1964-10-14

PRIVILEGE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights and prerogatives of parliament. It has to do with the visit, which concluded yesterday, of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to her Canadian realm.
As hon. members know, as Queen of Canada she is an integral part of parliament. Misinterpretations have arisen as the result of untoward events which took place during the course of that visit. Some of these events have produced a strong reaction among her Canadian subjects as a whole. Furthermore, the image of Canada in the commonwealth and abroad could be seriously impaired unless this house and the other place were to speak out with the authority of parliament.
I believe that the time has come for the parliamentary representatives to speak for Canada and the Canadian people. The only way in which the views of Canadians can be expressed is through parliament. Instead of approaching this matter in an acrimonious manner I raise it as the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and I hope to have the support of the house for the suggestion I am about to make.
The Prime Minister is absent today on official duties. If that were not so I would ask that the suggestion I am about to make be brought before the house today. However, that being impossible, as it would constitute a discourtesy to him, which I am not desirous of bringing about, I suggest that tomorrow the Prime Minister have placed before both houses of parliament an humble address to convey to Her Majesty, the Queen of Canada, the appreciation of the Canadian people for her visit, and to assure her of the deep loyalty, affection, love and devotion of all Canadians to her and the throne.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Paul  Marfin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I thank my right hon. friend for noting the fact that
the Prime Minister is engaged in the closing session of the conference with the provinces and on that account is not able to be in his seat today. My right hon. friend may be assured at once, notwithstanding the necessary absence of the Prime Minister, that it would be his strongest wish that both houses of parliament take the particular suggestion made as yet another way of indicating, what is clearly an established fact, the loyalty of this parliament and this nation to Her Majesty the Queen.
On October 13 Her Majesty the Queen sent the following message to His Excellency the Governor General:
Please convey my warm thanks and those of my husband to the Prime Minister, government and people of Canada for the kind and loyal welcome which they have given us.
We are both very glad to have been able to be with you at the time when you are commemorating the first meetings of the Fathers of Confederation and I send you my deep and sincere congratulations on all that has been achieved since those days, together with my heartfelt prayers and good wishes for the continued happiness and prosperity of all who dwell in this great country.
In thanking MVanier and yourself for your gracious hospitality in the capital I would ask you also to express our sincere appreciation to all those whose skill and care contributed to the admirable arrangements which were made for all parts of our program.
Elizabeth R.
The Governor General replied to Her Majesty in these terms:
On behalf of the Canadian people, I wish to express warmest thanks for Your Majesty's gracious message which has been conveyed to the Prime Minister, the government and the people of Canada. It is deeply appreciated by all.
The presence of Your Majesty and of His Royal Highness amongst us has strengthened our admiration and affection for, and pride in, our sovereign.
The kind words concerning my wife and me and all those associated with the arrangements for Your Majesty's stay are greatly prized.
Georges P. Vanier
The Prime Minister thought it desirable, in addition to these memorable messages, to send one to Right Hon. Sir Michael Adeane, G.C.V.O., K.C.B., private secretary to the Queen, London, England, on October 13, 1964, in these terms:
I would be grateful if you would convey this message to Her Majesty the Queen. "As Your

Question of Privilege
Majesty returns to Britain I send you the affectionate thanks of the Canadian government for your gracious visit. May God bless Your Majesty, your husband and your children."
Sincerely Lester B. Pearson Prime Minister of Canada
Her Majesty the Queen graciously replied in these terms:
Buckingham Palace, London.
The Prime Minister,
Ottawa.
I was delighted to receive your kind message. Please convey my heartfelt thanks to your colleagues in the Canadian government for their loyal good wishes.
Elizabeth R.
In putting these telegrams on our records, Mr. Speaker, I am sure I echo what all of us in parliament feel, and what Canadians generally feel, when I say with sincerity, pride and conviction "God Save the Queen".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: It is unclear, Mr. Speaker, from the very dignified response given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whether the government is going to take up the humble address suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. However, I should like to express, for our party, our willingness to support such an address, and also to express our appreciation for the sentiments that were read to us as expressed by the Prime Minister and other representatives of this country.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to support the proposal that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition, and to express our gratitude to the Governor General and the Prime Minister for the messages that have already been sent and for the gracious words that have been received from Her Majesty the Queen.
I believe it would be very appropriate for this house to express our appreciation for the presence of our Queen over this past week. Unfortunately it seems as if there is a certain element in Canada that would use her visit to further divide our country, and to question at this time the advisability of whether she should have come here. I think all of us in this house appreciate in a particular way what she has done as our Queen, in being in our midst, and the tremendous influence for good that her presence has been; the wise words she has spoken and the very gracious and humane attitude she has maintained toward our citizens.

It would support the general feeling, I believe, of the Canadian people and certainly fulfil our responsibilities in this house if, in addition to those messages that have been sent, a direct message were sent to Her Majesty from this house. Therefore I commend the Leader of the Opposition for having brought forward this suggestion at this time. We give him our complete support in it and urge the government to take the action suggested.


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty the Queen of Canada came to visit us. We saw her, of course, and she has left.
I trust that despite a certain amount of nervous tension in Quebec she will have appreciated the splendid receptions given in her honour.
As I am from Quebec I should like to draw attention to the logical comments she made before the legislature of our province, and I quote:
The dialogue remains open and it will tend to unite men of goodwill. True patriotism does not exclude understanding the patriotism of others.
This means that our French Canadian or Quebec patriotism must not blind us to the point where we no longer recognize the rights and the reasons of each and everyone.
Her Majesty being the guest of the Quebec government, no one had the right to insult her, even under the guise of separatism. The freedom or licence demanded by some of our fellow citizens would surely be the last things they would grant to others if the were in power. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is the Quebec government which holds power in our province. If the people are not satisfied with it they will change it without resorting to anarchy, blackmail, threats or bloody revolution.
The visits of Her Majesty to Canada never shamed any Canadian. On the contrary, when I heard her speak to all Canadians in perfect French, on Saturday morning, I felt sure she was a great comfort to most French Canadians in Quebec.
The night before last Their Excellencies the Governor General and Mrs. Vanier were hosts at a dinner which I attended since I had been invited. Thanks to the graciousness of Mrs. Vanier, I had the chance to speak with Her Majesty in French. That convinced me that our Queen was right when she stated in Quebec city, last Saturday:
A dynamic state must not be afraid of revising its political philosophy. There is nothing surprising

