. After that had been done I was, as is quite natural, approached by several members of the press to see if they could find out about this matter. I was told also that there was a speculative story in the Financial Post. I said "I am going to tell the House of Commons, after ten o'clock tonight, in a very general way what I told the air lines, and I would rather you listen then but there is nothing secret about it." It just so happened, because hon. members felt it more desirable to use the time in other ways, that I was precluded after ten o'clock last night from answering the hon. member's question, and to him I apologize for that although it was not really my fault.
But, sir, these principles which I communicated to the air lines are not a statement of government policy at all. They are a statement of certain principles on which the
Question of Privilege
government feels air policy should be based after there has been discussion, first with the main line carriers and then with the regional carriers and other interested bodies. I thought the house was entitled to have a legitimate curiosity satisfied about this matter, but since it was not a matter that the house was going to be called upon to deal with I did not feel I should have taken the initiative in inflicting it upon the house.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has presented his motion, and I think we should hear from other hon. members.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is arguing that the statement which he made last night is not a matter of government policy. After examining it carefully I would say that it has very serious implications with respect to government policy. I would go further and say that for me it is a cause of great concern, because I can already see the shadow of the axe falling on certain activities of Trans-Canada Air Lines.
If the minister did not think it was an important statement of policy, I want to know why he suborned the C.B.C. into allowing him to make a statement on national television last night, which he was prevented from making in this house because of his failure to comply with the rules of the house. I do not condone the actions which prevented the minister from making his statement last night on the adjournment procedure, but the fact is that the fault lies mainly with the minister himself. It was apparent that there was an important statement to be made. Whether it was on the formulation of policy or a final decision on the matter of policy, the minister was desirous of making a statement. Instead of making it on motions, which was the proper place so that a member from each party could have made some comment on it-and I personally certainly would have been extremely interested in making some comments on the statement the minister made last night-instead of following this proper course the minister very transparently had a question planted, which was asked by the hon. member for Broadview. Your Honour ruled that the question might more properly be placed on the order paper, whereupon the hon. member for Broadview had it transferred to the adjournment proceedings.
I make no excuse for those who prevented the minister making his statement on the adjournment proceedings, but having failed

Question of Privilege
to do that the minister could have made a statement on motions today. The house was entitled to have that statement made in the house where members could comment on it and ask questions about it. Instead, the minister virtually compelled the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to allow him to go on the air last night on television and on radio this morning to make a statement which the house had not yet heard.
I saw the television broadcast on the eleven o'clock news last night. There were two things that were quite apparent to anyone who viewed it objectively. The first was that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was embarrassed at having to put the minister on, and it was very apparent that they were doing so under pressure. The second thing that was quite apparent was that the minister was in a tantrum. If I had been picking a title for the production I would have called it "Pick in a Pique".
Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to the Prime Minister. No other member of this house, having failed to get the floor to make a statement, is allowed to go to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and compel them to allow him to make a statement to the people of Canada which he has been unable, because of the rules of the house, to make in parliament. The minister said a while ago he did not want to be popping up giving what might appear to be government propaganda. What does he think talking to two million viewers last night was but government propaganda?
I would appeal to the Prime Minister to intervene in matters of this kind. If every time ministers find they are balked in some respect in the house, particularly a minister who until a few months ago was in charge of the C.B.C., they are to be permitted to go to the C.B.C. and order that body to put them on the air so they can go over the head of the House of Commons and appeal to the people of Canada; if that right is to be given to the Minister of Transport or any other minister, then it must be given to all members of the house.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the motion that has been made is one of the most serious that has come before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that those on the other side ridicule the opposition, but the C.B.C. must be kept free from political influence-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -from without and within. Let that be clear. Too often recently the C.B.C. has apparently been subjected to the kind of control that last night took the form of intimidation on the part of the minister. I should like to ask the Secretary of State this question. Who was the medium of communication between the Minister of Transport and the C.B.C.? It was very obvious last night from the words used by Mr. DePoe that he felt that what was being done was improper. He made it very clear and definite that what was taking place was improper, and it was.
Are we to find ourselves in parliament in this position; that a minister, because his dignity has been hurt and his susceptibilities have been exacerbated, can rush to the C.B.C. and make the kind of statement which was made last night, a statement which was the epitome of Liberal propaganda? Certainly the time has come when this house and the country should find out the degree to which there is interference on the part of this government with the C.B.C. That could not have happened unless there was intervention by someone with influence. As I listened to what Mr. DePoe had to say, it seemed clear to me he objected to the C.B.C. being used as a cat's paw by the minister, and we want to find out the full circumstances in this connection.
Now, the minister says this was not an announcement of policy; it was just a kind of declaration of potential consideration of the problem. Is it potential consideration for the minister to say to T.C.A. and Canadian Pacific Airlines "This is what we want to achieve"? Even a suggestion, coming from one of the august eminence of the Minister of Transport, would have a tremendous effect on those who are subject to him, and that is what it amounts to.
Apparently it was leaked out elsewhere. The hon. gentleman mentioned the Financial Post. He called it a speculative article. Well, more and more, since this government came to office, government policy has become the subject of announcements through speculative articles. Last night what was denied to parliament was made available elsewhere.
I was not here for what took place last night, but I can say this; that the minister, yesterday, was obviously disturbed all through the day, sputtering like a squib, obviously annoyed about something. I do not know what it was, but he showed it all day

yesterday, and his performance on the C.B.C. last night should earn for him one of the Oscars for nonsense.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Perhaps in view of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition I might be permitted to say a word on this matter. The right hon. gentleman concluded his statement, after making some offensive personal remarks about the minister concerned, by saying that certain information was denied to parliament. Mr. Speaker, that information last night was denied by the opposition, so that parliament and the people could not hear it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? Was he in the house yesterday when the hon. member for Yukon- and we were all in agreement-offered unanimous consent to allow the minister to make his statement on the orders of the day?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was not in the house, any more than certain other hon. gentlemen were in the house. But it was clear that the minister-


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi (Macleod):: On a
point of order. With regard to the statement which has just been made by the Prime Minister blaming the opposition for doing certain things and keeping this information away from the house and the public, I think in the light of the explanation which has been given by the leader of the New Democratic party the Prime Minister should withdraw his statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said that last night, after ten o'clock, this information was denied to parliament by the actions of the opposition, and that is strictly accurate.
However, this does bring up some important questions. It is perfectly obvious that under the change we have made in our rules on a trial basis, a minister who is replying to a question raised at ten o'clock has three minutes only in which to do so, and that if questions of privilege and points of order are brought up in that period it is perfectly easy to prevent him saying anything at all. I think that should be looked into.
Now the question has been raised-and it is an important one-about making statements on motions rather than making them in reply to questions; in short, how the procedure on motions should be used, and I would hope that the committee on procedure would deal with this matter in its next report so that we can clear up this difficulty-
Question of Privilege
because it is a real difficulty-of when to make statements on motions and when they are more suitably made in reply to a question, which can be followed immediately by supplementary questions. We have now a situation where if a statement is made on motions there can be four comments made, one after another. In any event, I think this is becoming an increasingly important matter in our procedure, and I hope the committee will be able to do something about it.
Perhaps I do not need to go into the charge which has been levelled at the minister and which is reflected in this particular motion, because the facts are clear; but in bringing this matter to the attention of the house this morning the Leader of the Opposition was careful to emphasize that no pressure should be brought to bear on the C.B.C. by any member of the government. I could not agree with him more. We should get away from this idea that a member of the government should try to persuade the C.B.C. to do anything, or that if they do not do something heads will roll. I am informed that no pressure whatever was brought to bear on the C.B.C. last night.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is all right for hon. gentlemen opposite to laugh. The right hon. gentleman opposite made his charge without any evidence at all except his own intuition.


John George Diefenbaker: The facts speak for themselves.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the C.B.C. will have to deal with this matter itself and issue a statement as to whether pressure of any kind was brought to bear. They are the people who know. I may add that we have to be awfully careful here. The C.B.C. puts on a program which has been free from political partisanship over the months and the years; and the other night, for the first time, a member of parliament from the Conservative party appeared on that program, to the surprise of a great many people. At that time we did not suggest that some pressure must have been brought to bear on the corporation to allow a Conservative member of parliament to make a partisan statement on a "Viewpoint" program. I did not get up in the house and complain, with contrived indignation, that this was the result of pressure brought to bear on the national broadcasting system.
It is clear that the hon. member who moved the motion and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam did not have any evidence to support their statements, and if they

Question of Privilege
are going to make a charge of this kind against the government they should be careful not to make it without any evidence to support their allegations. They said, without any evidence except their own intuitive reaction, that pressure was brought to bear on the C.B.C., and they said that the question which started all this was a contrived and planted question. They gave no evidence at all to support that statement, and when charges of this kind are made in parliament I think members on all sides should be careful to support those charges with evidence. That has not been the case with regard to these particular charges.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: I am sure no one in this house is very happy about what took place last night. There has been a reflection on the C.B.C. and, to a degree, on the committee which worked so hard to try to help out in the adjustment of the rules so that certain improvements could be made in the way we carry out our business. The rules committee which has been working toward the betterment of the situation in the house is to be commended for the work it has done. We do not expect that perfection will result from the first efforts, and this was acknowledged by the fact that the present arrangement is tentative.
There has also been a reflection on the C.B.C.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Bert Raymond Leboe: In my opinion there has been a reflection on the C.B.C. It has been said it yielded to pressure. That is the claim, as far as I am concerned; and it constitutes in my view a serious reflection on the corporation. While I am speaking on this particular subject I would remind both the government and the opposition that with regard to time allotted for political purposes, a partisan view is very evident and we have objected to this state of affairs for a long time.
As to the matter of planted questions, this is a practice which has been going on for a long time, and both major parties of the house have been equally responsible during the periods when they have held office. It has been going on during all the eight years I have been here.
As far as I am concerned, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and it depends, in my view, on whose ox is getting gored as to who does the squealing. We have also found here that if we are going to agree with the minister that this was not government policy, then we must also agree with the Leader of the Opposition, who says

it is propaganda. It cannot be both propaganda and policy. The Leader of the Opposition says it is propaganda; the minister says it was not government policy, so we have to take it from there.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, if you will keep the snakepit quiet, I will say a few words. The Minister of Transport, referring to the broadcast of last night, said it was not a policy statement but a progress report. It strikes me as rather odd that the minister found it necessary to rush to the C.B.C. studio last night to give the nation a progress report on a policy which he said will not be completely formulated for at least another month.
The Prime Minister, in reference to the statements made from this side of the house, said that charges were made without any evidence whatsoever. In the event that the Prime Minister failed to catch the broadcast last night, I would call his attention to the fact-and I am sure that many of his colleagues will inform him of this-that the evidence was very much to the forefront when the C.B.C. correspondent found it necessary to tell the minister, before the broadcast started, that it was not the intention of the C.B.C. to provide ministers of the crown with a platform for announcing government policy. "Policy" was referred to in that particular newscast last night on more than one occasion. The minister himself said he had a policy announcement to make but was prevented from doing so.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the minister's use of the word "illegal". Is it illegal in this house for any member to rise on a question of privilege when he understands that the rules provide that he must rise when that question comes to his attention? This is what happened last night.
There was also a reference to the fact that the opposition had filibustered this question. I would draw your attention again, sir, to the fact that the minister's time was three minutes; and if a procedural argument takes three minutes is the minister imposing upon us in this house, as he imposed himself upon the C.B.C. last night, the thought that any procedural argument that takes three minutes is to be referred to in the future as a filibuster? The evidence was very much in effect, and I suggest that if the Prime Minister

reads the remarks of the Minister of Transport he will find that evidence there.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, as regards to the statements made this morning, one might say that three different questions of privilege have been raised about a single question of privilege.
First of all, there is the question of privilege concerning parliamentary procedure as it was followed last night. There, I must admit that, despite the fact that I am a member of the committee on procedure, I was rather surprised myself at the way the new standing order was applied. In this case I would ask that the problem be referred once again to the committee so that the technical points respecting the adjournment motion period, which extends from 10 to 10.30 p.m., may be clarified in the interest of all members of this house.
As for the second point, Mr. Speaker, it is a statement made outside the house.
In our opinion it was certainly a statement of policy on the part of the government since the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill) expressed an opinion or a new policy about the management of the two main Canadian air lines. It is a matter of policy and the statement was made outside the house.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) stated that the opposition had prevented the Minister of Transport from making his statement in the house. Now, Mr. Speaker, I must point out to the house that last evening as reported at the bottom of the right hand column of page 2802 of the English edition of Hansard, I said:
I agree, provided the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is allowed to make the statement he wished to make a moment ago when he was prevented from doing so by hon. members opposite.
As shown by the record, the Minister of Transport was given the opportunity by the opposition to make his statement. If he was unable to make it, it is because the Speaker put an end to the discussion and adjourned the debate. But the Minister of Transport was allowed to make his statement by the opposition.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on the third question of privilege, the whole matter arises again. First, reverting to the second question of privilege, I must say that such statements of policy should be made in the house, and that the C.B.C. should not be used as a political forum in an attempt to influence the Canadian people. Such a statement should first be made in the House of Commons.
Question of Privilege
Now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the third question of privilege which was raised, namely that the C.B.C. had to submit to that propaganda, assertions have been made by some members of the opposition as well as denials by the Prime Minister and probably by the Minister of Transport.
On that subject, I think it would be of no avail for us to discuss this point as long as an investigation has not been made. I submit that an investigation should be set up and that the Prime Minister should request that such an investigation be made-a serious one-possibly by the committee on privileges and elections, so as to know whether members of the cabinet took it upon themselves, yesterday, to put undue pressure on the C.B.C. to get it to broadcast announcements or statements by certain members of the government.
For our part, we do not wish to make any charge. We have no proof. However, in view of the facts, I feel that an investigation should be held by the government or by the privileges and elections committee to determine whether members of the government have the right to convey messages, by means of force or pressure, through a crown corporation such as the C.B.C.
I know quite well that such a right would be denied us so I do not see why it should be given to other members.
In fairness to all hon. members and all parties in the house, that point should be cleared up.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, just a few words on that matter. A while ago we heard the Leader of the Opposition say that the rights of parliament had been violated; on the other hand we heard the Prime Minister say that the rights of the minister had been violated, that they had not been recognized, and that he had been prevented last night from making in the house the statement made over the C.B.C. However you look at it and under no circumstances has he the right to make a statement outside the house about a matter of policy, as he did yesterday, when we ourselves heard over the C.B.C. the announcement to the effect that a certain amount of competition between the two great Canadian air lines had to be eliminated. It is all very well to charge certain persons or ministers with making political capital through the C.B.C.; but as for us, we do not want the corporation to be used as a political springboard. However, there are high officials in the C.B.C. who mix politics with their duties. It is then up to parliament to rule whether such political interference should be allowed in the C.B.C.