about the fact that a protocol set up a century ago no longer meets all the problems of today.
Mr. Speaker, who would dare hold the Queen responsible tor the inertia of many Canadians of various origins? Her Majesty is, for us, the symbol of a way of life which enabled us to grow by our own means and according to our own wishes. There is much to be done and we are free to act. It is neither the empire nor royalty which prevent the Canadian people from achieving security with freedom for each and every one of our fellow citizens. Let us not hold others responsible for what we have had neither the courage nor the decency to do. Let us assume our responsibilities, and, above all else, let us find the necessary solutions to the problems which arise everywhere. If it be true that unity is strength, it is time for us to achieve it in mutual respect.
And we French Canadians of the province of Quebec have undeniable right, but in addition to those rights which we claim, we also have duties to fulfil toward ourselves and toward others. It is not in anarchy that we will succeed, but in mutual trust and understanding.
Those were, Mr. Speaker, the few ideas I wanted to express at the close of a royal visit which, I believe, will serve to let reason enter in circles where everything seems so confused.
I give my unqualified support to the suggestion made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he said that the incidents which occurred in certain places must never be allowed to happen again anywhere in Canada, our country which we should all love as much as we can.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, after these various declarations I simply want to state that a resolution of the kind proposed to which we can all readily extend our strongest support, will be prepared. I think it should be proposed by the Prime Minister, supported of course by the Leader of the Opposition and the house. A resolution in these terms, expressing our loyalty and our gratitude to Her Majesty the Queen, will be the first order of business tomorrow.



MR. HAYS-CLARIFICATION OF STATEMENTS RESPECTING TURKEY IMPORTS

Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: I wish to raise a question of personal privilege. Yesterday the hon. member for Wellington South suggested that I had misled the house in certain statements I made about the turkey situation. I replied at the time that
Question of Privilege
I had no intention of misleading the house about any situation, and I would like to repeat that today. But since on reviewing the statements the hon. member referred to there does seem to be some grounds for misunderstanding, I should like to place on record the complete situation so that perhaps this matter can be cleared up to everyone's satisfaction.
On September 10, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, I stated as recorded on page 7826 of Hansard:
In the last two weeks there have been no importations of turkeys from the United States.
This was based on the information available to me on that day. But as hon. members may realize by now, the turkey picture can change pretty fast, and I now find that later information indicated the original information was partly in error. My department publishes a weekly poultry market report. This report is issued every Friday and contains information up to the Saturday of the previous week. Since September 10 was a Thursday, the information on imports available at that time covered the weeks ending August 29 and August 22.
For these two weeks there were no imports of eviscerated turkeys. Up to that time it had not been the practice to report live turkey imports, because until the first of this year essentially the only live turkeys coming into Canada were poults to be raised by our own producers. But at about that time officials of my department were reviewing customs import records and it was determined that in fact during the week ending August 22, 12,474 pounds of live turkeys, on an eviscerated weight basis, had come into Canada. In the same way it was determined that a total of 22,800 pounds of live turkeys were imported for the week ending August 29.
Thus my statement of September 10, while true as far as eviscerated turkeys were concerned and as far as the information available to me that day was concerned, was in error in respect to imports of live birds. I apologize to the house for this error which, as I have pointed out, arose from the fact that my department's system of recording turkey imports was being revised.
In the interests of precision I should like to refer briefly to one other statement I made on the turkey question. Yesterday, speaking from memory, I said I had written three letters to the Canadian turkey federation. I now find that two of these, one dated September 23 and the other October 2, were to the

Questions
secretary manager of the federation. The third, dated October 9, was to the federation president.
In a telegram and two letters I have now received from Canadian turkey federation representatives a question was raised as to the current level of protection on live turkeys in relation to protection on the eviscerated product. This question is now under consideration by the government in the light of Canada's vital interest in maintaining as unhampered access as possible to existing and potential markets beyond our borders, and in the light of our obligations under the GATT. When a decision has been reached it will be announced later in the usual way.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture in regard to the statement he made on motions. I should like to ask the minister whether he has received a letter from the Canadian turkey federation dated October 8, 1964 and, if so, would he table it?


Harry William Hays: I will be glad to look into this, Mr. Speaker.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Is Marine Industries Limited being retained by the federal government to purchase vessels for the government outside of Canada and, if so, what are the names and addresses of the individuals comprising the board of directors of Marine Industries Limited, Sorel, Quebec?
2.	What is the total amount of contracts awarded this firm by the federal government in the fiscal year 1963-64 and to date for the fiscal year 196465?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secreiary of Stale):: 1. No.
2.	In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned: (a) fiscal year 1963-64, $1,665,381.32; (b) fiscal year 1964-65, from April 1, 1964 to August 31, 1964, $14,360,050.82.
In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned:
While there have been no contracts for purchase of vessels the following contracts

for dredging have been awarded to Marine Industries Ltd.
1963-64 dredging, Nicolet River, P.Q., $10,672.74, completed; 1963-64 dredging, Sorel, P.Q., $22,374.24, completed, 1964-65 dredging, Ste Angele de Laval, P.Q., $27,320.
In so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned:
The total amount of contracts awarded by the Department of Defence Production was $610,726.49 in 1963-64 and $2,341 in the 1964-65 fiscal year to date.