Question of Privilege
We notice, for instance, that members of the Liberal and Conservative parties are invited by the C.B.C. more often than they deserve, while members of the third parties are completely ignored. Who is responsible? We do not know, but what we know is that it is done at the request of a high ranking person.
Consequently, ministers should make their statements of policy in the house instead of using the C.B.C. to announce new government policies. We will fight that as strongly as we can.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If I may, it seems to me that the Speaker is entitled to make a few remarks-and I hope they will be useful and helpful; that is my purpose and object in intervening at this time-without deciding right now whether the motion is in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, am I to assume that your remarks will not prevent me from making a few remarks later?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. The hon. member will see very quickly why I am making these remarks. I think it might be useful at this time to recall to the attention of all hon. members that, contrary to the system followed in the United Kingdom, where notice is always given of oral questions and where the man occupying the chair has some opportunity to consider a question carefully in order to determine whether it is in order, we do not have that provision under our practice in Canada, and the Chair is obliged in a split second to render a decision which may or may not be good. Even in the courts of our land a judge at least has the right to take time to consider whether his judgment is properly drafted; and even then the court of appeal, in dealing with a matter of principle, has time to consider it. But under our system the Chair must decide on the spot whether a matter is right or wrong, and consequently the position is not as easy as it may appear. Thus when we come to borderline cases it is possible for the Chair to make mistakes.
With regard to the question of yesterday, it seemed to me-needless to say there was no communication with the Chair before the question was asked; there was no notice given, and the Chair had absolutely no advance information-as I suggested, that the question should be put on the order paper, under the instructions given to me by the house, which are that a question should not 
be of a nature requiring a lengthy and detailed answer. It was obvious that if the minister was going to reply and outline a whole policy with regard to the aviation industry, it would require considerable time; and under the rules as given to me, questions should be asked as shortly as possible and the answers to questions, as it says here, should be as brief as possible, should deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.
Consequently it seemed to me that this question was one for the order paper, which of course would mean for discussion at ten o'clock. That is the basic reason, which I still consider sound, why action was taken in that respect. In view of the discussion last evening it seems to me that perhaps the matter could have been raised on motions, but that is a matter for the minister to decide, not the Chair. I must say that the Deputy Speaker in my opinion carried out in a proper manner the rules as given to him by the house.
May I at this time point out to the house that the view of the occupant of the chair at the present time is very simple, and I think is quite correct, namely that it is not up to the Chair to make rules; it is up to the Chair to do its best to interpret the rules as given to the Chair. Consequently, although I happened to be selected as chairman of this committee on procedure and organization, I took steps as soon as it was possible to set up three subcommittees, one of which is the subcommittee on procedure. The members of that subcommittee chose as its chairman the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); and I think that is right in principle, because it means that the subcommittee will decide what rules the house should or should not adopt and that these suggestions, if accepted by the house, have been drafted by the members of the house and then handed to the Speaker for interpretation. I think it is a very important principle that the Speaker do not impose his ideas on the house. He must carry out the instructions of the house.
With respect to the interpretation of this new standing order 3 9A, I think it might be very useful at this time if the chairman of the subcommittee on procedure, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, explained to the house once more the purpose of this rule. If, of course, the house is not satisfied with that particular section it can be changed, because this is only a trial period. But the importance of the provisional standing order and the reasons for bringing it in are fundamental, and how the standing order should

be applied depends to a great extent on the understanding of the purpose and the object of the standing order. I think that at this stage if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would give us briefly once more the purpose of this article it might help all hon. members at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, even before the invitation you have just given me was made it was my intention to say a few words on the question of privilege that has been raised. I had intended to start by saying that though I have strong feelings about all the aspects of the point that has been raised this morning, it would be my purpose to confine myself to the question of the operation of provisional standing order 39A. It was also my intention previously, and it certainly is now after the invitation Your Honour has given me, to speak in a low key despite the feelings which have been ventilated this morning.
I should like to say right at the outset that it is my intention as chairman of the subcommittee on procedure to call a meeting of that subcommittee just as soon as all of its members are available so we can review what happened last night and consider whether any suggested changes should be made.
Perhaps hon. members will forgive me if I take a few seconds to indicate the personnel of the subcommittee. We are getting along very well and I hope we may be able to make further suggestions which will be helpful to the procedures of the house. I have with me on the subcommittee the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, who is also the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen); the hon. member for Stormont, who is also Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Lamoureux); the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin); the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken); and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). I give these members notice now that at the earliest possible moment we will be holding a meeting to consider what happened last night.
Having said that, may I give what I think was at least my understanding of provisional standing order 39A as we proposed it to the house on a trial basis. As hon. members are aware, one of the first in the house to suggest that we provide for debates at the adjournment time to make up for difficulties during the question period was the Leader of the Opposition. I happen to have had the honour of drafting this particular provisional standing order 39A, but it has been accepted
Question of Privilege
unanimously by the house. Our idea was that we should approach the problem created by the orders of the day question period in a two-fold way; that on the one hand we should try to cut down the time used on the orders of the day question period, but that we should provide for members an escape valve or some recourse so they would not feel that their rights were being curtailed. That was the reason this extra half hour was provided.
I would emphasize that the extra half hour which has been provided at night is, in a sense, a gift, something new for members, something we did not previously enjoy, and I think all hon. members have been accepting it in that way. Personally I have been pleased at the interest shown in it. I think if we can judge by the two week trial basis, even in spite of last night, its purpose is being achieved. We have been able to cut down time used on the orders of the day question period, yet we have this escape valve, and interest has been shown in the operation of the escape valve itself.
When we drew up the terms for this half hour debate at night we had to face a number of problems. One of the problems was this. Are we going to have a piece of machinery under which the adjourned sitting of the house might go on and on? Are we going to get back to the eleven o'clock adjournment which we had a few years ago and tried to get away from? We felt that in fairness to ourselves, in fairness to the staff and in fairness to everybody else we should not have an extended period at night, so we drew up the order with a view to it being confined to a half hour period. We provided seven minutes for a member and three minutes for a minister, three times a night, and we made the specific decision that if 30 minutes went by and the matters had not been concluded the house was to be adjourned at that point.
I think it is fair to say that we did have the feeling that the only way this could work would be if there were no interruptions. If people were interrupted, either in the seven minutes given the member or in the three minutes given the minister, by points or order, questions of privilege or what have you, it was our feeling that it would defeat the purpose of this new rule. It would mean that time given to an hon. member would be taken away from him, or that we would be running into an extension of the time and in that way create something which hon. members would not want.
We did not spell this out in detail. The members of the main committee which was

Question of Privilege
presided over by Your Honour, if you remember the discussion on this matter in room 16 on the day this order was passed, felt that the provision at the end of provisional standing order 39A-not the one at the end of provisional standing order 39(5) but the one at the end of 39A, which reads-
There shall be no appeal against any decision made by Mr. Speaker under the provisions of this standing order.
-implies that points of order and questions of privilege were not to be raised.
Not only was there the experience of last night. Since then I have had discussions with various hon. members-backbenchers, middle benchers and front benchers-and there is concern. Their feelings have been expressed to me in these terms: "Yes, you have to limit this to a half hour period or we will be in trouble. You have to try to avoid interruptions, otherwise you defeat the whole purpose. Yet on the other hand, can you close out completely the right of a genuine question of privilege? If in the course of a question or an answer one member says something about another member which is defamatory, libellous or offensive, can you close out completely a question of privilege?" That is a real question, and maybe provisional standing order 39A as we have drafted it does not take cognizance of that possibility.
I feel that if we are going to make some provision for a point of order or question of privilege to be raised we will have to make it very specific. We will have to make provision for this to be done in a period outside the seven minute and three minute periods. There is no point in providing seven minute question and three minute answer periods if they can be interrupted, as was the case last night, and their whole purpose defeated.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to address myself to the house in a low key, but though my voice may be up I am trying not to assess any blame for what happened last night. Let us say that the provisional standing order is capable of some misunderstanding or misinterpretation. I think the Deputy Speaker did right in the light of what he had in front of him last night; but since there is a feeling on the part of hon. members that perhaps we should take another look at it, I undertake that an early meeting of the subcommittee on procedure will be called to do this.
In the meantime, if we do not get a report back to the house before Monday night, which is the next time the adjournment question and answer period will be in operation, I

hope hon. members will consider that the purpose of this half hour is to provide seven minute and three minute opportunities for members and ministers, and I ask hon. members to restrain themselves from indulging in the kind of behaviour which occurred last night until such time as we can bring in recommendations which can cure any defect that there may be.
I do want to say that I am grateful to the many members of the house as well as the members of the press who have spoken to me personally about this, particularly for the way in which they have expressed pleasure that we have produced something which does the two things we needed to do; that is to cut down the question period yet preserve for members the opportunity or recourse to deal with a matter if they feel they need to do so. I think we are making progress, and I may say to the Prime Minister that we have another report in the mill. One of the things that we will deal with in our next report is the question of statements on motions, and maybe we will have to take another look at that in the light of what happened yesterday.
We are working hard. We have a good committee. The house has shown confidence in us, and I am sure the house will appreciate what we in the committee and in the house are trying to do, to put our procedures on a proper basis. With that confidence and appreciation I think we can make real progress.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say briefly that we seem to be getting completely away from the general tenor of the motion which has been introduced and the complaint which has been made. The real question relates not to the procedure, which undoubtedly broke down last night, but to the fact that following such a breakdown in procedure the minister, not being able to make his statement in the house, went and made it elsewhere. This is the real question of privilege that is before the house, and that is the motion the hon. member has made.
I may say, on the question that has been raised, that I believe we found out last night there are shortcomings in this procedure, but I should also observe that I do not believe either the committee or the house anticipated that this period would be used for a planted question, in reply to which a minister could make a statement that should be made on motions. The danger is very obvious, that having made such a statement there was no opportunity for comment by any members of the opposition parties.

This is where the minister and his colleague fell into a trap of their own making. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that there was a breakdown. However, I do not think the breakdown was in the rule but in breach of the intent behind it.
We must now consider the real substance of this motion. There is a motion before the house and, in accordance with Beauchesne citation 105, it should be dealt with forthwith.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I may not have an opportunity of saying this later, so I think I should say now that in my remarks in raising the question of privilege and putting my motion, I may have said something which was inaccurate in relation to a member of the press gallery, with regard to the comment I made that I phoned the Globe and Mail office. What actually transpired was that I phoned the office and was informed that the story of the national air policy was on the Canadian Press wire at five o'clock, so that what I said bears no reflection on any particular member of the press gallery.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might be permitted to say a word on that. The story on the Canadian Press wire did not purport to come from me, and did not come from me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to decide whether the motion as presented this morning is or is not in order. Right at the beginning I would like to refer hon. members to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 71 (6):
In all matters of doubt, the Speaker will consider attentively the opinions of members of experience, or sometimes, instead of expressing his opinion on either side, may ask instructions from the house or reserve his decision on the point in discussion, or suggest that the house may, if it think proper, dispense with the rule in a particular case.
This morning, if I am correct, we have had 60 minutes of discussion. We have in the time at our disposal, made careful research; and when I say that I do not know of any instances where statements outside the house have been declared by the Chair to constitute a prima facie breach of privilege, we have not, in the short time at our disposal, been able to find any case to the contrary.
In the past it has been considered as a grievance and, as I say, we have had very considerable discussion this morning. Therefore it seems to me that the motion presented by the hon. member for Yukon is, as stated, in the nature of a substantive motion which would require notice. However, in my opinion it is more of a grievance, and inasmuch as
Question of Privilege
I understand that on Monday and Tuesday there will be a supply motion, where this matter may be discussed thoroughly and at length, and in view of the discussion this morning and the explanations given, serious though the matter is and though it was quite properly raised, nevertheless in my opinion, I do not believe the motion should be accepted by the Speaker at this time.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I feel, with great deference to Your Honour's ruling, that the matter goes far beyond a simple grievance. We have had the action of government ministers, and of this minister in particular, which requires some redress. All hon. members of the house have been held in contempt by the minister's action. That is why I put the motion, and I respectfully ask Your Honour to put the motion to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry I did not hear the last sentence, as I was interrupted.


Erik Nielsen: My last sentence, to which I would respectfully request a reply from Your Honour, was that you put the motion to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I appreciate the reasons which motivate the hon. member, but I do not think it is up to the Chair to appeal its own ruling.


Erik Nielsen: Then with the greatest respect, Your Honour, and because of my differing views with Your Honour, I would with regret appeal Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair from which the hon. member for Yukon has appealed to the house. All those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the members having been called in:
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is an appeal to the house from a ruling of the Chair, which is as follows: The hon. member for Yukon, rising on a question of privilege, proposed to move-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.

Division


Mr. Speaker;: I think this is a rather important point, and therefore I should put the question.
The hon. member for Yukon, rising on a question of privilege, proposed to move:
"That this house condemns the action of ministers from time to time in announcing outside of the house policy decisions which should be announced in the house, an example of which being the announcement yesterday outside the house by the Minister of Transport of air policy, such action being a flagrant disregard of the custom, practices and privileges of this house and its members."
The Chair, having stated that the motion as drafted was in the nature of a grievance rather than a question of privilege and as such an opportunity to raise the question should be available on Monday next, ruled that the motion could not be put at this time.


Mr. Brown:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain Your Honour's decision.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-Whiie Bay-Labrador) presented the first report of the standing committee on marine and fisheries, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River) presented the first report of the standing committee on public accounts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that motions for concurrence in these reports might stand until Monday, rather than ask for unanimous consent to proceed with them today.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if they could not all stand.



MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on mines, forests and waters-Mr. Godin.

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on estimates-Mr. Pilon.

Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Slate for Exlernal Affairs):: In accordance with the practice followed on previous occasions, I should like to report that we have had a visit to Ottawa of United States cabinet members and senior officials who attended a two day meeting here on Wednesday and Thursday of the joint United States-Canadian committee on trade and economic affairs. This meeting provided an opportunity for Canadian ministers to discuss at first hand with the United States secretaries a range of important matters in Canada's relationship with the United States.
This was the ninth meeting this body has held since it was set up in 1953. It was evident in our discussions that good progress has been made during the past year in resolving the difficulties which exist in relations between the two countries. There has been a general improvement in our relations. There is today a determination in both countries that we should co-operate closely in resolving problems and promoting the interests of the two countries in economic and trade matters. The United States recognizes that there is an imbalance for Canada in its trade and payments with the United States, and agrees with our desire to improve our current account through an expansion of exports.
We had good discussions of ways in which we can expand our mutual trade and our trade with the rest of the world in manufactured goods, industrial materials and agricultural products. We have a common interest in working for the success of the forthcoming Kennedy round of GATT tariff and trade negotiations which opens next Monday in Geneva. These negotiations could lead to important gains for Canada's export trade.
During our two day meeting we dealt with many other trade and economic matters of importance to Canada, such as difficulties Canadian exporters are encountering as a 20220-179
U.S.-Canadian Trade Meeting result of the recent reclassification of the United States tariff. We are hopeful that United States restrictions on imports from Canada of lead and zinc and cheese can be eased. A program of studies relating to the utilization of the energy resources of the two countries was initiated.
We also had a good discussion of the Canadian automobile program which was introduced last November with the purpose of rationalizing production in Canada and increasing the efficiency of the Canadian industry. Our program is already showing itself to be successful. During recent months trade in motor vehicles and parts has been increasing substantially in both directions.
This visit to Ottawa of Mr. Rusk and his colleagues provided opportunities for Canadian ministers and their United States counterparts to have talks on other matters of joint concern. As the Prime Minister indicated in the house yesterday, we discussed the question of improving the highway to Alaska. We heard from the United States their ideas on the possible development of Passamaquoddy tidal power and we discussed great lakes water levels. I was particularly gratified to have an opportunity to review with the United States secretary of state a number of problems of critical concern internationally, particularly in view of the fact that he has just returned from visiting two countries in Indo-China.
Our discussions here on Wednesday and Thursday demonstrated clearly the wide range of common interests between Canada and the United States and the readiness of our two governments to co-operate in furthering our common interests. Where problems exist, these discussions at cabinet level serve to bring about a better understanding of each other's interests and policies. We are exploring the possibility of further developing principles which would facilitate co-operation in economic and other policies. We look forward to the next meeting of this committee, which will be held in Washington within the coming year.
Mr. Speaker, for the information of the house I wish to table copies, in French and English, of the communique which was issued at the end of the meeting yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the communique which has now been tabled will be found on examination to be a most bland document; it is notable for its omissions. There is no mention of the situation on the great lakes or the turning over of the S.I.U. to the control of one who is in turn controlled by Mr. Hall, the head of the international union. There is

U.S.-Canadian Trade Meeting no mention of the Passamaquoddy, although the minister made a passing reference to it. Certainly these meetings are beneficial in bringing together the ministers of both countries and in discussing economic matters; but when the minister a moment ago referred to the good progress that has been made in the last year in regard to the solution of problems between Canada and the United States, you may have missed it, sir, but there was a flicker of a smile on his face as he said that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The right hon. gentleman has much licence in this house but he must not impose too much on the judgment of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman is interrupting all the time-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there was no flicker of a smile on my face. The fact is that the right hon. gentleman does not like it, but the relations between our two countries have very considerably improved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is smiling again in the same way-


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi):: I am smiling at the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: -for he realizes the hollowness of his statement. One has only to read what the under secretary of state, Mr. Ball, said the other day to give a "Ball-ed" answer to the statements made by the hon. gentleman a moment ago. It would have been of interest to learn what the United States representatives said in support of Mr. Ball's contention that under this government there have been punitive and discriminatory tax measures taken, directed against American investment. It would have been of interest to hear Mr. Ball's contribution as a member of this group, and I would like to have known what the Canadian attitude was in this regard and which viewpoint was expressed on behalf of Canada. Was the viewpoint expressed that which is heard from time to time from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance? The other day the Minister of Finance spoke in New York and said, in regard to foreign investment in Canada, a matter of tremendous interest to any economic meeting of ministers:
But Canadians are worried about the consequences of ail this foreign investment upon the control of Canadian industry-

Rightly or wrongly, many of us feel the rising trend in the absentee ownership of our key industries poses a threat to our economic independence.


Murdo William Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One does not like to interrupt, but surely the right hon. gentleman will recognize that in introducing that speech which was made altogether outside of yesterday's conference, and which was discussed by my hon. friend on Friday, he is away out of order. All he should now be allowed to do is discuss per se the statement that I made, and not introduce matters which are extraneous and which have nothing to do with the subject matter of the conference.


An hon. Member:: It is embarrassing for you.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I need only add that it was the minister himself, by his extraneous statements, his opening statements, who brought this about. He made statements that I challenge immediately; statements that had no reference whatever to the meeting but were simply for self glorification. I am simply asking-and I wait for your ruling-whether the views expressed by the cabinet were the views of the Minister of Finance, or were they rather the views of the Postmaster General who, speaking the other day, on April 29, said


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: - "American domination"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had hoped that with the approach of the week end we might be able to make faster progress. The question is a point of order, and generally speaking the interpretation of statements on motions should be restrictive; they should be limited to a discussion of the matters raised in the statement. I am glad to tell the house that I hope the subcommittee on procedure will be introducing some refinements very shortly; but in view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is a man of very considerable parliamentary skill and experience I know he will listen to the suggestion I make, that if possible the clear interpretation of statements, and answers or criticisms of statements in the house, should be limited to the statements.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as always I bow to your ruling; and you would have also ruled if I had interrupted, I am sure, that the extraneous statements made by the minister impelled and provoked me into answering them, and he was afraid of the answer. I was endeavouring to ascertain what

the viewpoint of the Canadian government was on this matter, because two viewpoints have been expressed, one of the Minister of Finance and the other of the Postmaster General, who contended that "American domination" was "invoked to ridicule Canadian authority, to shame Canadian national pride". I wondered which viewpoint had been expressed with reference to the communique.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the applause is well timed. Up to the present time I was answering the remarks of the hon. gentleman that were outside of the communique, and having done that I now proceed to deal specifically with the communique.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The communique says:
The committee discussed policies which each country was following to improve its balance of payments.
That raises the whole question of the discriminatory legislation introduced by this government against United States investment. We should have liked some information in this regard. There was the pious expression of the view that the principles of non-discrimination should achieve this objective. That particular portion of the communique is in line with the viewpoint of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, which has consistently opposed the economic tinkering in which this government has engaged.
Next the automotive program was stressed by the minister, as it is in the communique. We have taken the stand that the course followed by the government in this connection is one that could only bring about retaliatory measures on the part of the United States, and that is what has happened. The communique says:
Canadian ministers expressed concern about increases in levels of certain United States tariffs arising from the recent reclassification of the United States tariff, including rates on parts and components.
That has been the position of automobile workers across Canada, that as a result of the action taken by this government in bringing about discriminatory legislation, rather than proceeding by way of encouragement through incentive, there would be retaliation; and there has been. Then the communique says:
They urged-
That is referring to the Canadian government:
-that the United States government take action to correct this situation.
20220-179i
U.S.-Canadian Trade Meeting
There is need of action in this regard. The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -has referred to this fact, and I point out that because of the retaliatory action taken by Mr. Hodges, and threatened by him, various industries in Canada, including the farm machinery industry, are suffering as a result of the imposition of a 10 per cent duty in the United States.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is obviously debating the subject matter of the announcement, and that is not permissible. What is permissible is for him to make a brief comment, which is a courtesy extended under the rules for the first time in recent years, directed to the announcement which has been made and to the propriety or nonpropriety of making the announcement. The right hon. gentleman is not permitted, however, to debate the subject matter raised in the announcement itself. I hope the Leader of the Opposition agrees with that proposition, particularly when he remembers that the courtesy is one which is not granted to leaders of the other parties.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to say this. I am reading from the communique to which reference has been made. This communique has been tabled. Am I to be denied the right to support what I have to say by arguments to the effect that the 10 per cent retaliatory tax imposed, which is affecting our farm machinery industry and our automobile industry, is a direct result of the failure to act on the part of this government?


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if this is turning into a debate on this statement which has just been tabled, could the rest of us have copies of it? We have not seen it. I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition has it, but we do not have it. Certainly I do not think the matter should be debated under the circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: I might point out distribution was made, and apparently the hon. gentleman has not gone through his mail this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: In order to assist the house may I suggest that statements be brief and factual.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, mine are both. Then there is this reference.
United States members expressed their concern over possible Canadian measures which might adversely affect certain United States publications.

U.S.-Canadian Trade Meeting
We should like to know what happened. What did the Canadian government say? Did it say that it was going to exempt Time and Reader's Digest?


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: There is simply the statement-is the Minister of Trade and Commerce aroused, too?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would be very happy to answer all the questions put by the Leader of the Opposition at the proper time.


John George Diefenbaker: Good. In the meantime, if the minister will keep silent I will finish my argument. We should like to know what was said in this regard. This generalization is no good. Are Time and Reader's Digest still to be exempt or not? When I look over this statement it is one of bland generalization and does not represent anything like the fulsome description given to it by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The very matters mentioned here are still objects of deep disagreement between our countries, and the house has the right to know what is the meaning of this. Why these generalities? Why did the minister not tell the house exactly what took place, instead of producing a document which is meaningless in its generality?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair could it be agreed that the communique will be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house so agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of communique referred to above, see Appendix "A".]
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at one o'clock I was about to make a comment on the statement which had been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin).
Like the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) I had not received a copy of the communique to which the Secretary of 
State for External Affairs referred, but I have since secured a copy. I would like to say that I think these meetings between ministers of the Canadian government and their advisers, and representatives of the United States government and their advisers, serve a very useful purpose.
Whether there has been agreement or not on all the questions discussed, the mere fact that there has been an exchange of views and a better understanding of the position which each government takes vis-a-vis certain problems, gives a better chance for some viable solutions to be worked out between the two governments. Any two countries that are as closely intertwined economically, and as closely located geographically as Canada and the United States, have to work out the answers to their problems around the council table.
These problems cannot be solved at arm's length, and certainly not by name calling or vituperation. They have to be worked out on the basis of consultation and an exchange of views. Of course that does not mean Canadian representatives need to surrender on every issue that comes before them, but it does mean that meeting with representatives of the United States government can be the beginning of a great deal of progress in Canadian-United States relations.
1 have not a copy of the minister's statement, but I notice the communique mentions several important matters and I want to say a few words briefly about each of them. First of all it refers to the very important matter of trade and says:
The United States members expressed agreement with Canada's desire to improve its current account through an expansion of exports and stressed the importance of adhering to the principles of non-discrimination in achieving this objective.
This is important in a country like Canada where 68 per cent of our imports come from the United States, and 62 per cent of our exports go to the United States. There is probably no country in the world which has as vulnerable an economy as ours, and is so completely dependent for its economic prosperity as is Canada with reference to its trading relations with the United States. But though this statement is made in the communique, the fact remains that after saying both parties stressed the importance of adhering to the principles of non-discrimination, it was good to see that the Canadian ministers expressed concern over increases in levels of certain United States tariffs, arising from recent reclassification of United States

tariffs, including rates on parts and components, and urged the United States government to take action to correct this situation.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is an important matter which ought to concern the government; that it is not enough to talk in generalities about removing discrimination if, at the same time, by process of reclassification, Canadian exports to the United States are adversely affected.
I was also interested in the fact that the two governments are going to establish "a joint working group to prepare a program of studies relating to trade in all kinds of energy between the United States and Canada". It is important that the Canadian government keep in mind that Canada has great natural advantages in the matter of sources of energy, and that it ought not to lose these natural advantages.
The tendency in the Canadian economy has been for a major part of our investment to be in the extraction industries, and we are exporting raw materials and increasingly exporting energy in various forms. This does not, of course, make for the development of secondary and tertiary industries which are the large employers of labour. It would be a sad thing if we were prepared to accept the role of being a mere supplier of raw materials, a country of extraction industries with a relatively small labour force, just to supply our powerful neighbour to the south with raw materials and the energy to turn them into manufactured products.
I had hoped that somewhere in the statement given by the government there might have been some remarks from the Minister of Finance, because I think all hon. members were greatly concerned about the statements made by the United States under-secretary of state, Mr. George W. Ball, at Harriman, New York, on April 26. I am not going to quote from that speech, but it is very difficult to separate Mr. Ball and his official position as a spokesman for the United States government.
I do not at all question Mr. Ball's right to take the strong position which he did. I only hope that the Canadian ministers took an equally strong position with Mr. Ball and those associated with him, because Mr. Ball made it very clear in his address at Harriman, New York, that any changing of the ground rules could have substantial repercussions, and he made particular mention of:
-measures by governments designed to induce a change in the character of investment from equity to debt...or to refuse national treatment
U.S.-Canadian Trade Meeting to capital that had earlier been welcomed, or to bring about the transfer of production from one country to another.
-which he says-
-can be seriously disruptive.
This, it seems to me, challenges the whole question of Canada's right to direct its trade program, its tariff policy and its investment policy with a view to strengthening the Canadian economy. If Canada is ever to be other than just a branch plant economy, if it is to develop a strong economy capable of exporting into the markets of the world, it is going to have to re-examine its tariff policy, its investment policy and the allocation of its resources.
I hope that the Canadian representatives to the conference of recent days made this perfectly clear to Mr. Ball and to the other representatives of the United States government, that Canada must increasingly gain a greater measure of control over its own economy, that this is not a reflection on the United States, and is not the result of any attempt to be a bad neighbour. It is simply a desire on the part of the Canadian people to retain their own identity and their economic and political independence.
In spite of Mr. Ball's little lecture to us in his speech when he said-
-the maintenance of political independence, however, depends more on the state of the national will than on economic relationships-
-I would say, if our independence depends on the state of the national will, then it is the responsibility of the government to make it very clear to the United States that it, and the Canadian people, have the will to build a strong, viable Canadian economy that is not completely dominated by outside investors, and that will never become an economic satellite of any power on the face of the earth.
One other item in this communique says that the United States members expressed their concern over possible Canadian measures which might adversely affect certain United States publications. I had hoped that the Canadian government would have made some elaboration on this point, and I hope that before too many days elapse the Prime Minister will tell us the intention of the government with respect to the legislation which has been announced, whether the government intends to water down further the recommendations of the O'Leary commission. I should like to know whether or not it was made clear to the United States that they themselves, if the shoe were on the other foot, would not condone for a moment the
2824	HOUSE OF
U.S.-Canadian Trade Meeting control of their magazine and periodical fields by outside publishers as is the case in Canada.
I hope the Canadian government has made it abundantly clear to the United States that, contrary to what Mr. Ball said in his speech of last week, we are not seeking to cramp ideas, we are not seeking to prevent the exchange of points of view. What we are seeking to do in Canada is to retain a Canadian identity and to adopt the same policy with respect to outside periodicals that the United States itself applies in the field of publications.
One last thing, Mr. Speaker. It is not in the communique, but I gather from the closing words of the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that some mention was made of a discussion having been held with respect to southeast Asia. The minister did not elaborate on that. He simply said that certain American officials had recently visited southeast Asia and had made a report to the group. The fact remains, however, that American official's have stated publicly in recent weeks that they have been bringing pressure to bear on the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization asking them to supply forces for Viet Nam. It is true they conceded that since Canada was a member of the truce team in that area our contribution might be limited to medical and hospital services. I want to say now and to give warning to the government that any attempt to involve Canada in the struggle which is going on in Viet Nam will certainly be resisted strongly by the members of this party. If Canada wants to play the role of being the fly on the flypaper I do not know any better way to do it than to become involved in the Viet Nam situation.
We have had no opportunity to study the communique, Mr. Speaker, and I merely make these few remarks with reference to it. I do think, however, that the government would be well advised to provide an opportunity at an early date for a fuller discussion of the question of United States-Canadian relations and that we might have from the respective ministers a fuller account of the position which Canada took at this conference and the position which the Canadian government intends to take in the immediate future regarding the problems that were discussed at the conference.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to discuss at any length the details of the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs this morning. However, I should like 

to make some general observations with respect to the purpose of the discussions that have been held recently. If we are to maintain the happy relations we have enjoyed so far with our neighbours to the south it is imperative that we meet with them, discuss our problems together and work out harmonious solutions. I believe there are many areas in which conflict has arisen and in my view it is always the better part of wisdom to endeavour to resolve these conflicts of views before they reach the point where tensions develop and amicable relations are threatened.
I do not think that recriminations and counter-recriminations in any field ever contribute to a mutually satisfactory solution of problems. Therefore I would say that the occasions for meetings which are presented, such as the meeting recently held with United States officials, are certainly most worth while.
Some reference was made in the minister's statement this morning to trade discussions having to do with tariffs, etc. May I say there is real uneasiness, especially in agricultural circles, as to the possible outcome of the discussions having to do with tariff arrangements. I am thinking particularly of the people engaged in the growing of fruits and vegetables. They are most concerned about the possible outcome of these discussions. I am sure that those who are representing Canada will see to it that Canadian interests are protected in every possible way and that no action will be taken that will militate against the best interests of our own producers. I just wanted to make these general references and observations with regard to the type of discussions held and to urge that such discussions be continued and extended as need may arise.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations which are taking place between the United States and Canadian authorities with regard to trade certainly hold an increasing importance for the future of the Canadian economy.
It is understood that we must come to terms with the Americans, and it is interesting to note that this government is taking action in order to improve, as much as possible, our trade relations with our neighbours to the south. We must not forget that we possess, in Canada, natural resources which have great attraction for the Americans. But, for all that, the export of those natural resources should not be allowed for the sole

benefit of our neighbours to the south and at the expense of the Canadian people.
When one considers, for instance, that the iron ore extracted in our country and more particularly in the province of Quebec is being exported to the United States as raw materials at a ridiculously low price and that it is processed in that country to be resold here afterwards, no wonder our country has a trade imbalance with the United States. On the other hand, if we sold those raw materials at a reasonable price and if they were processed here before being sold to the United States, our trade imbalance would disappear.
Of course, we are all for trade with the United States, but we do not want it to be one-sided, always to the advantage of the United States and to the disadvantage of the Canadian people. We want the Canadian government to take the necessary steps, and it seems to me that those matters should be studied carefully when federal-provincial conferences are held, so that our natural resources will not be left to foreigners for a mere pittance, as I said a while ago, but will benefit the Canadian people.
We need some American products that we do not manufacture here, but we should try at least not to give the United States the raw materials they lack and depend on to maintain their industry and keep their economy flourishing.
Let us think also of promoting the Canadian economy by making transactions in the interest of the Canadian people, not always for the benefit of foreigners.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I do not know who is acting as Prime Minister-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am acting in the place of the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that Hal Banks has been convicted and the matter has been concluded in the courts, questions may be asked which could not have been asked earlier. I should like to direct to the Acting Prime Minister the words of the special federal prosecutor, Jean Martineau, Q.C. in the course of his argument toward the conclusion of the trial. Mr. Martineau characterized Banks as an "uncivil and dictatorial" man who is still
Inquiries of the Ministry a power in the affairs of the S.I.U. "What existed before, still exists," he said. "Banks controlled the union and found himself controlling each man's job".
In view of this considered opinion on the part of the federal government's special prosecutor, I should like to ask the minister whether those words should be brought to the attention of the board of trustees to the end that they reconsider having Leonard McLaughlin who, up to the present time according to the Norris report, has been a puppet of Banks, placed in a position of responsibility as president of the union.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, I have not had the advantage, as the right hon. gentleman has, of seeing the words which he quoted-* and I am not questioning them at all-but I am sure the Minister of Justice will be getting a transcript of those words and if the board of trustees have not seen them already I am sure we would be glad to make sure that they do see them. However, I do think it would be presumptuous on the part of the government or, indeed, on the part of any member of the house, to attempt to usurp the functions which were given to the trustees by a vote of this parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: May I put it to the
minister that there is no usurpation in making a suggestion when that suggestion is based on a statement made by the special prosecutor appointed by the Minister of Justice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I indicated that steps would be taken to make sure that the board of trustees are acquainted with what the special prosecutor said. But I do not think we should attempt to substitute our own judgment for theirs.



HAL BANKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberi C. Coates (Cumberland):: I
wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is it the intention of the minister to take action to cancel the landed immigrant status of Hal C. Banks in view of the judgment of the court?


Mr. Speaker:: Important as this question is, and despite its great general interest, I really do not think the minister should be called upon to answer it without notice. May I, therefore, suggest it be put on the order paper?
2826	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT



INQUIRY AS TO FORMULATION OF NATIONAL POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the statement he made last night regarding national transportation policy. Before I do so, I wonder if I might ask if he intends to put that statement on record, either by tabling it or as an appendix to Hansard, or by reading it, so that we may have something definite to deal with. All we have at the present time are press reports which may or may not be an exact account of what the minister said.
But to proceed with my question, the minister made three points. I shall not take up the time of the house by enumerating them, but the second was that the main lines of T.C.A. must be safeguarded by protecting their economic position. The third was that the smaller regional carriers would be encouraged to get a larger share of the load, and it is suggested in this press statement that this would be achieved by handing over to them some of the profitable T.C.A. runs. I should like to ask the minister this: How would it be possible to protect the economic position of T.C.A. while giving away some of its profitable lines?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should be very happy if I were permitted to table this statement, or have it appear as an appendix to Hansard-if it can be called a statement. It is not a statement at all.