CONTENTS OF BOX IN R.C.M.P. CAR
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did three men using a green sedan owned by the R.C.M.P. bearing licence number 722-41-2, carry a metal container into 50 Walton street, Toronto on June 23, 1964 and, if so, what was contained in the box?
2.	Were the contents of the box for the purpose of recording or listening to telephone conversations?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: With reference to part 1 of question 1,827, I would like to state that in answer to question 1,494, item 2, asked by Mr. Orlikow on July 13, Mr. Macdonald, my parliamentary assistant, answered on August 26 last and stated that the duties of the R.C.M.P. on the date of June 23 to which he refers, were of a confidential nature and which is not in the public interest to disclose, and my answer to the present question must be the same as the one referred to above.
In answer to the second part of question 1,827 by Mr. Orlikow, the three men did not carry any equipment designed or intended for recording or listening to telephone conversations.


STUDY OF EFFECTS OF INDUSTRIAL NOISE
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Is the government conducting or supporting research into the effects on humans of industrial noise and, if so, at which institutions and under whose direction is such research being conducted?
2.	What is the specific object of each study presently under way?
3.	What is the annual cost to the government of such research?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Under the national health grants program the Department of National Health and Welfare is providing approximately $10,500 this year in support of research into perceptive deafness at the hard of hearing and vestibular clinic, St. Michael's hospital, Toronto, under the direction of Dr. J. A. Sullivan.

2.	To study the cures of perceptive deafness and various testing methods.
3.	See answer 1 above.


DO NOT SHIP LIST-CARMEL DEGUIRE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions acknowledged the presence of the name of Mr. Carmel Deguire on the do not ship list filed with the Norris commission (exhibit 0-269).
2.	Did the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions approve of the recommendation of the maritime appeals board that Mr. Deguire's application for reinstatement in the S.I.U. be rejected on the grounds that there was no record with the board of trustees that Mr. Deguire was a member of the S.I.U. and was not on the do not ship list to the knowledge of the S.I.U. and, if so, for what reasons?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1.	The board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions acknowledges the presence of the name Camille Deguire on exhibit 0-269 filed with the Norris commission, which exhibit bears date of 28 day of August, 1950. This may be the same person referred to as Carmel Deguire.
2.	No. The board of trustees does not in any way approve or disapprove of the rulings of the maritime appeals board, which is an independent arbitral tribunal, and it would therefore be improper for the board of trustees to interfere. Upon inquiring, the board of trustees was advised by the maritime appeals board that no person named Deguire had applied to have his case heard before the maritime appeals board.


DO NOT SHIP LIST-KEN LEWIS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions acknowledged the presence of the name of Ken Lewis on the do not ship list filed with the Norris commission (exhibit 0-269).
2.	Did the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions approve of the recommendation of the maritime appeals board that Mr. Lewis' application for reinstatement in the S.I.U. be rejected on the grounds that there was no record with the board of trustees that Mr. Lewis was a member of the S.I.U. and was not on the do not ship list to the knowledge of the S.I.U. and, if so, for what reasons?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1.	The board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions acknowledges the presence of the name Ken Lewis on exhibit 0-269 filed with the Norris commission, which exhibit bears date the 28th day of August, 1950.
2.	No. The board of trustees does not in any way approve or disapprove of the rulings of the maritime appeals board, which is an independent arbitral tribunal, and it would 20220-571
Questions
therefore be improper for the board of trustees to interfere. Upon inquiring, the board of trustees was advised by the maritime appeals board that no person named Ken Lewis had applied to have his case heard by the maritime appeals board.


EVIDENCE OF MEMBERSHIP IN S.I.U.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Does the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions consider the do not ship list filed with the Norris commission and attested to as correct by Mr. Hal Banks sufficient evidence of membership of persons mentioned therein in the S.I.U.?
2.	Has the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions accepted the report of the maritime appeals board which appeared in the August 14, 1964 issue of the Canadian Sailor which rejects the appeals of Max Anderson, Armand Clermont and John McNeill on the grounds that they could not produce evidence of former membership in the S.I.U. and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Which officer or officers of the S.I.U. rule on past membership in the S.I.U. of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1.	The board of trustees does not advise the maritime appeals board on questions of evidence, but the board of trustees is of the opinion that the presence of a specific name on a list described as a do not ship list would probably not by itself be sufficient evidence of past membership in the S.I.U. However, each case must depend on its own facts.
2.	The board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions neithers accepts nor rejects reports of the maritime appeals board, has no jurisdiction to do so, and has not done so in the cases cited.
3.	This is a matter of internal management within the union, subject to appeal to the maritime appeals board and the courts.


MAIL SERVICE, R.R. NO. 2, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Have complaints been received from the patrons of R.R. No. 2, Amherst, N.S., and R.R. No. 1, Tidnish, N.S., with regard to the delays that will be occasioned with outgoing mail as a result of the change in the starting point of R.R. No. 2, Amherst, and, if so, how many?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: A petition bearing 102 names has been received protesting against a change in Amherst rural route No. 2. There is no record of any complaints from the patrons of Tidnish post office or Tidnish rural route No. 1. However, Tidnish is served as a way office on Amherst R.R. No. 2.
In recent years with the increasing traffic density, the Post Office Department has followed the policy of having rural routes

Questions
commence from and finish at the distributing post office and having the rural mail boxes erected on the right-hand side of the road according to the courier's line of travel. This policy permits the courier to collect the outgoing mail at the same time as he delivers the incoming mail. It eliminates the necessity of crossing the highway in the path of traffic to reach mail boxes on the other side of the road. It permits the courier to deposit any mail that could not be delivered, such as parcels, registers and C.O.D. items, at the post office on the completion of his trip.
Where routes start at the outer end, the courier has to stop at the boxes on the inward trip to collect mail and again on the outward trip to deliver mail. In order to collect mail on his way to the post office, he has to cross traffic to the opposite side of the road. On completion of his trip at the outer end, he is responsible for the safekeeping of any undelivered mail at his residence.
Amherst R.R. No. 2 is one that has operated with the outer end as the starting point. Steps therefore were taken to advertise this mail service with the distributing post office as the starting point in order to reduce traffic hazards and gain the operational advantages mentioned above. This is the policy for all routes which do not start from the post office. According to the studies that have been made, a change in the starting point on Amherst R.R. No. 2 will have very little effect on mail originating on the rural route for delivery elsewhere in the country.


COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORTING FLAG PLEBISCITE OR RED ENSIGN
Mr. Coates: What is the total number of names attached to letters, telegrams and other types of communications received by all departments of government, including the Prime Minister's office, urging the calling of a national plebiscite on the flag question,-or the retention of the Canadian red ensign as Canada's national flag?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: The answer to this question is 176,543.


SURVEILLANCE OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	When did the Post Office Department reach the decision to establish peepholes through which postal employees could be observed while working?
2.	When did the Post Office Department reach the decision to establish peepholes through which postal employees could be observed while in washrooms?
3.	What were the reasons for these decisions?
4.	Were the postal employees' organizations consulted before the decision to implement these poli-
[Mr. Nicholson.)
cles were decided upon and, if so, did the employees' organizations approve.
5.	Were any alternative methods considered by the department to this method of observing employees and, if so, what were these methods and why were they rejected?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1.	Original records are no longer available but buildings constructed prior to 1900 had observation galleries installed in them.
2.	Original records are no longer available but observation of washrooms was provided whenever architecturally practicable. One building constructed more than 40 years ago and still in use provides observation of men's washrooms.
3.	To enable post office investigators to place responsibility for theft or depredation of items of mail.
4.	It is not known what employee associations, if any, were in existence at the time observation galleries were first introduced, or if they were in existence whether they were consulted and, if consulted, whether they approved. In recent years, however, the department has exchanged views with the national postal employee associations and they have indicated the acceptance of the use of the observation facilities for investigational purposes in the case of theft or other depredations of mail.
5.	Yes. One installation of closed circuit television still in use.


RESEARCH INTO ALCOHOLISM DEATHS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Is the government conducting or supporting research into the causes of the steady increase in the rate of deaths from alcoholism?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Federal support is
available from the Department of National Health and Welfare to the provinces under the terms of the national health grants for research into the causes of alcoholism.
To this date in 1964-65, one project dealing with research on alcoholism has received approval in an amount of $10,180.


PENITENTIARY LAND PURCHASE, ST. PIE DE BAGOT
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	What amount was paid for the purchase of the land which was to be used for the construction of a penitentiary at St. Pie de Bagot?
2.	What are the dimensions of the land?
3.	What is the amount of its municipal assessment?
4.	What was the amount of municipal taxes paid on the land before it was purchased?

5.	What was the amount of the professional fees paid in connection with the purchase of the land?
6.	To whom were the fees paid?
7.	What does the government intend to do with the land?
8.	For what reasons was the project abandoned? [Translation]


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. $83,000.
2.	2,277.46 feet frontage on Grand St. Francois to a depth of 5,718.79 feet.
3.	$16,100.
4.	For the year 1962 the amount of $346.15 was paid.
5.	Professional fees paid in connection with the purchase of this land amount to:
(a)	Survey	$1,650.00(b)	Appraisal	1,161.10(c)	Legal	716.00(d)	Soil Test Borings	1,920.00$5,447.106.	The professional fees were paid to: (a) G. Girard, Q.L.S.; (b) J. H. Sullivan, S.I.R., C.R.E. (Veterans Land Act); (c) Andre Dumont, Notary; (d) Warnock-Hersey, Engineers.7.	The government intends to use this land for the construction of a penal institution of medium security when such an institution is required in the province of Quebec.8.	The project of constructing a medium security institution at St. Pie de Bagot was placed in abeyance as a result of the incident at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary in June1962.	This disturbance indicated the need for a new maximum security institution for which the site at St. Pie de Bagot was not considered as suitable.


INCOME TAX PAID BY PERSONS OVER 70
Mr. Winkler: 1.	How many Canadians 70 years of age and over paid income tax in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963?
2.	What was the total amount of money paid in income tax by the people in this age category in the same year?
3.	How many people in this category received a return on the tax paid in the same year?
4.	What is the percentage of the money received in tax from Canadians in this category to the total amount of money paid in old age security to all Canadians over age 70?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Records are not maintained on the basis of fiscal years, therefore figures cannot be provided for the year ending March 31,
1963.	The statistics used in answering this 20220-5714
Questions
question represent those pertaining to 1963 income tax returns filed up to the present time.
1.	Filers age 70 or over 147,116.
2.	Total tax paid by above, $79,078,467.66.
3.	Number of above receiving refunds, 27,894.
4.	10.7 per cent.


STUDY OF HIGHWAY COST RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. Mather: 1.	Has the government received from representatives of the mayors and municipalities of Canada a request for a joint federal-provincial-municipal study of highway cost responsibilities as these affect urban areas?
2.	Is the government agreeable to such a project?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. No such request has been received. However, the submission presented to the government on September 14, 1964, by representatives of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities contained a section on urban transportation. This section, together with the other recommendations included in the federation's submission, are now being studied by the government.
2. Answered by No. 1.


PESTICIDES USED IN FRUIT GROWING
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	What pesticides, herbicides, or other agricultural chemicals are being used in connection with fruit-growing in the Niagara peninsula?
2.	Is the government conducting or supporting research into the persistence of these chemicals on the fruit, or in orchard soil and, if so, at which institutions, and under whose direction is such research being conducted?
3.	What is the annual cost to the government of such research?


Harry William Hays: 1. All the pesticides listed hereunder are registered for use on pests occurring on crops in the Niagara peninsula. However, all these chemicals may not be in general use:
(a)	Insecticides and acaricides: azinphos-methyl (Guthion), carbaryl (Sevin), chlor-benzide (Mitox, DDD (TDE), DDT, demeton (Systox), diazinon, dieldrin, dimethoate (Cy-gon, Rogor), dinoseb (DN-289), DNOC (Elge-tol, dormant oil, endosulfan (Thiodan), ethion, Genite, Kelthane, lead arsenate, malathion, methoxychlor, Morestan, ovex, parathion, mevinphos, (Phosdrin), nicotine sulphate, phosphamidon, rotenone, summer oil, tetra-difon (Tedion), TEPP and carbophenothion (Trithion).