An hon. Member:: Policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not policy. It sets out the principles on the basis of which the government hopes, in the fulness of time, a policy will be evolved. That policy has not yet been evolved.
The question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was in the nature of a debating question and there would be some doubt in my mind whether it would be appropriate for me in those circumstances to answer it, especially as it involves highly complex matters. But I think he will find, when he reads the actual statement I made, that there is nothing in it anywhere about transferring any lines from any one company to any other air lines.
Might I have consent to putting the statement on record?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


An hon. Member:: As an appendix to Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can I keep it for a minute?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Would the minister care to elaborate on the first point in this statement with reference to the merging, in respect of their overseas or international routes, of C.P.A. and T.C.A.? Is this to be done by merger or by allocating certain routes one to the other?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, once again, that when the hon. gentleman reads the statement he will see there was nothing about a merger in it as the only possible course. May I point out that three different ways of achieving the object in which the government was interested were suggested. One is amalgamation, one is partnership and the other is a clear geographical division of fields of operation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has any decision been made as to which of these choices the government proposes to follow, or is the matter still in the discussion stage?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what I said at the beginning of the day. If there had been a decision, I take it that would have been a policy. In fact, we have asked the two main carriers to discuss these various possibilities and see if they can make some suggestion to the government on which they could agree. I think that is a most sensible way in which to proceed, instead of the government trying to appear all-wise and lay down a dictate to the air lines.


John George Diefenbaker: They certainly do not appear all-wise.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question. I have read the minister's statement and I base my question on the second clause of the policy statement which found its way into the hands of the press. Is it not a correct interpretation of that statement to say that clause 2 means, in effect, that anything which savours of competition with T.C.A. or which is likely to prejudice its balance position, is to be choked off?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not a correct interpretation, but the hon. member is a free member of a free parliament-and I hope some of the rest of us will be regarded in the same way. He is perfectly capable of placing any kind of interpretation he likes on those words; but as far as I am concerned the words speak for themselves and I do not think there is any need to interpret them.


Erik Nielsen: As I understand the second clause of the statement, no policy which will place T.C.A. in the red is to be followed by the government, and the operations of airlines other than T.C.A. will be curbed if they have that result?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder sir, if these questions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I might point out that I cannot rule on questions until I have heard them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I apologize.
[Editor's note: For text of statement referred to above, see Appendix "B".]


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a further supplementary question to address to the Minister of Transport with regard to his broadcast statement. Is he aware that Mr. DePoe, the interviewer on the show last night, has indicated in a written statement that the hon. gentleman was invited to appear on the C.B.C. news because of an expected policy statement to be made in the House of Commons?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, I regard Mr. DePoe as a free citizen of a free country and I do not think I am responsible for what he may have said.


Erik Nielsen: I have a further supplementary question to direct to the Minister of Transport. In view of the minister's complaint, which was aired widely this morning on the C.B.C. news, that he had no opportunity to make an announcement concerning air transportation policy in parliament, how does he reconcile this position with the disclosure that his statement of policy has been available since last Tuesday at least, the day on which the Financial Post went to press with substantial details of his policy supplied either by the minister or one of his officials?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know whether Your Honour would feel it proper to prolong a debate which, I thought, had been concluded by the house. But, I repeat, I had no statement of policy to make. When there is a statement of policy to be made, if the house is sitting I will make it in the house.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to 20220-180
Inquiries of the Ministry direct a question to the Secretary of State who is responsible for the C.B.C.
Could the minister assure the house that he had not been in contact with a C.B.C. employee or official so as to permit the Minister of Transport to appear on the C.B.C. network last night?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We are not sure.


Mr. R. W. Pritiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question arising from the statement of policy, or non-policy, the Minister of Transport made concerning air lines. I wonder if the minister or the house leader can inform us whether the transport estimates will be coming before the house soon, so that this matter can be fully debated.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transport is one of the three departments whose estimates will come before the house on the occasion of the supply motion scheduled for Monday.


Erik Nielsen: Over the C.B.C., or in the
house?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport who, as I see, is acting for him this afternoon. Here is my question. Following a statement made a few days ago by the Minister of Finance, we would like to know whether the report of the Porter commission on banking and finance will be deferred to the committee on banking and commerce, and thereby to parliament. Has the government reached any decision in this regard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think this is the kind of question that the Minister of Finance should answer himself.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL PARKS



WOOD BUFFALO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lawrence Elliott Kindt: In the
absence of the Prime Minister I should like to ask the Minister of Transport, who is acting for him, a question concerning Wood Buffalo national park. Is it the intention of the government to transfer all or part of this park to the control of the Alberta government? Would the acting Prime Minister inform the house as to the policy of the government on this matter, and tell us exactly what the situation is?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper?



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: I have a short question for the Minister of Transport. Could the hon. gentleman advise us if the St. Lawrence seaway authority has made a proposal to the government for an increase of 10 per cent in the tolls on the seaway and, if so, when does he expect a decision or statement of policy will be made?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the St. Lawrence seaway authority has made no such recommendation.



NEGOTIATIONS WITH U.S. RESPECTING GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the statement he made earlier this morning, but in his absence perhaps I should direct my question to the acting heir apparent-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. gentleman direct it to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Industry.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Very good; I will do that. The minister in his statement this morning mentioned that he had discussed the question


of the great lakes water levels with his ministerial colleagues from the United States. Is the minister in a position to say whether any specific proposals in this regard were submitted by the United States delegation for consideration by the government?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, no specific proposals were advanced by the United States delegation.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Could the minister, then, give some enlightenment as to the nature of the discussions which took place on that subject?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will recognize that these were private consultations and discussions and one should do no more, in reporting them, than merely give an outline of what was discussed and the general conclusions reached. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated that the question was raised and examined but, as I have just said, no specific solutions were proposed.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY MONTREAL-INQUIRY AS TO CHANGE OF ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works; I have given him notice.
Does the minister anticipate a change in the layout of the trans-Canada highway in the eastern section of Montreal?


Hon. J. P. Deschafelefs (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure, in view of the opportunity which will be given shortly this afternoon to get all the information, the hon. member will not mind my suggesting that he wait until the estimates are up for consideration.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of his reference this morning to his having seen the president of Canadian National Railways,

may I ask the minister whether he is now in a position to answer my question of February 27, March 20 and April 15 concerning the possibility of improving the pensions of Canadian National Railways' employees who have already retired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say I am able to answer that question, although I wonder whether it falls within the hon. gentleman's definition of urgency which he put forward. As the answer is very short, I will give it. It is that I spoke to the president about this and he said he will be glad to be questioned about this matter when he appears before the parliamentary committee.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister aware of the fact that a resident of Quebec has been held in jail for seven months following his sentence of one month's imprisonment for removing an electoral list and if so, what steps have been taken to correct this grave injustice?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question yesterday with regard to Jules Sioui.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question arising out of earlier questions to the Minister of Fisheries in connection with the amount of correspondence that all of us are receiving respecting the urgency and importance of legislation to put an end to the inhuman method of killing seals. The minister said the other day that he would be in a position in a day or so to make a report. I wonder whether he is now in that position.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in reply I wish to agree that there has been exceptional interest shown this year particularly in the methods used to kill seals. I have stated in the house before that some of the representations that have been made may have been somewhat 20220-180J
Inquiries of the Ministry exaggerated. What I meant by this was that these methods shown on film do not represent those used by the great majority of the fishermen engaged in the sealing operation. I have said that more restrictive regulations will be brought in before the opening of the 1965 season. This we intend to do. Those new regulations will deal with better conservation measures and better control of the methods used for the killing of seals. With this in view, and in order to get full information, I have called a meeting at Moncton on May 20 of those interested in the sealing operation. A few days ago I received representations from a delegation of the S.P.C.A. and have outlined to them what we intend to do, and they have appeared to be entirely satisfied with our intentions.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement just made by the minister that new regulations will be brought into effect for the 1965 sealing season, would the minister when drafting these regulations give some consideration to prohibiting the slaughter of seals through the use of helicopters? It would appear that this method is most cruel in that helicopters, when used to catch seals, disturb the females even before the young are born. I think the usual method could be maintained, with some limitations. But I would ask that the minister give some consideration to prohibiting the use of helicopters in the slaughtering of seals.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I cannot say at this time, Mr. Speaker, that the use of helicopters will be prohibited. Helicopters have been used to transport the sealers to the site of operation. The whole operation, whether it is carried out with the use of aeroplanes, helicopters, vessels, or whatever it is, will be taken into consideration; but it would be improper for me to state at this time exactly what decision will be reached, because, as I have said, such decisions will be reached after consultation with those interested in this industry, which means a revenue of $li million a year for certain areas of the Atlantic provinces.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I presume that the minister is taking under serious consideration the recommendations of the fisheries council of Canada that aircraft of all types be prohibited from being used in seal hunting?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that every representation that has been

Inquiries of the Ministry made to us in this respect will be taken into consideration. However, it would be improper for me to make a definite commitment at this time as to what will be done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Some weeks ago I asked the minister if he would procure a copy of the film which it was alleged certain newspapermen in Montreal had taken, showing that baby seals were being skinned alive. The minister promised to secure copies of this film. I wonder if this has been done. If so, and if the film has been seen, have the facts alleged turned out to be true?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: As I promised the house Mr. Speaker, we attempted to obtain a copy of those films. They were not available at the time, so I sent officials of my department to see the films in question in Montreal. They have seen them and have reported to me what they saw. I understand that another film will be shown on the C.B.C. on the 17th or 18th of this month. I cannot but emphasize the fact that what is shown on these films does not represent the entire sealing operation. It represents what is being done by inexperienced sealers who have been engaged in such operation only within the last year or two. Those are the people we want to bring under control, so that these inhuman methods will be stopped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



GATT-PERSONNEL OF CANADIAN DELEGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Sienson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Who will be leading the Canadian delegation at the GATT meeting in Geneva, and will the government be represented there by a cabinet minister?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the hon. gentleman that I shall have the honour of leading the Canadian delegation at the meeting which opens next Monday. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been looking for a pair.



RETALIATION BY U.S. IN RESPECT OF FISH PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the absence of the Minister of Finance. Could the minister say whether he has received an assurance from his United States counterpart or from the minister concerned that the United States will refrain from any retaliation of any sort by way of duties or other means imposed against fish products if the Canadian government takes action in the future under the legislation which has recently been introduced in the Senate?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this subject was not discussed during the series of meetings which concluded yesterday.



PASSAMAQUODDY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Can we expect a further detailed report on the Passamaquoddy talks, particularly in view of the statements that were made before the talks began that Canada's interest was lagging, if not delaying, progress? When will such a report be made?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that there is no lagging on the part of the Canadian government. As was stated yesterday, no involving commitment has been made by either country, the United States or Canada, on the 'Quoddy project. On Wednesday afternoon I met with the United States secretary of the interior, Mr. Udall, and we discussed that aspect of the project that could affect the fisheries in the bay of Fundy. We both agreed that if and when it is decided to proceed with this project, it will be preceded by a thorough study of its implications on the fisheries of the bay of Fundy, taking into consideration the interests of the province of New Brunswick and those of the state of Maine.


Thomas Miller Bell: Can we be assured that no statements will be made in Fredericton or Washington unless they are made simultaneously here? I refer to official statements in this connection.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have no control over statements that might be made in Washington or in New Brunswick, but I want to assure the hon. member that it such a statement has to be made in which the Canadian government is involved, it will be made.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, in his capacity as house leader.
In view of the fact that the chairman of the committee on privileges and elections seems to be prevented from presiding over meetings, can the Minister of Justice tell us when that committee will meet to study the matters referred to it?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, we hope that this committee will meet around the middle of next week.



The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $12,114,500.
The Chairman:: This item in the main estimates may be found at page 380 of the blue book, with the details at page 383. Shall the resolution carry?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I have the honour to submit to the house my estimates for the year 1964-65. I propose to proceed as follows: I shall make certain general observations on the estimates, as submitted, and speak briefly on the additional responsibilities entrusted to the Department of Public Works; I shall do it in English. I will then put forward general and personal ideas, after which I will invite my honourable colleagues to make comments thereon.
I do not intend at this stage to discuss any particular items listed in those estimates. I
Supply-Public Works shall make an important additional statement on the item concerning the national capital commission.

Mr. Chairman, the departmental estimates for 1964-65 total $201.9 million, and this represents an increase of $28.2 million or 16.2 per cent over the 1963-64 estimates. Of the increase, $15 million reflects new responsibilities being assumed by public works from the Department of National Defence. They are, first, the northwest highways system, $10 million, and second, Fort Churchill, $5 million. A further $10 million increase results from the extended application of the trans-Canada highway contribution. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, since on Tuesday last I read a statement in the house on the trans-Canada highway program and policy, I do not intend to deal with this matter any further today unless hon. members would like to ask a few questions about it.
An amount of $2.7 million of the increase can be identified with two major construction items; building construction, which is up nearly $2 million, and harbours and rivers up nearly $1 million. The balance is a net increase arising from normal adjustments of other items.
Before proceeding further, Mr. Chairman, I should like to mention a certain change in the way in which the estimates are presented this year. Hon. members will no doubt have noticed that there has been a considerable simplification of the vote structure for this department. This rearrangement will be noticed throughout the estimates of all departments and reflects the wish of the government to make the estimates more comprehensive to parliament. Hon. members will recall that these changes were recommended by the public accounts committee in its third report to the house in December 1963.
I should now like to deal as briefly as possible with some of the features of the new year's estimates. As indicated above, a significant change has occurred in the transfer of the northwest highways system and the administration of Fort Churchill to this department. The responsibility for the highways system is one which I particularly welcome because of the importance of its communication facilities to Canada. The staff of public works is now in the area and it is the government's intention to continue the high standard of maintenance which has been achieved by the Department of National Defence. At this stage, however, our main concern is to achieve in the most orderly way possible this transfer of responsibility from
2832	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works the Department of National Defence. I know there is considerable interest in the longterm government plans for this highway, the length of which is approximately 1,200 miles, representing nearly the distance from Halifax to Toronto. As I said in the house, we are making a complete study of this situation to determine the need for and feasibility of the rebuilding and paving of this highway. We are concerned not only with the total cost but also with the time schedule within which this could be effectively achieved.
Concurrently with this, public works has made arrangements with the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who have a special interest in the development of the territory, to undertake an economic appraisal of the benefits to Canada during the rebuilding, upgrading and paving program. When in possession of this information we will be able to explore with other governments any suggestions or proposals which they may wish to make concerning the improvement of this highway.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, X should like to say a word about the Haines road, which is about 160 miles in length of which 100 miles is in Canada and the balance in the state of Alaska. A great desire was expressed by the state of Alaska to keep this highway open on a year round basis, and as an experiment the Canadian government agreed to co-operate with the state of Alaska in keeping this road open during the past winter. This work is still in progress at this date and the department is now collecting and examining information and figures resulting from snowplowing operations throughout the winter, as well as the service provided. In light of this experience we will be in a position to decide whether it is advisable to give further consideration to this type of operation. It might be of interest to hon. members to know that up to 600 inches of snow can be expected in the area during winter.
The other major transfer of responsibility is the turnover of Fort Churchill to the Department of Public Works. Our main interest at this time is to protect the substantial federal investment in the area in view of maintaining the existing plant and utility and at the same time, consider with other civilian departments, alternative uses to which these facilities may best be put. We are also hoping for an improved co-ordination between Fort Churchill and Churchill townsite itself, which will eventually permit the province to carry out its constitutional responsibilities in 

the area. I must say that in that respect we have made an official approach to the province.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with another important matter which was raised by several hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Cariboo. It has to do with the Peace river power development. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands mentioned, British Columbia did not apply for a licence for a dam on the Peace river, as it argued that there was in fact no navigation on the river in the relevant area.
Hon. members will recall that months ago we had secured an opinion from the Department of Justice to make sure that at the point of dam construction the Peace river was navigable. The question has also been raised as to whether the legislation as it stands is binding on the crown in the right of a province. These are questions of legal interpretation as to the precise terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. There are a number of amendments to that act that would be desirable, and when they are brought forward action will be recommended to remove the uncertainty to which I have referred, and to make clear the extent of the application of the act. In the immediate case, as the project is now under construction, a licence cannot be applied for, under the terms of the act, until the work is completed.
In the interim the main concern is to ensure the protection of navigation, particularly downstream on the Peace river where it is of some present importance, and on the Slave river below the Peace river. This can be achieved by co-operation between the British Columbia hydro and power authority and the Department of Public Works.
On April 6, 1964, the deputy minister of the Department of Public Works wrote to the chairman of the British Columbia hydro and power authority indicating the department's concern for the preservation of navigation rights on the Peace river and the Mackenzie river system. In his letter he requested information on the proposed schedule of filling for the reservoir and the proposed method of operating the power project. I am pleased to advise the committee that the chairman of the British Columbia hydro and power authority has assured the department of the co-operation of the authority. The requested information is being prepared and will be forwarded as soon as it is complete.

It is intended to review this information with the British Columbia hydro and power authority to make sure there is no risk of prejudice to navigation and, as I said previously, amendments to the act would be desirable to remove the uncertainties; and we intend to introduce such amendments. In the meantime there exists complete co-operation with the British Columbia hydro and power authority to ensure security of navigation in the area. I hope this information will be found satisfactory by those hon. members most interested in the matter.
I would now like to deal with a very acute problem in which not only my department but also some of my colleagues, particularly those representing affected areas, are taking a great interest. It is the problem of water levels in the great lakes, and particularly in lake Huron. As hon. members know, the Department of Public Works has a responsibility to undertake dredging in navigation channels and public harbours. Our program, however, generally deals with what is internationally known as normal water levels. Unfortunately from time to time cyclical situations, which are different from the normal, occur, and at the present time the low levels in some areas have created serious problems for some industries requiring navigation facilities in certain harbours.
As was mentioned by my colleague, the Minister of Transport, thorough studies on the control of water levels are under way on an international basis, but it would be unrealistic to expect that early solutions can be achieved. We are therefore faced with a great demand to increase our dredging in areas affected by this problem. We are of course sympathetic to these requests, but I must point out that in many cases dredging itself is no practical solution, particularly where a wharf design is based on a normal water level. In some cases dredging to a greater depth would cause the collapse of a wharf facility, or the elevation of a wharf may be such that the greater depth of dredging would render it practically useless. Hence, in some cases dredging alone is not the complete solution to the problem. A practical solution therefore involves not only dredging but also complete replacement or modification of wharf facilities.
In other cases, dredging to a greater depth in the navigation channels simply could not be maintained, or else would be impractical in relation to existing elevations of lake beds and soil conditions. This is therefore a difficult and complicated problem, but so far as we can we will take all steps to deal with it.
Supply-Public Works We are now receiving our field information on harbours, with respect to locations where additional dredging may prove effective, and I propose to present these dredging projects to my colleagues not only as emergency requirements but as priority projects.
I would now like to deal with a last topic in English before reverting to certain special aspects of the operations of the department, which I intend to deal with in French. There has been a considerable interest in developments on parliament hill, no doubt stimulated by the work which has been done to provide facilities for parliament in the west block. My department has been working with the Speakers of both houses, and their committees, on a program for renovation within the centre block, which we all recognize is urgently needed, both from the point of view of the amount of accommodation provided for members of parliament as well as the standard of the facilities.
This program is one which must receive very careful and detailed study, particularly where renovations must be carried out consistent with the operation of parliament. There are many things to be done and to be considered, including a complete revamping of the electrical and mechanical services, which is badly needed if we are to have a modern air conditioning system, and adequate translation recording services.
Planning for these alterations is very complex, as all these things must be scheduled so as to permit us to continue our deliberations. For example, even the ceiling over our heads is in urgent need of repairs. There must be replacement of the leaded glass in the ten large windows on the east and west sides of this chamber where we intend to instal a coloured, opalescent glass to permit light to enter the chamber but eliminate the glare. This would permit the removal of the canvas awnings over these windows. The time needed for these alterations might be a matter of months.
Our planning extends to the east block, in which some of the alterations and provisions for accommodation are involved with the provision of a new headquarters building for external affairs, recently announced.
In some other aspects earlier solutions are possible, such as for the parking problem with regard to which plans are now in hand and being studied for the provision of sufficient space in order to leave the vista of parliament hill free of cars. It is our intention that the work will be put under contract this year.
2834	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works [Translation]
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words concerning our plans for the parliament building. I wish to say how important it is and I know this importance has not escaped anyone's notice.
What is the parliament building, if not the house of the people. So we should have all the facilities to greet the thousands of visitors coming from everywhere, from all provinces in Canada. No complaint should ever be heard that we have too many visitors. The public must know that here they are at home and we must make the necessary improvements on parliament hill and the surrounding grounds so that people will feel at home and so that when they leave they will be proud of their parliament. I suggest this is important, not only because of the problems we must deal with in this year 1964, but because in 1967 this national capital and this parliament hill will be stormed. We should make plans to get ready, so that the people who come here will take pride in what they have seen when they leave.
I now want to say a few words with regard to some aspects of the department's responsibilities. When I speak of the importance of the department, I mean the part it is playing and should play in this country's economy. Hon. members know that the Department of Public Works is one of the oldest in the government, but, as Canada develops, the concept of the department must evolve accordingly. For many years the part played by the Department of Public Works remained inconspicuous and static. People got into the habit of considering it as the contracting agency for public buildings, harbour and wharf projects.
I think that the first important development with regard to the part this department was playing about ten years ago, when perhaps the largest project ever conceived and carried out by the Canadian government was carried out by the Department of Public Works, and I am thinking here of the trans-Canada highway, the cost of which, when completed, will perhaps be twice that of the St. Lawrence seaway.
I must tell my hon. fellow members that one of my greatest wishes, as long as I am Minister of Public Works, is to contribute and to associate myself with those who now occupy the higher positions in that department to extend and increase the idea and, therefore, the importance of that department, and the role it has to play in this country's economy.


I think we should take resolute action to the effect of contributing, through major improvements in strategic sites, to the establishment of important industries, which would have repercussions, not only inside our boundaries, but also with regard to foreign trade. Well, that trend has already started; we even have several projects among those submitted to hon. members, which I associate with that new concept of our responsibilities, and I shall name one or two: the Canso project, for instance, in Nova Scotia, which means promoting jointly the establishment of a private business, that is, an ultra modern fishing industry, which will give jobs to several hundred workers.
A private company told us: If the government agrees to build a wharf, a breakwater or agrees to do some dredging according to the plans submitted, we will build there a plant that will give work to hundreds of people.
There is the Cap Noir project which also reflects a similar initiative.
A few days ago there was talk about the Gros Cacouna project indicative also of the new pattern according to which a study is made in a district in order to determine the measures that can be taken to spur economic activity.
There is no need to mention something everyone knows. The lower St. Lawrence region and the Gaspe peninsula are faced with serious problems due to a lack of easy, modern and adequate means of communication.
Concerning the Gros Cacouna project, I wish to say that it is the first stage of several major projects which will not only have a great impact on the economy of the whole area but will also contribute to bring the area out of the economic stagnation in which it has been for too long.
Mr. Chairman, our responsibilities include planning and economy. That is why, as has been suggested in certain circles, it might be desirable one day to change the name of the Department of Public Works for one which would reflect more specifically the various fields of activity in which it is engaged. The names of "planning and works department" or "building projects department" have been suggested.
I hope that my honourable colleagues will not show any reaction as to that.
My colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) will deal during the debate on his estimates, with this important,

this major subject matter-as a matter of fact, the second most important in Canada-[DOT] namely the tourist industry.
I will have to deal indirectly at this stage with tourism and to say a few words on a matter in which hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of people in Canada are most interested, namely the marina projects.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The minister's time has expired, unless he has the consent of the committee to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I thank my hon. colleagues and I shall try not to abuse their kindness.
I was talking about marinas. If we consider what is going on in the United States, we see that there has been in the last years an explosion in the activities consisting in the creation and construction of marinas and also in the dragging of various rivers in order to link them together. That is done jointly with the central government and the local administrations.
I think that investments in the United States, if I am well informed, will reach almost $1 billion for the establishment of marinas everywhere in the country where it would be possible to build them.
In other words, our neighbours to the south consider as highly important the tourist and economic aspects of this question which spur major economic activities.
The idea is not new to us. For several years now we have been wanting to build marinas in Canada. In my opinion, we should not fail to recognize this new type of installation which can and does greatly contribute to such an important industry as the tourist industry.
I wish to point out to the committee that even though we have not yet defined precisely our policy on marinas, we are already quite conscious of the bearing they have on the economy. We believe that when a clear-cut policy is established in that respect, it would be in the interest of all areas in the country if negotiations were undertaken with the provinces to consider the possibility of entering into joint programs to get full benefit from the operation of _thisjaew

sourGe~of activity.	'
Mr. Chairman, last year while discussing the estimates, some hon. members showed great interest for the improvement of our architectural designs. Having been associated
Supply-Public Works
for a few years with the association of architects of the province of Quebec, I cannot be indifferent to this matter which is even more important than some people may imagine.
When we are building a federal building, whether it be in a large city or a small village, we must not forget it will represent the federal government in the area. In my opinion the more we seek to achieve a thing of beauty, something pleasant to look at, if not something expensive, the greater will be the importance of the results. I believe that a little village post office can be such as to create among the people the desire to improve their own homes and to adopt town planning for their locality.
I discussed that question many times with the chief architect of the department. I want to praise here his understanding and his ardent desire to raise the standard of our architectural plans. We are obviously pleased with what is being done, but we can never be entirely satisfied before we have considered the possibility of doing even better. I can assure the hon. members that we have already put the emphasis on this aspect in order to achieve this object.
I thought of and tried to establish a system to show that we are really interested in reaching that goal. We are now examining the possibility that the Minister of Public Works would each year, for instance in December, recognize officially the best plans submitted by architects and engineers during the year and judged the most meritorious. I can assure my hon. friends that if it can be done we shall do it with pleasure.
As far as construction is concerned, permit me to express here a personal opinion. I think that important buildings should not necessarily be erected in the centre of large cities-and I speak here of Ottawa, but I could say the same thing for Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver-because less important municipalities should not be neglected. They, too, are entitled to their share of federal government services.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word here about the problem I discussed a few months ago with the Canadian builders' association and the general association of cement contractors, that of our tender system. We do not know of any better system but perhaps it would be possible to improve it. If you follow the situation closely you will find that sometimes-I would say too often-a contractor who has been awarded a contract by the government is in financial

Supply-Public Works straits and is unable to complete a project because his tender was too low.
That affects not only the contractor himself, but also the subcontractors and the workers-* who sometimes are underpaid or not paid at all-as well as the material suppliers. But what interests us particularly is the quality of the work done. Well, I pointed out the problem but there was never any suggestion to abandon our system of public competitive tenders, and I think it is a good thing for this department which works in close co-operation with general organizations, like the Canadian builders' association, to ask for their advice on matters like these and once again, if my hon. friends wish to make suggestions on that matter, we will welcome them because while we are satisfied with the present situation, we are always prepared to welcome new suggestions which might bring some improvement to our system.
Mr. Chairman, those are the estimates I have the honour to bring before this house and I do not want to stretch the privilege given to me a while ago. I, therefore, submit them to the hon. members for discussion and approval, and I shall appreciate their suggestions which I surely will take into consideration, like all the views they might wish to put forward. I attempted to deal with the main points we never have an opportunity to discuss. Of course, I overlooked individual items, because we will review them and I hope I will be given credit for initiating the discussion on the highest level possible.
I ask my hon. friends to clearly understand that this is a very elaborate and very complex department with much diversified activities and we are the first to admit that. Undoubtedly, several sectors may leave room for improvements; and we shall do it gladly in order to serve the best interests of all Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, a few days ago it was my first anniversary as Minister of Public Works. As a matter of fact, it was at this time last year that I took up my duties. The discouraging thing about it all is that the more I learn about it, the more I realize I have to learn.
However, in closing my remarks I am sure that my hon. colleagues will allow me to join them in my appreciation of the work of all those who have some responsibility in this department: the deputy minister, the assistant deputy ministers, the high officials as well as the employees of lower rank, for their conscientious work. I hope that today hon. members will pay tribute to them for carrying out their duties no matter on what side of the house they are sitting.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, my first words on the minister's estimates, since it is the first opportunity that has been given to any of us to do this, must be of congratulation to the deputy minister. He is a new man in the post, having come from the Department of Veterans Affairs, one who has not only an extremely distinguished war record but also a distinguished record in the public service of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: Second, Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the minister, as I have privately in discussions with him on the telephone and in his office, that we of the official opposition will do everything in our power to assist him in expeditiously passing his estimates through the committee. The minister ranged widely in his opening remarks on the estimates of his department. His department is an extremely important one as is indicated by the amount of money he is charged with spending in the discharge of his responsibilities-well over $200 million. I realize that his responsibilities have been enlarged by the addition of the responsibilities he has mentioned with respect to the assumption of control of the maintenance of the northwest highway system, which passed to him on April 1 of this year from the Department of National Defence, and with the assumption, too, of the responsibility for Fort Churchill. I will be participating again in the discussion on these particular items when they arise, for I am certain the minister is aware of the great importance economically of the work of the maintenance of the Alaska highway to the economy of the Yukon generally and to a goodly portion of northeastern British Columbia. It is extremely encouraging, though, I might say briefly at this point with respect to the northwest highway system, to learn that the improvement and paving of that highway has been the subject of talks between members of the Canadian government and those of the government of the United States.
I am sure all hon. members are aware that representations have been made over the years by chambers of commerce in the United States, Canada, Alaska, and legislatures. These have come from not only politicians but businessmen of note in the whole of western Canada and the United States. So that the progress which is now apparently being made toward coming to some joint agreement for the improvement and paving of the Alaska highway is indeed warmly welcomed.

The minister's remarks concerning the Haines road responsibility, too, were of interest to me, and I draw his attention to "the coincidence that I should be leading off the discussion on his estimates, on the part of the official opposition, at a time when two of his added responsibilities happen to be located in my particular constituency. But I would draw to his attention the fact that the 600 inches of snow that he mentioned as falling on this road from time to time, fall in the province of British Columbia and not in the Yukon. This link with tidewater is the only road link which exists between the Yukon and the Pacific ocean. It is an extremely important communication facility and one which eventually we hope will receive the same treatment as the Alaska highway in its improvement and paving.
However, I am somewhat concerned over the cost. I know the government concluded with the state of Alaska an agreement whereby that state undertook to maintain this road during the last winter season at a set cost to the Canadian government of $127,000. I believe the minister will not argue with my statement that the road is going to cost much more than this to maintain. Once the minister is in possession of the full cost figures in this respect, I am rather fearful that the decision will be made not to maintain it next winter, on the basis that it is uneconomic to do so. I hope this will not be the result, particularly in view of the fact that the maintenance of this road on an all-weather basis, as well as the paving of the Alaska highway, was one of those several promises made to the electorate of Pacific northwestern Canada during the last election campaign by the Liberals.
The minister, as I have noted, has an extremely wide responsibility. He has the responsibility of a department which is charged with the construction of wharves and docking facilities throughout Canada, one which provides housekeeping and maintenance services to all departments of government and has the responsibility of acting as the agent for other departments of government in the construction of public buildings. The opportunities for abuses entering into procedures that are adopted by the government in the construction responsibilities I have outlined are many, and unless the most careful watch is kept over the various projects as they are dealt with, these abuses are bound to arise. I will have a few more words to say in a moment in connection with contract tendering policies, because I have one or two suggestions that I thing might be useful to
Supply-Public Works the minister in considering whether a change should be made in the existing system. Before leaving this particular aspect of the minister's estimates, I would like to suggest to him that he be not too quick to take pride in the type, standard and quality of post offices that are being constructed throughout the country. It may not be news to him to learn that in many areas of Canada where these $25,000 post offices are being constructed, the inhabitants of the smaller communities in which they are being constructed refer to them as the Grit biscuit boxes. So the minister perhaps might take a second look at the standard and quality of post offices being constructed, in keeping with the policy of providing these facilities to the smaller communities in Canada.
The minister has said nothing about the progress that has been made with regard to the Saskatchewan river dam, which of course he will recall vividly was commenced under the previous administration after years of dilly-dallying by the Liberals of the day. I think we should have a word from him on that matter. Perhaps we might wait until the specific item is up for discussion. But in view of its cost and in view of its importance to the prairie regions of Canada, and Saskatchewan in particular, I am sure hon. members would be interested in hearing from him on this matter.
I do not intend to comment on his remarks with respect to his plans for parliament hill itself, save to suggest to him that there may also be room for improvement here. A questionnaire was circulated quite recently asking all members whether extra social and recreational facilities could be provided which were not now provided for members of parliament. I am sure the joint committee will in due course communicate the recommendations of their body to the minister.
The minister's comments, too, were very brief concerning the national capital commission. There is a particular matter of great concern to the residents of this area and this city, with which he will have to deal when the item is raised. I am thinking of the future of the air station at Rockcliffe. A good many residents of the city of Ottawa are concerned with the maintenance of this airport as an airport. As I understand it, the eventual program is to completely eliminate Rockcliffe airport, in order to make way for the national capital commission constructing a highway right through the existing airport. If this is done, of course the airport goes by the board and the minister will be in