Questions
(b)	Fungicides: Bordeaux mixture, captan, cycloheximide (Acti-dione, dichlone (Phygon XL), dinocap (Karathane), dodine (Cyprex), ferbam, fixed copper, folpet (Phaltan, glyo-din (Crag), lime sulphur, mercury, sulphur, thiram and zineb.
(c)	Herbicides: Amine Dinitro, amitrole (aminotriazole), ammonium sulphamate (Am-mate-x), CIPC, dalapon, Disul-sodium (Ses-one), diuron (Karmax), liquid cyanamid, paraquat (Gramoxone), silvex, simazine and 2,4-D amine.
2	and 3. Yes. Research on the persistence of insecticides, fungicides and herbicides in soils and plants, including fruit, is being conducted at a number of the department's research branch establishments across Canada. (See answer to question No. 1,801). The results of a number of these projects undertaken at these locations are applicable to problems found in the production of fruit in the Niagara peninsula area. The work is carried out at establishments located at Kentville, N.S., Fredericton, N.B., Ottawa, Ontario, Chatham, Ontario, London, Ontario and Summerland, B.C. under the general direction of the director general, research branch, and under the immediate direction of the officers in charge at these locations at an estimated annual direct cost of $236,000.
Planning of a new research laboratory to be located at Vineland is under way and research will be conducted into the problems referred to, as they relate to areas across Canada, and to the Niagara peninsula specifically.


GREAT LAKES BROADCASTING CO.
Mr. Rynard: 1.	Who are the officers and directors of the Great Lakes Broadcasting Company?
2.	In shares, what is the capitalization of the company?
3.	Is majority control held by the said officers and directors?


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Messrs. C. L. Chambers, D. G. Campbell, D. G. Hildebrand and D. F. Hunter.
2.	Authorized capital of company is $100.
3.	The Department of Transport has always treated as confidential the information concerning shareholders.


ALLOCATION OF MONEYS, ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mr. Coates: 1.	How much of the moneys allocated to the Atlantic development board have been committed by that board to date?

2.	Of the money committed, how much has been made available to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I am advised by the Atlantic development board as follows:
1.	The amount of moneys committed by the board from the Atlantic development fund is $71,565,000, of which $20,000,000 has been earmarked by the board to assist the province of Nova Scotia in industrial development.
2.	The amount allocated to Nova Scotia is $23,565,000 of which $20,000,000 has been earmarked by the board to assist the province in industrial development.
The amount allocated to New Brunswick is $23,125,000.
The amount allocated to Prince Edward Island is $1,875,000.
The amount allocated to Newfoundland is $23,000,000.


ESCAPES OF INMATES, STONY MOUNTAIN PENITENTIARY
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,957
Mr. Slogan:: 1.	How many inmates in Stony Mountain penitentiary have escaped from the institution in the past year?
2.	Is the Department of Justice strengthening precautions against inmates escaping?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. Four.
2. The security measures to prevent escapes are commensurate with the security needs of the inmates detained there and vary with each type of penal institution.
Such measures are continually under review to improve security and, at the same time, to provide conditions favourable to the development of the rehabilitation potential of each inmate.


USE OF LASER BEAM IN RADAR SYSTEM
Mr. Maiher: Is consideration being given by Air Canada to developing a radar system with a pulsating laser beam to detect air turbulence in a clear sky?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The management of Trans-Canada Air Lines advise as follows: Air Canada is keeping a close watch on all industry wide research and development projects which are under way with regard to clear air turbulence, its source and surrounding conditions. The laser beam is just one of the many avenues of research in this field.


SUGGESTED REDUCTION IN RAIL SERVICE, SAINT JOHN-MONCTON, N.B.
Mr. Bell: 1.	Has a proposal or suggestion to stop the railiner between Saint John and Moncton at Coldbrook, N.B. been considered by the Canadian National Railways and, if so, what was the decision?
2.	What was the basis for such a decision?
3.	Did the company take into consideration that there is a large housing area of over two thousand people located around Coldbrook?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows: 1, 2 and 3. No proposal or suggestion to stop railiner at Coldbrook has been received or considered. CONSTRUCTION OF WHARF FACILITIES, ESKASONI INDIAN RESERVE


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Is any consideration being given to the construction of wharf facilities at the Eskasoni Indian reserve to expedite the shipment of pulpwood from that area?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: During the last 20 years, only two cargoes of pulpwood have been shipped from the Eskasoni reserve. However, the present pulpwood operation is being reviewed to determine whether or not wharf facilities are required.


C.N.R. FREIGHT TO NEWFOUNDLAND THROUGH MULGRAVE, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Since November 1, 1963, until the present date, what has been the total tonnage of freight shipped by the Canadian National Railway to Newfoundland through the port of Mulgrave, N.S.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows: 33,368 tons.


EXTENSION OF WATER FACILITIES, ESKASONI INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): What provisions are being made for further extension of the domestic water facilities at the Eskasoni Indian reserve and for the installation of hydrants for fire protection?


Hubert Badanai: Since April 1, 1964, a total of $3,500 has been provided to extend water facilities to various Indian houses on the Eskasoni reserve. The department also plans to purchase materials later this year to further
Questions
improve the water services to reserve residents.
Plans to install fire hydrants on the reserve are well advanced and it is hoped that the work can be commenced in the near future.


FEDERAL AID TO MOUNT HOPE AIRPORT
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Have federal funds been made available for the development of Mount Hope airport in Hamilton and, if so, on what date were they made available?
2.	How much has been given and for what specific purpose or purposes?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 and 2. No action has as yet been taken on this matter pending decision from the city of Hamilton as to whether they are prepared to assume responsibility for the continued operation of the airport.


J.B. RUDNYCKYI-VISIT TO SWITZERLAND AND ITALY
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is Mr. J. B. Rudnyckyi a member of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism and, if so (a) what was the purpose of his visit to Switzerland and northern Italy this summer (b) was the visit sponsored by the bilingualism and biculturalism commission (c) did he submit a report on bilingual and bicultural matters in Europe (d) was he assigned to bilingual and bicultural research in Europe following the return to question No. 1,464 brought down in the house on July 9, 1964?
2.	How many researchers, other than Dr. Jacques Brazeau and Mr. Rudnyckyi, are now engaged in research in Europe on behalf of the bilingualism and biculturalism commission and, (a) what are their terms of reference and remuneration (b) what are their names?


John (Jack) Davis: 1. Mr. J. B. Rudnyckyi is a commissioner appointed to the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism.
(a)	Professional business related to his academic interests; (b) no; (c) yes; (d) no.
2. None other than Dr. Jacques Brazeau as reported in the return to question No. 1,464.


SALE OF LAND TO TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, NORTH SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	What were the amounts offered by the Department of Transport or the C.N.R. for parcels of land required for new port and railway facilities at North Sydney?
2.	What were the names and addresses of parties to whom such offers were made?
3.	What was the final agreed price in each of the above instances and to whom were the cheques made payable?

Questions


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1, 2 and 3. There have been negotiations for acquisition of the following properties for purposes of terminal requirements at North Sydney: (a) R. T. Sainthill and Son Limited (represented by Mr. James G. Hack-ett, barrister and solicitor, North Sydney).
(b)	Mr. George E. Haggett, North Sydney.
(c)	Mr. J. O. Dolmont (represented by Messrs. Gunn and Gunn, 103 Charlotte st., North Sydney); (d) Mr. G. J. Brennan (represented by Messrs. Gunn and Gunn, 103 Charlotte st., North Sydney); (e) National Sea Products Limited, P.O. Box 2130, Halifax (R. G. Smith, vice president and general manager).
As negotiations are still being carried on in connection with some of the transactions it is not considered advisable to give financial details at the present time.


EXCELLENCE AWARDS TO C.B.C.
Mr. Mather: What awards for excellence of radio and television programs has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation achieved since January 1, 1963?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that from January 1, 1963 to September 30, 1964 the corporation has received 29 awards in national and international competition as follows:
International awards:	American exhibition of educational radio and television programs, sponsored by the institute of Ohio state university for education by radio and television:
Television: First awards: Camera Canada, "The Looking Glass People". The Nature of Things, "Count on Me" The Ideas of Physics, "Order or Chaos". Patterns of Living, "Display" Focus & Telescope, "Thursday's Child".
Special commendation: "The Place of the Skull". "G. B. Shaw, Arms and the Man".
Radio: First awards: Aspects of Canada, "River of Canada". School broadcast, "Thar She Blows". Health science series, "The Life Saver". Issues in modern Canada, "American Influences on Canadian Life", "The Folk Element in Dramatic Music", "A la Ferme", Venture, "Einstein and After", Bill of Fare, "The Season to Lose your Reason".
Special commendation:	Summer Fallow,
"The Awakening".
Radio t.v. daily 21st annual all-American awards of the year, "Democracy in America".
2nd international television festival, U.A.R. "Web of Life".
[Mr. Muir (Cape r'-eton North and Victoria).!
Family service association of America, Close-Up, "Vintage Years, The" (Special Mention).
National school Bell award, "Democracy in America".
3rd international television festival, "And Then There Were None".
Italia prize, city of Genoa prize, "Open Grave".
National academy of television arts and sciences, "The Offshore Island".
Canadian Awards: Beaver award, "Fete au village". Canadian film awards, "Listen With Your Eyes". Montreal international film festival, "A Tout Prendre". Ontario teachers federation, for general programming in the field of education (radio and t.v.). National safety council, for general programming in the field of safety. Ontario safety council, for general programming in the field of safety. Wilderness award, "One More River".


ALTERATION IN RURAL MAIL ROUTE, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the Post Office Department altered its general policy of having rural routes start and finish at a post office and, if so (a) when was it altered (b) for what reason was it altered?
2.	Was a material alteration effected in R.R. No. 2 Amherst, Nova Scotia after tenders were received and, if so, has consideration been given to the calling of new tenders for this service to enable others who might have submitted a tender to now do so in view of the material alteration in the original tender call?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1.	No. It is still the policy to have rural routes start and finish at the distributing post office.
2.	No material alteration was effected in Amherst rural route No. 2 after tenders were received. The new contractor starts and finishes the service at the Amherst post office.


CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS FOR FARM USE
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Are centrifugal or gear pumps, for the watering of livestock on farms, classified under the agricultural implement schedule for tariff purposes?
2.	Are centrifugal or gear pumps, for incorporation into sprinkler irrigation systems, used on the farm for farm purposes classified under the agricultural implement schedule for tariff purposes?
3. If the answer to question 1 is no, and the answer to question 2 is yes, what is the difference between centrifugal and gear pumps used for agricultural watering purposes and the same pumps used for agricultural sprinkling systems?
4.	Are engines and motors incorporated into or attached to centrifugal or gear pumps, for livestock watering purposes on farms, classified as agricultural machines for tariff purposes?
5.	Are engines and motors incorporated into or attached to centrifugal or gear pumps, for sprinkler

irrigation systems on farms, classified as agricultural machines for tariff purposes?
6.	Are engines and motors incorporated into or attached to pumpjacks, for livestock watering purposes on farms, classified as agricultural machines for tariff purposes?
7.	What is the difference, in principle, between the agricultural functions of (a) pumpjacks (b) centrifugal or gear pumps?


Edgar John Benson: 1. No.
2.	Yes.
3.	Item 409f of the agricultural implement schedule of the Customs Tariff contains a provision for "sprinkler irrigation systems; ... for use on the farm for farm purposes only; ... parts of all the foregoing". Pumps for incorporation into such systems are dealt with as parts of the systems. Centrifugal and gear pumps are general purpose pumps and the agricultural implement schedule does not contain a provision to cover centrifugal and gear pumps when used for other agricultural watering purposes.
4.	No.
5.	Engines and motors incorporated into or attached to centrifugal or gear pumps, for sprinkler irrigation systems, are classified under item 409q of the agricultural implement schedule. The item makes specific provision for auxiliary internal combustion engines and electric motors incorporated in or attached to, or to be incorporated in or attached to, agricultural implements or agricultural machinery.
6.	Engines and motors incorporated into or attached to pumpjacks are admissible under item 409q as outlined in 5.
7.	Pumpjacks are designed to convert hand operated pumps to power operated pumps and are regarded as agricultural machines in their own right, being primarily for farm use. Centrifugal and gear type water pumps are general purpose pumps.