Supply-Public Works direct conflict with his colleague the Minister of Transport, who is trying to establish a policy of separating general aviation from the large commercial operations that exist at Uplands. I feel that this matter has to be clarified by the minister in order to set at ease the minds of the residents with respect to the future of that airport, not only of this city, but also those interested in maintaining the facility as such.
I think, also, a word is deserving here on the existing policy of the minister as to the manner in which public projects are announced. As I understand it, the minister is in accord with the view that public projects, projects that are undertaken by his department, should be announced by the member of parliament who is sitting for that particular constituency. If the minister is in accord with that view, and I believe he professes to be, he should set up some system whereby sitting members of parliament will be advised in advance of a project being undertaken in a sitting member's riding, and also as to when it is completed. I think the minister will agree that it is an obligation of a sitting member of parliament, if his parliamentary duties will allow, to attend opening ceremonies at new public buildings in his constituency.
The practice of advising defeated Liberal candidates of construction projects in a riding where there is a sitting member in the opposition is a reprehensible one. I do not care whether this practice has been the custom over the years or whether it has not. It is my belief that if it did exist before it existed wrongly, and if it exists now it exists wrongly. I suggest to the minister that in keeping with the responsibilities, duties and obligations of a sitting member of parliament he should be one of the first to advise when public projects are going to be undertaken. He should also advise when the tenders will be open. So that a member may express interest in attending on behalf of his constituency when public buildings are opened in public, if for no other reason than to ensure regularity in the proceedings he should advise as to completion of these projects, and as to any opening ceremonies which are going to be undertaken in conjunction with the occupation of public buildings.
I was interested in the minister's remarks concerning the establishment of some system of awards for architectural designs submitted by individuals in Canada, and I am wondering how he is going to reconcile this with what might be a winner in the design of the world


fair symbol, of which this parliament was rather critical but which is going to be implemented regardless.
Now a word or two about the minister's responsibility in the calling of public tenders for projects undertaken by his department. The present system, I feel, can be improved in several ways. At the moment my understanding is that in those areas where there are builders exchanges, tenders are called through those exchanges. This is so, even though there may be news media in smaller communities in the provinces where these builders exchanges exist. Perhaps the policy has been altered so that today not only are tender calls circulated through these builders exchanges, but they are also published in newspapers circulating in smaller communities. That should be the case, if it is not.
I believe that at one time the system was that the department was not required to advertise in the local newspapers. In order to give an opportunity to the residents of a community in which a public project is to be undertaken to bid, a proper policy-and it is not a costly policy; as a matter of fact it would probably prove to save the government money-would be to cause advertisements calling for public tenders to be placed in local newspapers.
I am sure the minister is well aware of the nefarious practices of unconscionable contractors in bid peddling and shop bidding. This is a field in which I know it would be difficult for the minister to develop a policy which would be consistent with dealing only with a prime contractor and not with subcontractors, but I feel some action must be taken to prevent this type of practice. The practice, of which I am sure he is aware, in some cases is for a prime contractor bidding on a public project sometimes worth several millions of dollars to call one subcontractor for, let us say, the installation of electrical material and services in a public project. The prime contractor will call one subcontractor and will ask him: "What can you give it to me for?" Then he will call the next subcontractor and tell him: "I have a price of so much from the first call; can you do it for less?" Sometimes he will suggest perhaps a lower price might be more in keeping. Then he will go on down the line of perhaps five or six subcontractors, and will do this throughout the whole field of subcontracting-plumbing, heating, ventilating, and so on-and the prime contractor will defeat the very purpose for which the tenders system was set up. I am sure the minister is aware of such things happening. Not only does

this put the subcontractor in an untenable position but it completely destroys the purpose for which the tenders system was set up in the first place.
My suggestion to the minister, in order to get around this procedure and to cure this undesirable practice-this dishonest practice in fact-is to set up a bid depository system whereby the subcontractor could, unseen by the eyes of the prime contractor, submit his bid for the subcontracting work in a sealed envelope and have it held in the same manner that the bids are now held which are submitted by the prime contractor, and then opened at the same time. If the subcontractors' bids, having been sealed in the interim, are opened at the same time as the bid of the prime contractor is opened, and if the prime contractor is then required to take the lowest bid of the subcontractors' bids, then I think we would cure a long standing situation which has worked to the disadvantage of the subcontractor and to the disadvantage of the the government.
I believe that most of our prime contractors in this country operate under a system of ethics which does not permit this type of practice; but there are a good many who pay much more attention to the dollar than to good business ethics, and it is that type of contractor who is defeating the public tenders policies of the government.
I make that suggestion for improving the existing system which the minister has called for, namely the setting up of bid depositories. They can be in the builders exchanges. They can be wherever the prime contractors' bids are now required to be submitted. The depository for the subcontractors can be set up in the same location. If there are defects in my proposal which would permit the minister to be critical and to say it will not work, then I think we should hear those criticisms.
There is only one possible weakness in this system which I am suggesting to the minister, and that is that the prime contractor may not want to have the subcontractor who makes the lowest bid do the job. There may be some personality differences between the prime contractor and, say, the plumbing contractor, which would mean they would always be at loggerheads on the job. However, I do not think this would be a usual happening. I think normally the prime contractor is going to be happy to get the lowest bid, and I am sure the government will be happy to get the lowest bid because it means the saving of taxpayers' dollars. So it will only be
Supply-Public Works the rare occasion where you would find the prime contractor unsatisfied with the subcontractor who is successful in submitting the lowest tender. This is the only weakness I can see in the proposal which I have made. There may be others, and if there are, then I think we should discuss them a little further.
I see, Mr. Chairman, that I have approximately five minutes left, and in that time I want to say that there will be others in the official opposition who will be dealing with the specific sections of the minister's estimates concerning harbours, rivers, and also engineering, a matter with which I have dealt but little in my remarks. There will be others who will be dealing with the building and construction branch, and who are much more qualified than I to discuss such matters.
Before sitting down I want to join wholeheartedly in endorsing the remarks of the minister with respect to the personnel of his department. In the few years I have been here in Ottawa I have had nothing but the highest sort of co-operation from members of his department, particularly his two assistant deputy ministers, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Williams; and I hope that by mentioning their names in the house I am not administering to those who highly qualified gentlemen the kiss of death. They are very highly qualified civil servants and are extremely capable in their jobs. Everyone familiar with the work of assistant deputy Jackson is well aware of his work in the civil service and the great contribution he has made in that field. Also, I think anyone who knows assistant deputy Williams knows the very high degree of capability that gentleman has with regard to engineering matters. I could mention others in the minister's department, such as the father of Eddie Litzenberger, a very famous hockey player. By and large the minister can be proud to be surrounded with the types of individual he has in his department. So far as I am concerned, they are very highly qualified and respected people.


Robert William Prittie: At the outset I should like to compliment the minister on the presentation of his estimates today. Watching him during the past year I have been quite impressed, and he certainly gives the impression of quiet confidence. On top of that he seems to be a man of ideas.
I rather like his ideas concerning architecture, and I should like to make a specific suggestion concerning it. Construction of the new terminal building at Vancouver international airport, which is in my riding, will

Supply-Public Works begin shortly, and I would suggest an attempt be made to get something of a local character into this building. It is very beautifully located, backed by mountains. Rather than build airports on a standard line, I think they should reflect something of the local areas. Perhaps there could be more use of wood in this terminal, because it is one of the main products of British Columbia.
I have one small complaint to make. The report of the Department of Public Works for the year ended March 31, 1963, and the report of the Trans-Canada Highway Act are still with the printers. It would have been useful if these had been in our hands before considering the estimates of the department. Probably this is not the fault of the department, but the government should have taken it into account when scheduling these estimates to come before the committee.
Not so long ago the hon. member for Northumberland talked about the need for research assistants for members of parliament, and it is at a time like this that I keenly feel this need. It is not too difficult to talk about public works in one's own riding, but if you want to deal with a very large department and all its operations, on only a few days notice, this is when you need a little help. The minister has a great deal of help at his disposal, but despite not having these reports I shall try to make a few intelligent comments on the work of his department.
I propose to deal briefly with the national capital commission, the trans-Canada highway and the organization of the department itself. It is almost a standard joke to complain about the roads in Ottawa, but really they are quite bad, as anyone knows who has bumped and thumped along them. I am sure the cost of the depreciation of automobiles in this area must run into hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, and I am certain Jean Paul would do a better job of building roads than Charlotte.
The only good roads I have come across in this area are those built by the N.C.C., or the department of highways of Ontario. I do not know what is the reason for this. Perhaps Ottawa lacks the tax resources to do an adequate job, and if that is the case we would be much better off it this job could be transferred to the national capital commission.
In recent months some suggestions have been made about the creation of a federal district embracing Ottawa and Hull, a district that would be neither in Quebec nor Ontario. This has been resisted vigorously by the


people on the local councils, but I have spoken to a good many local residents and not all of them are opposed to the idea. It is a practical suggestion and I am sure it could be negotiated. No doubt the province of Quebec would be agreeable if it were made a completely bilingual district where the traffic signs would read "slow" and "lente-ment" instead of just "slow". But if we cannot have a federal district I would like to see better construction of roads in this area. I am really quite ashamed when people come here from other parts of Canada, or from other countries, and I have to take them over the roads in this city.
The minister did not have very much to say about the trans-Canada highway, but some time ago he made a statement concerning the need for a second trans-Canada highway and the requests that had been made to him. According to the last report, which I read some months ago, about 1,700 miles of the highway are still incomplete, that is, they are not built up to trans-Canada highway standards, but I think we can agree that what has been completed is a very good highway and serves a very good purpose.
Presumably one of the purpose of the highway was the same as the purpose in building a trans-Canada railway, to help knit the country together. I would like to give a good example of how this serves the national purpose. Now that the Rogers pass portion of the highway is complete it has knitted the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta much more closely together.
Until it was completed it was the tendency in B.C., and I think in Alberta, for tourist travel to be directed towards the states immediately south of those two provinces, but now that the Rogers pass section is completed there is much more travel between Calgary, through the Okanagan valley into Vancouver, which has resulted in an increase in tourist business in the interior of B.C. This is a good example of bringing two parts of the country together, and stopping the tendency of Canadian tourists to go south into the states.
In recent months there has been some talk about a second trans-Canada highway. This is an important topic, but some people have proposed something more important, the adoption of a national highway policy. The provincial ministers of highways in several provinces agree with this idea, and many organizations in the country that are concerned with roads and travel have expressed their views on it, such as the Canadian

automobile association, the Canadian construction association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian lumbermen's association, all of which have joined together in asking for a national highways policy. If we had such a policy the question of a second trans-Canada highway could be fitted into it.
I am sure the minister and his officials are well aware of the fact that the United States federal government is much more involved in highways construction than the Canadian federal government. We have restricted ourselves to the trans-Canada highway, to highways in national parks, and now the Alaska highway, but the United States federal government has gone much further than that. It has contributed not only to the main arterial highways of the country but also to many interstate highways, and to many highways confined within states.
The formula by which it contributes to the state authorities is quite a complicated one and I do not intend to go into it at this time. The important thing is that the federal government is committed to it and, as a result, per capita there is much more highways construction taking place in the United States than in Canada.
The type of highways which I feel should receive federal help are those that are interprovincial but which may not be part of the trans-Canada highway, and roads which are international, running towards connecting highways in the United States. In this connection I am thinking of the main highway which runs from Vancouver south to the United States border, connecting up with U.S. highway 99. This highway from Vancouver was built entirely at the cost of the provincial government, whereas in the United States the part coming up through California, Oregon and Washington right to the border was built with federal participation.
This is a heavily travelled road, something like the road in Alberta from Edmonton and Calgary south to the United States border, or the road from Winnipeg to the border, which eventually connects up with Minneapolis. In addition there are provincial highways which could be improved, such as the one across the northern part of our prairies from Edmonton to Saskatoon, and from Edmonton on to Prince George and eventually over to Prince Rupert.
I know that a couple of weeks ago the minister announced that this matter had been discussed to a certain extent with provincial departments, and at that time it was
Supply-Public Works decided not to proceed with further deliberations concerning a second trans-Canada highway. However, I would like to suggest that this idea of a national highways policy should not be forgotten.
It would have many beneficial results. For one thing it could provide a common standard of highways construction throughout the country. The trans-Canada highway standard is a good one, and so are the standards of most of the provinces, but a national highways policy would ensure the same common standard. Further, participation by the federal government would help some of the provinces which are not proceeding with highways to do more of this work. Some provinces, particularly Ontario which is a large province, can proceed on its own, as it is doing with its highways construction, particularly the 400 series which are excellent highways; but this is not true everywhere. I think it would help to co-ordinate highway planning from one province to another. The Canadian automobile association made a submission to the government in 1959, I believe, and I want to quote one paragraph. They state:
The present responsibilities for highways in Canada are not sufficiently co-ordinated nor clearly enough understood to justify hope that a national system of highways, without direction, would eventuate. The Canadian automobile association believes that it is a matter of mutual interest for all road building agencies in Canada to recognize the essentiality of co-ordinated planning.
The situation may turn out all right with every province working on its own, but it may not. I think we should have this co-ordination. I feel that some of the most important and most expensive highway construction in the country is that which takes place around our major metropolitan centres. This is very expensive, particularly since highways of many lanes have to be built and also because expensive land acquisitions are involved.
I know that the question of federal involvement in provincial matters is a very touchy one these days, but I should like to see some method worked out whereby our major metropolitan centres, which have tremendous bills for highway construction, could get some help. This is done to a limited extent in the United States. I know that a few years ago in Vancouver a scheme was presented for extensive highway and freeway construction for the metropolitan area. I know that the building of freeways does not solve all traffic problems, but certainly some roads of this type are needed. This project was abandoned because the local areas involved simply could not pay the bill.

Supply-Public Works
At the present time Montreal is in the midst of a very expensive highway construction program. They are fortunate in that they are receiving some help by reason of the roadbuilding in connection with the world fair. This may be quite legitimate, but nevertheless it does help the Montreal metropolitan area. The minister can correct me if I am wrong but I believe some money was allocated from the trans-Canada highway fund for roads in the metropolitan area.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This is part of the trans-Canada highway, and as it is the most expensive part the province is entitled to have the 90 per cent which we have to pay on one tenth of the whole length applied there. We have done the same thing for all provinces. In this case it would not have been possible for the city of Montreal to enter into such an undertaking without the help of the province of Quebec. The province is paying nearly $100 million, I believe, while the cost to the city of Montreal is $35 million or $40 million.


Robert William Prittie: I do not want to be misunderstood. I was not suggesting to the minister that because he is from that area parliament is giving any special help to the city of Montreal. Perhaps more city roads should be declared to be part of the trans-Canada highway. This might solve the problem.
I believe the minister said in his statement two weeks ago that he did not want to proceed with a further conference on a second trans-Canada highway, because of the financial commitments that the federal government had made to the provinces. I can understand this, but it seems to me that if we could develop a national highways policy under which some of the construction costs of highways in the provinces would be paid by the federal government the provinces would have less reason to demand more and more funds from the central government. Along with education the building of highways certainly involves the greatest expenditures by the provinces. I hope the minister will not give up on this idea entirely. I am sure that agreement could be reached with the provinces on this matter and it would have to be a necessary prerequisite of such an agreement, of course, that the federal government had sufficient funds available.
Some of us are a little alarmed at the growth of the autonomy of the provinces and the amount of money they are demanding from the federal government. I want to see the central government have enough money to participate in those things which serve national purposes,-and such roads do serve

national purposes. I am sure the minister will hear more about a national highways policy in the future from others, if not from me.
Finally, I thought the minister might have made some reference to the recommendations of the Glassco commission as they apply to his department. The commission made quite a few recommendations which are found mainly in volume 2 of their report. I am going to quote some of them. On page 35 of volume 2 of the report of the royal commission on government organization I find the following recommendation dealing with land:
We therefore recommend that:	(2) The Department of Public Works be made responsible for the development of a complete inventory of properties owned or leased by the federal government and its agencies, and its maintenance as a perpetual record by posting to it all future acquisitions and disposals as they occur.
Here is another recommendation dealing with land:
The Department of Public Works, in its organization for real property management, assigns staff to be responsible for land use aspects of federal property ownership and to consult and co-operate with other levels of government and their agencies for the future development of urban, rural and regional areas.
Under the heading of "Property Management" on page 36 they recommend as follows:
1.	The Department of Public Works be constituted the sole authority for real property management outside the defence sector.
2.	Except for defence purposes, the acquisition of property by purchase or lease be made by the Department of Public Works and title thereto be held in its name.
3.	The disposal of all surplus property of the federal government, including property declared excess to the needs of the armed forces, be the responsibility of the Department of Public Works and that under a form of organization appropriate for the purpose, aggressive efforts be made to identify and dispose of unneeded real property.
Under the heading of "Construction" they point out that at the time of confederation the Department of Public Works was the only department concerned with construction, but over the years other departments have got into the field, notably the Department of Transport and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. As a matter of fact, they state that the Department of Public Works is doing about 40 per cent of actual construction work, and on page 47 they make these recommendations:
1.	The Department of Public Works be made responsible for the planning and supervision of all construction required by civil departments and agencies and the employment of all professional, technical and supporting staffs needed for such purposes.
2.	The Department of Public Works be made responsible for the planning and supervision of