SOCIAL INSURANCE REGISTRATIONS
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	How many Canadians are now in possession of social insurance numbers?
2.	Of the above, how many were voluntary registrations?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. 5,855,121 as at the close of business October 1, 1964.
2. No separate statistics are maintained of those who are required to register under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act and those who are not covered by the act. However, a great many people who are not covered by the Unemployment Insurance
Questions
Act have made voluntary applications and been assigned a social insurance number.


GRADE XII STUDENTS, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	How many students were enrolled in grade XII in the Northwest Territories during the 196364 school term?
2.	How many of these students wrote final examinations at the completion of the school term?
3.	What department or agency set these examinations and where and by what agency were they marked?
4.	What were the results in terms of (a) failures
(b)	passing grades (c) eligibility for subsequent university enrollment?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. Seventy two students were registered in some or all subjects in grade XII during the 1963-64 school term.
2.	Seventy two students wrote a total of 280 examination papers in 1964.
3.	The Alberta department of education set the grade XII departmental examination. They were marked in Edmonton, Alberta, by officials of the department of education of Alberta on the same basis as papers written by grade XII students in that province.
4.	(a) Results of all papers written show failures on 85 papers, (b) Results of all papers written show passes on 195 papers.
(c)	Four students completed full university entrance standing in the academic year 1963-64.


PROPOSED ACTION WHERE RETIREMENT INCOME EXCEEDS SALARY EARNED
Mr. Coates: As a guide to other employers, what action does the government plan to take respecting members of the public service superannuation plan whose benefits from that plan, from old age security, and from the Canada pension plan may exceed 100 per cent of their salaries at retirement?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The policy to be proposed by the government to parliament in respect of the adjustment of the Public Service Superannuation Act to take into account the Canada pension plan will be announced in due course.


INVESTMENT OF FUNDS UNDER PENSION PLAN
Mr. Coates: 1.	What steps will be taken to ensure that funds accumulated under the Canada pension plan will be invested to secure the best return, consistent with security, for the contributors?

Questions
2.	What provisions are made in the event of a default by a province or municipality in repayment of funds loaned to it?
3.	Will these funds be subject to supervision by the federal government?


Lawrence T. Pennell: As indicated in the letter from the Prime Minister to provincial premiers which was printed in the appendix to Hansard on April 20, 1964, and in the white paper which was tabled by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on August 10, 1964, the funds arising from the pension plan are to be made available for the use of the provinces and the provincial governments would be required to undertake to pay interest to the pension fund at a rate of interest at least equal to the rate on long term federal securities.
Apart from this general statement, this question relates to a matter of government policy on which an announcement will be made by the government at the appropriate time.


WINTER WORKS PROGRAM, CHAMPNEUF MUNICIPALITY. QUE.
Mr. Laprise: Has the municipality of Champneuf, in Chapleau county, indicated its intention of talcing advantage of the municipal winter works program during the fiscal year 1964-65 and, if so, what project or projects are anticipated, and what will be the federal, provincial and municipal share of the works?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not to the knowledge of the Department of Labour.


TOTAL LABOUR FORCE, INCOME TAXPAYERS, ETC.
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	What is the total labour force engaged in production in Canada?
2.	How many persons paid income tax during the last taxation year?
3.	How many mothers work at home without remuneration?
4.	How many persons in Canada, including children and students, are considered as dependents and receive no income?
5.	What is the total population of Canada?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Employed labour force in Canada, three month average June, July and August 1964. Total-6,895,000. Employed in goods-producing industries (a)-3,173,000 (of which 1,754,000 were employed in manufacturing), employed in service-producing industries (b) -3,722,000.
(a)	Includes agriculture, forestry, fishing and trapping, mining and quarrying, manufacturing and construction.
(b)	Includes transportation and communication, public utilities, trade, finance, service (comprising community service, government service, recreational service, business service and personal service).
2.	The number of persons paying income tax for the 1962 taxation year was 4,681,227. This figure is based on a sample analysis of income tax returns.
3.	No information available.
4.	No information available.
5.	Total population of Canada: 1961 census, at June 1, 1961, 18,238,247; estimated population at June 1, 1964, 19,237,000; estimated population at July 1, 1964, 19,272,000.


INCOME TAX PAID BY INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	How many private citizens and companies paid income tax in (a) 1942 (b) 1952 and (c) 1962?
2.	What was the total amount of income tax paid by private citizens and companies in (a) 1942 (b) 1952 and (c) 1962?
3.	How many taxpayers have paid income tax in the province of Ontario and in the province of Quebec in (a) 1942 (b) 1952 and (c) 1962 and what was the total amount for each province?


Edgar John Benson: [Mr. Coates.)

Questions
1 and 2.
	Individuals	
		Tax
	No. of	assessed
	taxpayers	($millions)
(a) 1942	1,781,244	335.7(b) 1952	3,125,100	1,071.8(c) 1962	4,681,227	2,021.8Province	of Ontario:	(a) 1942	808,937	157.1(b) 1952	1,364,260	497.8(c) 1962	1,949,767	945.0Province of Quebec:	(a) 1942	429,474	85.8(b) 1952	706,420	236.2(c) 1962	1,180,554	424.3
Note: 1962 figures are not yet available for corporations and therefore 1961 figures are given as the latest year available. All figures are based on the annual analysis of income tax returns. Tax figures for 1952 and 1962 include old age security tax, and for 1962 include provincial income tax for those provinces which have agreements with the federal government under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.