construction for the Department of National Defence of all classes of property other than those at present provided for through the planning and construction staffs of the armed forces.
They make further recommendations concerning property operations. I will not quote them but they are found on pages 58 and 64. Beginning at page 65 they have a section entitled "The New Role of the Department of Public Works". I realize that many of the recommendations of the Glassco commission are probably still being discussed in government circles. There may even be power plays going on with regard to who is going to control what. I do not know, but certainly I should have liked to hear a commentary by the minister concerning the recommendations of the commission. I am not really qualified to know whether or not these are good recommendations, but presumably competent commissioners studied this matter and came up with these recommendations. Therefore I should like to hear the minister's comments on them.
I was pleased with the final remarks of the minister. He gave some personal views as to what he thought the role of the department should be. Generally I liked the views he expressed. I liked the views he expressed concerning the building of marinas. I do not know whether in this day and age he has run into difficulties with the provinces in this regard, or whether because harbours are involved this is an exclusively federal matter, but it is a very good idea. So far as the lakes in the east are concerned, and the waters on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, there are many people from the United States who would like to travel by pleasure craft in the summer and would make very good use of marinas. I hope this idea is pursued.
I have no particular comments to make on his suggestions with regard to tendering. I do not know very much about that subject but our party leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, has had great experience and I believe he will be commenting on that matter later. I was pleased to hear the minister say that improvements will be made on parliament hill and in the centre block. Before the minister mentioned it here I had read that our ceiling may fall on us at any minute. It is made of Irish linen which is rapidly becoming quite rotten. But the problem seems to be that we have to get parliament out of here for several months before the work can be undertaken and I do not know how that is going to be accomplished in the next year or so. I should like to conclude by congratulating the minister again on his presentation and on the view he has of the operations of his department, but I
Supply-Public Works also warn him that there will be a great deal of criticism when we come to particular items later.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, in the five minutes left to me I want to deal very briefly with one or two items and I think it would be as well for me to cover them at this point rather than on the particular votes. First of all, I should like to deal with the Alaska highway paving program. It will be recalled that there was some paving done under a former Liberal administration, and then the paving projects ceased.
There was a conference in Whitehorse on September 11 and 12 of last year and at that conference it was my pleasure to mention to the delegates the experience I had had with the Department of National Defence. It is no secret that the Department of National Defence did not wish to pave the highway, using funds which it would much prefer to spend in other directions. I am particularly pleased that the suggestion which I made at that time, that responsibility for this project should be transferred from the defence department to the Department of Public Works is now to become an actuality. I wish to compliment the minister and thank him for the work done in this regard.
I understand, in connection with the Alaska highway, the thinking, that all the details as far as the engineering is concerned should be worked out before any building is done; that negotiations now in progress between the United States and Canada should be cleared up. We know of the bills which are before the congress of the United States in the names of Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Bettin and Mr. Olson- ostensibly, the same bills. We realize, too, that a resolution has been passed by the Alberta legislature. In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to make a plea, however, that those parts of the Alaska highway which fall within the alignment in the final survey should be paved at the earliest possible moment-I have in mind those sections where no major reconstruction program is needed. It would relieve the traveller if he could get on to a little paving once in a while. Even more important, it would reduce the danger which results from present conditions, because when a traveller is following a heavy unit which is kicking up dust, and this goes on mile after mile, he is tempted to take risks in order to pass. He dashes out into the dust and faces the possibility of a collision with an approaching vehicle. If there were occasional strips of paved surface it would help drivers a great deal.

Statutory Holidays with Pay
I see my time has expired, and since I have one or two other things to say on this subject, I should like to call it five o'clock.
Progress reported.


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



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill C-30, to provide for pay for statutory holidays and for pay for work performed on statutory holidays for employees in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
He said: This is a bill which by now must be quite familiar to hon. members of this house. It provides for one of the elements of what ought to be a national labour code. Specifically, it provides for statutory holidays with pay for certain employees in Canada.
Let me make it clear that the employees to be covered by this bill are those who come under federal labour jurisdiction. I have noticed that on some former occasions when this measure and companion pieces to it have been under debate in the house, some reports have suggested that this and the other bills dealt only with federal government employees. That is not the case. Those we talk about when we refer to employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction are all those who work in the sectors of industry which, by the terms of the British North America Act or by the terms of various decisions, come under federal labour jurisdiction, including, for example, railway and other transport workers, grain elevator employees, employees of banks, employees in certain fields of communication and so on. There are many groups of this kind whose labour relations are the subject of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Actually, in percentage terms, about 10 per cent of the workers of Canada are in employment which comes under federal labour jurisdiction. The other 90 per cent are in employment which comes under the labour legislation of the various provinces.
For our part, we hope the day will soon come when there will be legislation right across Canada, both federal and provincial, to provide for statutory holidays with pay

for all our workers. But, of course, in the federal parliament the only ones on whose behalf we can legislate are those who come under federal jurisdiction. We feel, also, that if the federal parliament would take a lead in this matter the provincial legislatures would follow, and this is one of my reasons for urging this measure upon the house. I mention this because many employees who come under federal jurisdiction already have statutory holidays with pay along the lines spelled out in this legislation. For example, federal civil servants have statutory holidays with pay as provided in the Civil Service Act. There are many other employees in various industries, for instance, in the transportation and communications field, who have a certain number of statutory holidays with pay which they have won through collective bargaining. Nevertheless, there are still many employees in the federal labour field who do not enjoy the provisions set out in this bill and our purpose in bringing in the measure is to extend these provisions to all those employees and also, as I said, to give a lead to the provinces in the hope that the day may soon come when we shall see statutory holidays with pay provided for all our workers.
The bill does set out the eight holidays which it is proposed should be recognized for the purpose of holidays with pay provisions. Those eight holidays are: New Year's day, Good Friday, May 24, or whatever day is celebrated in lieu of May 24; the first of July, Labour day, Thanksgiving day, Remembrance day and Christmas day. I would point out that the bill not only provides that workers shall get these days off, and get full pay for them; it also makes provision for overtime rates to be paid in case employees are required by the necessities of their employment to work on any one of those statutory holidays.
In arguing for this kind of legislation I am really preaching to the converted. Every party in this house stands for a national labour code; every party in this house stands for the kind of conditions that are contained in this measure, and in other companion pieces to it that are on the order paper in the names of those of us in the New Democratic party. But the fact of the matter is that we have been waiting a long while for some of these things to be implemented. I know it will probably be said during the course of the debate this afternoon that the present government has promised a national labour code and therefore we should possess

ourselves in patience; that we should wait and let the government bring in that code and be confident that it will include the measure that is set out in this Bill No. C-30. I know, too, we will also be told-because this has been said in previous debates-that it is not good enough just to bring in one measure, and what my friends on the Liberal side of the house in particular want is a comprehensive measure. I would like to answer that first. I know that if we brought in a bill that had in it two, three, four or half a dozen elements of a national labour code, we would be told the very opposite; we would be told that certain members could support our bills if they were precise on one point, but it is too complicated to have several things covered. So no matter which way we bring it in, we get this kind of criticism.
On this point of waiting, on this point of having confidence in the government, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out one or two things. I suppose my friend, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), if he deals with this matter, will probably expect me to refer to ancient history. The fact is that the Liberal party first started promising the elements of a national labour code in 1919, 45 years ago. When are we going to get it? Some pieces of legislation that now come before the house give dates in the future. It is interesting, for example, to pick up Bill C-75 and find in it dates going as far ahead as the year 2015. When we get there I do not know whether we will say "twenty-fifteen" or "two thousand and fifteen". I said "when we get there"; I suppose I should have said "if".
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, it might be a good idea for the Liberal party to tell us if it is their intention to implement their program of 1919 before 2019. After all, that is only 55 years away, so it might be a good idea to have a clear statement from the Liberal party on this question. At any rate, we have been told for 45 years that it is the program of the Liberal party to bring in a national labour code. I will not give all the history of all the times this has been promised during those 45 years, but I point particularly to the fact that in the last parliament, the twenty fifth parliament, the last, short, Diefen-baker parliament, the Liberals who sat over on this side of the house supported by their speeches-and one of the most active supporters was the present Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen)-our various proposals for a national labour code. In the election which
Statutory Holidays with Pay the Liberals won on April 8, 1963, they promised that they would bring in a national labour code.
We tried to pin the government down in the first session of this parliament as to when this would take place, and we were told by the present Minister of Labour on November 8 last year that a national labour code would be brought in at this session of parliament. Well, that is beginning to get a bit nearer. It is a long time from 1919 to 1963, but finally we were assured that a national labour code would be brought in during 1964. Why don't I just take the government's word for it, Mr. Speaker? The government goes further than that. We were told in the speech from the throne that commenced this session that a national labour code would be brought in. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in his speech in this house on the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne confirmed that a national labour code would be brought in at this session. The Minister of Labour spoke in that debate, and he said it would be brought in at this session. There have been questions asked and answers given in the house, and we have been told time and again, "Yes, a national labour code will be brought in at this session".
I attended some of the sessions of the Canadian Labour Congress convention in Montreal a week or so ago and heard the Minister of Labour say to the delegates attending that convention that a national labour code would be brought in at this session. When I asked him when, he gave us the usual answer, "Soon". And so we go on. This is the fifty fourth day of the session and still there is no sign of a national labour code on the order paper. So it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have to continue playing the role that some of us seem to have had to play for many years, that of trying to prod the government to do something about things in which it says it believes. Therefore, because a national labour code has not yet reached the order paper in any way, shape or form, it seems to me we have to try to bring this to the attention of the government by bringing forward bills such as this with various elements of a national labour code in them. We have brought such bills before the house from time to time.
I think it would be a good idea if this House of Commons this afternoon would show on the one hand that it wants a national labour code passed at this session, and on the other hand that it wants the government to act, by giving support to the principle

Statutory Holidays with Pay of this bill, by passing it on second reading. That would be an indication that the House of Commons wants action. If that happens, as I hope it will, I would be prepared to move that the bill then be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations, and it could rest there for a while to see whether the government brings in its measure. If the government does, and its measure is as good as or better than this one, the government bill can go through; but if the government does not bring it in, it seems to me that at least this element of a national labour code ought to be enacted by this parliament at this session. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope the house will give favourable consideration to this measure that every party and every member supports, and I hope that favourable consideration will result in this bill being passed in this hour.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and we have acquainted ourselves with the principle of his Bill No. C-30 and of the explanatory note which reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to provide that all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction shall receive their regular pay for at least eight statutory holidays each year, without having to work on those holidays. It also provides that when any such employee is required to work on any statutory holiday, as defined in the bill, he shall receive pay for such work at double time in addition to his regular pay for such holiday.
Nothing in this bill affects any provision for statutory holidays with pay enjoyed by any employees where such provisions are more favourable than those enjoyed herein, but this bill does supersede any provisions which are less favourable than those set out in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just explained to us the necessity of such a legislation or such a bill knows that for 20 years his own party was in office in Saskatchewan and that during those 20 years they forgot to apply what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asks us to accept here in this federal parliament.
When we see-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member aware that Saskatchewan is one of the two provinces in Canada that does have legislation like this?


David Réal Caouette: Which is the other one?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Manitoba.


David Réal Caouette: They have legislation, but not for all Saskatchewan, just a part; because all the federal employees in Saskatchewan are treated the way they are in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit me to say he is correct on that point, that the Saskatchewan legislation covers only those employees that provincial legislation can cover. It cannot cover employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction. But all employees in Saskatchewan who can be covered by provincial labour legislation, are covered.


David Réal Caouette: But does the hon. member know that in Saskatchewan the conditions regarding provincial employees are restricted to just the hours of the day they can work, and double time is never paid in Saskatchewan. That is for the hon. member's information.

Mr. Speaker, I visited Saskatchewan- [Text]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us about your province.


David Réal Caouette: Our province is in exactly the same position as Saskatchewan, because there is no difference between the Liberals and the socialists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Byrne:: Things will improve out there now.


David Réal Caouette: You should go out to Alberta and British Columbia and see the difference in those provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They do not have this kind of legislation at all.


David Réal Caouette: No; they have better legislation, because they are Social Crediters.

Mr. Speaker, when I take-


An hon. Member:: You might as well give up Social Credit.


David Réal Caouette: No. You have to work, but you do not have to work for nothing, as you do under Liberal administration.

Mr. Speaker, section 1 of Bill No. C-30, under the short title, says:



X. 1964

[Stage Direction]
1.	This act may be cited as the Statutory Holidays With Pay Act.
Whereas section 2 states:
2.	In this act,
(a)	"deputy minister" means the deputy minister of labour;
Very well.
(b)	"employee" means a person of any age,
-of the age of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-
-of either sex who is in receipt of or entitled to any remuneration for labour or services performed for an employer;
Now, paragraph (c), probably the most important paragraph, reads as follows:
(c)	"employer" means any person, firm or corporation employing one or more employees and includes every agent, manager, representative, contractor, subcontractor or principal and every other person who either:
(i)	has control or direction of one more employees; or
(ii)	is responsible, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the payment of wages to, or the receipt of wages by, one or more employees;
Mr. Speaker, we do not object to all federal employees, or employees coming under federal jurisdiction, being dealt with in a logical fashion, so as to be recognized as human beings and not as so many numbers in the federal administration.
During extended debates of parliament or, for instance, during Easter recess or periods like the present one, when employees are called upon to arrive in the House of Commons at nine o'clock in the morning to go back home in the evening at ten o'clock or half past ten, having worked on days which are supposed to be statutory holidays, on such occasions, we do not object to salaries being double pay. If legislation, and the over-all administration in Canada, does not proceed at a faster rate than at the present time, it could not be blamed on civil servants, but rather on the representatives of the people sitting here in parliament, who impose extra work on those employees. In that case, we have no objection in seeing the salaries doubled, no objection to double time for the days which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests are legal holidays, that is days when federal employees should take time off.
Mr. Speaker, even that would not settle the whole problem. We have other solutions to suggest. The point would be to improve the national administration and also our parliamentary debates which are so long and proceed so slowly that there is a considerable loss of time in the House of Commons.
Statutory Holidays with Pay
Mr. Pepin:: You do not set a good example.


David Réal Caouette: I hear the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska tell me that we are blocking the passage of this legislation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, I said you did not give a good example.


David Réal Caouette: An example of what?


Mr. Choquetie:: You give the example of an hon. member speaking empty words.


David Réal Caouette: That is precisely what both those hon. members did in their own ridings during the last election. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, who was a professor at the University of Ottawa, realized, since he was elected and became a parliamentary secretary that he is losing his time in the ranks of the Liberal party. Surely, he will come back to better feelings toward Social Credit when he gets back his freedom.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who told you that?


David Réal Caouette: He told me. He was educated and was going to educate his students to Social Credit philosophy. I am not the one who told him; he told me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that where the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) got the idea of debt free money?


David Réal Caouette: Probably.

Mr. Speaker, we, in this corner of the house, sincerely believe that improvements should be made, and that not only from one, but from all sides of the house, the recognition of the rights of federal employees should be made a fact. Even if some Liberal members, or others, want to interrupt, we believe that the federal employees, throughout Canada, should be fairly, logically and humanly treated.
The bill before us is a very complex one. I understand, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said a while ago, that there are involved some purely political matters, questions raised for the whole of Canada, whereas one province, because it had the opportunity to do so for the last 20 years, could have given an adequate treatment within its own boundaries.
We of the Social Credit, believe that the system of economic treatment should not be conceived as a general regimentation. On the contrary, the system should be conceived and

Statutory Holidays with Pay administered in consideration of the individual, of the human person, and as long as we do not take the human person and the respect we owe to the individual into account, it will be useless to introduce such bills. We shall get nowhere, whatever party be in power. We hardly could expect other results. But, when we consider the importance of the human person, then we shall be able to legislate accordingly, with the greatest respect for men, women and children in Canada.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, may I make a few short remarks with regard to the bill now before us.
This legislation contains a principle which we should favour, because it is a general trend in the world today and if I may do so later, I shall quote a few relevant statistics. There is, in the whole world, a general tendency to have shorter working hours.
If I may be allowed to make a digression, as I represent an essentially rural farming county, I would like to pay a particular tribute to our farmers, who, I think are the only ones in today's society who are not always asking for paid holidays, which means that the praiseworthy labour and the doughty persistence of our farmers are always worth mentioning and that those people derive their strength and their greatness of character from the fact that they are never afraid to face work.
However, Mr. Speaker, a dividing line must be drawn between farming and industrial labour.
To come back to the bill now before the house, I repeat that the principle of the bill is particularly acceptable and in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has tried to refute the arguments against the bill, I agree that the bill could not be passed separately, because it would be much better if it was integrated in a set of laws.
It would be wiser not to mention immediately the term "labour code" since the hon. member has mentioned it a moment ago. Such a measure should have been introduced in this house years ago, but every time, some way was found to put off the discussion of such a bill.
Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps deplorable that this parliament is at a standstill at the present time; it is unfortunate and we strongly deplore it. Without blaming anyone-but the constituents will be in a position to judge and they are bound to do so. I think that


it is advisable to denounce with the member for Winnipeg North Centre the fact that no positive and substantial legislation could be passed by this parliament, on account of a disconcerting slowness, a true paralysis. We are faced with a systematic obstruction that we must denounce with all our might. [Text]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is obstructing this?


David Réal Caouette: The Conservatives.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, it is not a
question of preventing this bill from being passed, because I maintain that its principle is acceptable, but that its text, in its present form, can certainly not be approved today and not until it has been subjected to further study. Indeed, the bill itself contains 18 clauses, each having its own importance, and it should be referred to a committee of the house for further study.
Mr. Speaker, the principle that I accept is in accordance with recommendations made in June 1962 by the international labour organization. During that session, the organization adopted the following general principles:
Every member should formulate and follow a policy which would promote, through methods taking into account conditions, national traditions and the situation of each industry, the principle of the progressive reduction of the normal working period.
Every member, by means adapted to methods now in use and likely to be introduced to regulate the work period, should promote and, to an extent compatible with national conditions and traditions, ensure the application of the principle of gradually reducing the normal work period, in accordance with the following paragraph.
The principle of the gradual reduction of the normal work period could be applied through legislation-
That is, by means of a bill such as the one now before the house. I continue:
The normal work period should be gradually reduced, when suitable so as to achieve the social standard indicated in the preamble of the present recommendation, without resulting in any way in less pay for the workers-
Such an aim is consistent with the principle of the bill now under consideration. I proceed with the quotation:
-following the reduction of the work period.


David Réal Caouette: What would be the length of that period?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I shall come back to this matter in a little while, and for the information of my hon. friend, I must tell him that those statistics were taken from an indisputable authority, namely the Labour Statistics Yearbook.


David Réal Caouette: How long would be the work period?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, the present trend is to establish a 40 hour work week. I feel that if the miracle theory of Social Crediters were ever applied, nobody would have to work any more, because dividends would be distributed to everybody, large quantities of money would be printed and no one would have to work.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Should that be the case, the hon. member for Lotbiniere could benefit therefrom, because he has done very little since he came to the House of Commons.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, this is such a childish comment that I feel it would be better to ignore it. Besides, I shall point out to the hon. member that one must not assess the quality of the work performed by a member by the number of sterile speeches he makes in this house.


David Réal Caouette: Except for the member for Lotbiniere.


Auguste Choquette: Except Mr. Speaker, for all the members of the Social Credit party, the Caouette branch, who since the beginning of this session and during the last one, have made the most trivial speeches, so completely useless that they have never served the public interest.
I am now going to continue my statement and I shall refer to the recommendation made by the International Labour Organization. Another principle reads as follows:
The principle of progressive reduction of the normal duration of work, as expressed in paragraph 4, could be applied by stages, without it being necessary to determine them at the international level.
Such stages could be spread over a period of time and include progressively various sectors of the national economy; the two previous methods could be combined; any other method that might seem better suited to conditions prevailing in the country and to each field of economic activity, could be followed.
Consequently, the method providing for stages spread over a period of time could very well correspond to the one suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which provides for statutory leave with pay.
Mr. Speaker, allow me also to refer to the suggestions made by the Canadian Labour Congress. The congress invited the unions affiliated to the C.L.C. to ask for higher wages or a shorter work week, or both, since mechanization and automation increase production.
Statutory Holidays with Pay
It is precisely on account of the automation problem that it is necessary to establish that principle of a progressive reduction of the work week.
At a meeting held in Chicago in 1962, the executive council of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. moved a resolution asking for a shorter work week without any reduction in take-home pay.
Mr. Speaker, all that is in accordance with a state of mind which prevails practically throughout the world, namely that in our affluent society, in the context of the technological revolution that took place over the last decades, it is possible to give more comfort and prosperity to all the workers of the world.
Mr. Speaker, a look at some statistics compiled in 1960 will give an idea of the average work week throughout the world.
Taking Algeria for instance, we notice that in 1960, the average work week was 45.7 hours; it was 46 hours in 1961. In Egypt, the average work week was 48 hours in 1961 and 46 hours in 1962.
In the United States, during the last ten years, the average work week was as follows: 1955, 40.9 hours; 1956, 40.9 hours; 1957, 40.5 hours; 1958, 40.1 hours; 1959, 40 hours; 1960, 40 hours; 1961 and 1962, 40.1 hours.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, we notice that in America, especially in the United States, the objective is a 40 hour week and it is somewhat toward that objective that Canadian citizens are also looking.
That is why, considering the recommendations of the international labour organization of the C.L.C. and of other labour organizations, we feel that the proposal under consideration should be considered exhaustively.
However, Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that it is not in the one hour's time that-


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, these two members are diametrically opposed. One is reactionary and the other is progressive.
Mr. Speaker, the present bill deserves the most careful consideration.
One is reactionary and the other one is progressive.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


David Réal Caouette: North Centre.

Statutory Holidays with Pay


Auguste Choquette: South Centre is what I meant. Winnipeg South Centre and Winnipeg North Centre-they represent two extremities.

I commend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for the generous spirit which led him to introduce this bill which deserves the most careful consideration.
However, as I said a while ago, it should be integrated into much wider legislation and, in my opinion, it should be referred to a committee where more time could be given to its study and where the necessary amendments could be made.
For instance, if we look at section 2 of the bill, we see that statutory holidays are enumerated. Here again, this is merely an insignificant detail, but a detail which nevertheless should be rectified, because the statutory holidays listed in the bill do not correspond at all to what is considered as statutory or non legal holidays in the province of Quebec.
For instance, the member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests that New Year's day be a statutory holiday. Well, New Year's day is one of the non legal holidays recognized under the civil code. There is also the day of Epiphany, on January 6. But, in the bill we are considering, January 6 or the day of Epiphany is not recognized as a statutory holiday. To my mind, there could be some citizens in the province of Quebec who would like to have January 6 as a statutory holiday.
There is also December 8 which is, for the people of the province of Quebec, a day of very special significance while for other members, it would not have the same importance.
You also have Victoria day. Certain other people would prefer to celebrate on that day the reigning monarch instead of a former monarch. And this, no matter what ideas have been expressed previously. In my opinion, it would be far more appropriate to celebrate the anniversary of the reigning monarch rather than that of a former queen. Therefore, the anniversary of the reigning monarch could be a statutory holiday, more so than Victoria day. The members on the other side of the house, those of the Conservative party, suggest the creation of a Sir John A. Macdonald day; that day could become a statutory holiday.


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


Auguste Choquette: With pleasure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is he not aware of the fact that the current practice is to celebrate on what is called Victoria day the birthday of the present reigning monarch?


Auguste Choquette: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but some people have such devotion to the reigning sovereign that it would be necessary to have two separate days to celebrate both anniversaries.
You also have Dominion day, which is rather celebrated as Canada's day. Here again, this is merely a detail in reference to the text.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, should we study this bill section by section, we would find out that it needs many adjustments and that a good number of suggestions would have to be made. Therefore, I do not think that we would be able within an hour to approve in full the bill as it is being proposed. This is the reason why, while agreeing with the principle and advocating it at the same time, I maintain that this text should form an integral part of the legislation as a whole and should be given much greater consideration than it is being given at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then we agree. Would the hon. member permit another question?


Auguste Choquette: With pleasure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he thinks it is impossible to do this within one hour, does he not think it should be possible to do it within 45 years?


Auguste Choquette: I know that what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is saying, is said in jest, but after all, the present social legislation has been established by the Liberal party. If our labour legislation is as progressive as it is today, the Liberal party has something to do with it, made its contribution to it.
The labour code does not exist, and I agree that it should exist.
We have done much more than any other party in the house in the field of Canadian social legislation.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it is very apparent that my remarks will be quite brief. In fact, they are going to be briefer because of remarks that have been made this afternoon. I fully realize that another party in the house wishes to

put its views on record in support of this measure and that will make it unanimous.
It is very difficult for me to add anything to the arguments developed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in support of the merits of the bill, which he has once again sponsored in the house. I do not intend to take much time of the house other than to congratulate him and to refer to two statements which have caused me to consider the time left for discussion.
During the remarks of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) there was an exchange with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin). I did not quite catch the entire exchange but my interpretation of it was that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska was accusing the hon. member for Villeneuve of blocking legislation. In addition, the speaker who has just resumed his seat referred to the fact that slowness and obstruction were preventing legislation from going through the house.
I would call attention to the televised remarks of the Prime Minister on April 19- I emphasize the date and the person making the statement-who said at that time in answer to a question put to him by an interviewer that as far as the work of the House of Commons was concerned he was quite satisfied with developments over the past 44 days. The 44 days brought us up to April 19. Having regard to the necessary time taken for the budget debate, the throne speech debate, a supply motion and so on, I would point out to the member who has just resumed his seat that he is in disagreement with his own Prime Minister, who made the statement on a national television program that he was more than satisfied with the progress during that 44 day period. If the hon. member is assuming responsibility for the government when he refers to slowness and obstruction, and having in mind the remarks of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska that legislation has been blocked, I only hope there will be time enough left for a member of the Social Credit party to support this legislation, and that that member will see fit to leave enough time for government supporters in order that we may see what they may do, so far as slowness and obstruction are concerned. With the hon. member's co-operation we will give them ample time to accept this very worth-while bill.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I would not respond on every occasion when invited to do so by the hon.
Statutory Holidays with Pay member, but I am going to respond on this occasion. I regret that my colleague, the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe), has left the chamber for a few moments. He intended to speak on this measure but I will have to say a few words about it. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has introduced this or similar bills on other occasions and we have supported the principle of them. Therefore I do not hesitate at all to express my support for the measure now before the house. I believe that this matter should not only be talked about, but that definite action should be taken. Many times we are in danger of giving lip service to fundamental principles and having given lip service just setting matters aside. When the same thing comes up on another occasion it is often bypassed.
But I believe this matter should be given urgent attention and a decision should be made by the parliament of Canada. The suggestion has been made that the bill be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations for detailed study and analysis. I would certainly concur in that suggestion. I simply wish to indicate my support for this measure and I agree that it should be referred to the committee on industrial relations.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that this legislation has been talked about by the government but nothing has been done about it. It is a fact that considerable legislation was forecast in the speech from the throne, but so far we have been unable to do anything about it. There are various reasons for our not being able to bring this legislation before the house. However, I can assure the hon. member and the whole house that it is the intention of the government to bring forward a bill which will have the effect of incorporating, I would hope, most of the provisions contained in Bill No. C-30.
Following the conference held some weeks ago with the provincial ministers of labour, the federal Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen) said that this matter was discussed with them in order to get their opinions and to determine how various business enterprises in their provinces might be affected.
The Minister of Labour, speaking on March 11, had this to say of the proposed labour legislation in answer to a question put to him by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr):

Statutory Holidays with Pay These proposals in general were discussed at the conference of the labour ministers. It was not sought at the conference to ask for agreement on these matters; what was sought were the views of the provinces.
Obviously, the provinces have been considering these matters for many years. They realize the problems which a government faces when it is required to bring forward economic legislation which regulates the bargaining position as between labour and management. The provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba are the only two provinces which have legislation providing for statutory holidays with pay and, to its credit, the province of Saskatchewan names eight statutory holidays. I must say they turn out to be a little less progressive than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The provincial legislation provides for opting out, to use an expression which has become popular these days. If I may quote from a report of the Department of Labour entitled "Provincial Labour Standards" at page 14;
By agreement between an employer and a trade union representing a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, another working day may be substituted for any of the eight listed holidays.
The bill before us makes no such provision. In addition, the provincial legislation provides that hospitals, restaurants, hotels and so on need not be bound by the legislation. I am saying this simply to show that there are many matters to be considered and that we cannot cover such an important subject in the limited time provided for discussion of a private member's bill. No other provinces but those two have legislation dealing with this matter. Other provinces do provide for minimum wages-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being six o'clock the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired.


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


[Stage Direction]
The ninth meeting of the joint United States-Canadian committee on trade and economic affairs was held in Ottawa April 29-30, 1964. The committee noted with satisfaction the progress which had been made in matters of interest to both countries and the general improvement in relations between them.
The committee received from Mr. Arnold Heeney, on behalf of himself and Mr. Livingston T. Merchant, their interim report of progress on their joint study of United States-Canadian relations. They were appointed by President Johnson and Prime Minister Pearson to examine the desirability and practicability of developing acceptable principles which would facilitiate co-operation in economic and other policies. Their report noted agreement on method of procedure and stated that preliminary investigations have been initiated.
The committee noted that economic activity in Canada and the United States had continued to expand and that another favourable year was anticipated for 1964. They agreed that the two countries should continue to follow policies designed to stimulate economic growth and employment in the context of economic stability. They noted that trade between the United States and Canada was running at record levels. The committee discussed policies which each country was following to improve its balance of payments. The United States members expressed agreement with Canada's desire to improve its current account through an expansion of exports and stressed the importance of adhering to the principles of non-discrimination in achieving this objective. The committee also noted the recent improvement in the United States balance of payments position and expressed the expectation that this improvement would continue.
The members of the committee looked forward to the opening of the GATT tariff and trade negotiations in Geneva, in which both countries would be participating actively, for the reduction of trade barriers and the expansion of trade in both industrial and agricultural products between the two countries and with the rest of the world. They took note also of the progress at the current United Nations conference on trade and development 20220-1814
and agreed on the importance of continuing international co-operative efforts to assist the less developed countries to expand their trading opportunities and facilitate their economic development.
The committee discussed the trade in automobiles and automobile parts between Canada and the United States. United States members stressed their concern over the possible adverse effects of the Canadian automotive program on certain United States parts producers. Canadian members emphasized that the program is designed to promote increased specialization and lower production costs in the Canadian automotive industry.
The committee examined problems affecting trade between the two countries. Canadian ministers expressed concern about increases in levels of certain United States tariffs arising from the recent reclassification of the United States tariff, including rates on parts and components. They urged that the United States government take action to correct this situation. They requested that action should be taken to remove long standing United States restrictions on imports from Canada of lead and zinc, and cheese. The United States members expressed their concern over possible Canadian measures which might adversely affect certain United States publications. A number of other matters were discussed including great lakes water levels, tourist customs privileges, and the trade in softwood lumber and coal.
The committee discussed the energy resources and energy problems of both countries and their relationship to economic efficiency. There was general agreement that United States-Canadian co-operation should be encouraged in areas where such co-operation serves the long term mutual advantage of both nations. They established a joint working group to prepare a program of studies relating to trade in all kinds of energy between the United States and Canada.
The meeting concluded with a general review of the international situation by Mr. Rusk and Mr. Martin.
The Canadian delegation included Mr. Paul Martin, Secretary of State for External Affairs; Mr. Walter Gordon, Minister of Finance; Mr. Mitchell Sharp, Minister of Trade
[Stage Direction]
and Commerce; Mr. Harry Hays, Minister of Agriculture; Mr. C. M. Drury, Minister of Industry; the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. L. Rasminsky; Mr. Norman Robertson, the chief Canadian trade negotiator; the Canadian ambassador to the United States, Mr. C. S. A. Ritchie, and other advisers.
The United States delegation included Mr. Dean Rusk, Secretary of State; Mr. Douglas
Dillon, Secretary of the Treasury; Mr. Stuart Udall, Secretary of the Interior; Mr. Luther H. Hodges, Secretary of Commerce; Mr. Orville L. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture; Mr. George W. Ball, under secretary of state; Mr. Walter W. Heller, chairman of the president's council of economic advisers; Mr. William M. Roth, deputy special trade representative; the United States ambassador to Canada, Mr. W. W. Butterworth, and other advisers.


[Stage Direction]
The principles recommended as a basis lor civil aviation policy are:
(1)	In the international field, air services provided by Canadian air lines should serve the Canadian interest as a whole; these services should not be competitive or conflicting, but should represent a single integrated plan, which could be achieved by amalgamation, by partnership or by a clear division of fields of operations.
(2)	In the domestic main line field, while the principle of competition is not rejected, any development of competition should not compromise or seriously injure the economic viability of T.C.A.'s main line domestic operations which represent the essential framework of its network of domestic services. In other
words, there must not be the kind of competition which would put T.C.A. into the red; and, in the event that competition continues, the air transport board should ensure an opportunity for growth to both lines above this basic minimum.
(3)	In formulation of policy based upon the foregoing point, a reasonable role for regional air carriers providing scheduled and regular air service must be established; this role must provide for a relationship between the regional air carriers and T.C.A. (and any other licensed main line transcontinental carrier) which will give the regional air carriers a reasonable chance to operate without government subsidies.
April 24, 1964.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 4, 1964