TRANSFER OF MARINE AGENCY, PARRY SOUND, ONT.
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Has the government any plans for transferring the headquarters of the Parry Sound marine agency from the town of Parry Sound to another location?
2.	Is the government making plans for the establishment of a Department of Transport marine base at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) will any of the duties now carried out at Parry Sound be transferred to Sault Ste. Marie?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. No.
2. Yes. To carry out increasing responsibilities, the marine services branch of the department has found it necessary to proceed with plans for the establishment of various additional facilities in the great lakes area, including new marine support bases, one of which will be located at Sault Ste. Marie. This, in turn, will require the evolution of a regional concept of organization and management, in line with the concepts of delegation recommended by the Glassco royal commission. While this could lead, in due course, to some readjustments in functions between the various marine bases, to take care of the existence of new facilities, and 20220-572
Corporations
Tax
No. of	declared
taxpayers	($millions)
not available 35,228	1,238.9
(1961)	72,290	1,323.0
not available 11,235	593.8
(1961)	25,310	607.0
not available 8,477	375.5
(1961)	16,952	403.3
the increased amount of work to be carried out, detailed plans in this regard have not yet been developed. As indicated, the Parry Sound marine agency is to be retained.


W.M. LEE, OFFICE OF DEFENCE MINISTER
Mr. Madill: 1.	Is W. M. Lee In the office of the Minister of National Defence, a civil servant and, if not (a) what is his status (b) what are his duties (c) what is his salary?
2.	Was Mr. Lee in the village of Beeton, Ontario, on or about September 24, 1964, on official business and, if so, what was his business?
3.	Was any part of his travelling expenses to and from Beeton paid by the government of Canada?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. No. (a) Appointed by order in council; (b) assistant to Minister of National Defence; (c) $14,000 per annum.
2.	Yes. To address a dinner meeting at the invitation of the Rotary club of Beeton, Ontario.
3.	Yes.


INCLUSION OF SEACOAST IN SECOND NATIONAL PARK, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: Has the government given any consideration to including a section of seacoast, either in Lunenburg or Queens counties, to the present boundaries of the second national park to be established in the Kejimkujik area of Queens county and, if so, what amount of money has been set aside for this additional land, and how many acres will be added to the original park area?


Arthur Laing: This matter is being considered at the present time by the the government and the province ef Nova Scotia. The responsibility for the provision of land for a national park rests with the

Questions
province concerned. No funds can be set aside for development until an agreement is concluded.


STUDENT LOANS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	As of September 30, 1964, how many students, in each province and territory, have been granted Canada student loans?
2.	In each province and territory, what is the total of loans now granted?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. This information is not yet available.
2. This information is not yet available.


CIGARETTE SMOKING AND CANCER
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is there statistical evidence linking cigarette smoking and lung cancer?
2.	How many deaths from lung cancer have occurred in Canada during 1962, 1963, and the first six months of 1964?
3.	Is consideration being given to (a) regulating cigarette advertising in the interests of public health, or (b) encouraging cigarette companies to do so?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Yes. Relevant information is given in "Smoking and Health Reference Book (Canada)" produced by the Department of National Health and Welfare this year. This reference book contains extracts from authoritative reports on the evidence and copies of reports on the Canadian study.
2.	1962, 3,034; 1963, 3,246; 1964, not available.
3.	(a) The advisability of regulating cigarette advertising in the interests of public health has received study within the Department of National Health and Welfare and is still under consideration; (b) The Canadian tobacco manufacturers are aware of the department's study and interest in this matter.


C.B.C. CIRCULAR RESPECTING TELEVISION REBROADCASTING
Mr. Howard: 1.	On or about July 22, 1964, did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation mail a circular entitled "Supplementary service for t.v. network rebroadcasters" to the editor. Fort Nelson News, Fort Nelson, B.C., by "special delivery"?
2.	Was the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation aware that there is no t.v. reception either at Fort Nelson or within miles thereof and that there is no "special delivery" service at Fort Nelson?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:

1.	Yes. Through a clerical error the mailing address plate of the Fort Nelson News was inadvertently substituted for the Nelson Daily News. The C.B.C. has a television rebroadcasting station at Nelson, B.C., and the supplementary service program listings are supplied weekly by special delivery mail to the Nelson Newspaper.
2.	Yes.


* ALLEGED STRIKEBREAKERS IN TORONTO
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Does the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have knowledge of the presence in Toronto of any of the following persons and, if so, which ones Chuck Gordon, Gene Kuhn, C. E. Benjamin, Richard Mahoney, Mrs. Richard Mahoney, Ralph Cherry, Charlie Moore, Ralph Sanders, Bill McDougall, Roger Melton, Gene Bell and one Hawkins?
2.	Does the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have knowledge as to whether any of the above-named persons are working for any of the daily newspapers in Toronto and, if so, which ones, and in what capacity?
3.	(a) Where did each of the above named persons come from (b) has the department any knowledge of the experience each of them has had in strikebreaking activities (c) is their presence in Canada as strikebreakers in line with government policy?


Hubert Badanai: 1. The department is aware of the presence in Toronto of the following individuals mentioned in this question; Chuck Gordon, Gene Kuhn, L. E. Benjamin, Ralph Sanders, Roger Melton and Gene Bell. The department has no knowledge of the presence in Toronto of Richard Mahoney, Mrs. Richard Mahoney, Ralph Cherry, Charlie Moore, Bill McDougall or one Hawkins.
2.	Chuck Gordon and Gene Kuhn are employed by the Toronto Globe and Mail as linotype machinists. L. E. Benjamin is also employed by the Globe and Mail as an assistant superintendent. Ralph Sanders, Roger Melton and Gene Bell are employed as printers by the Toronto Telegram.
3.	(a) The six persons mentioned in part 2 came from the United States, (b) and (c) These questions assume a truth which has not been established.


MAIL TENDER, R.R. 2, WHYCOCOMAGH, N.S.
Mr. Muir Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Who was the successful tenderer for R.R. No. 2 Whycocomagh, Nova Scotia?
2.	How many tenders were received and what were the names, addresses and amounts of each tender?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. Allan L. MacKinnon.
2. Three tenders received: Allan L. MacKinnon, Whycocomagh, $3,432; Charles B. McLaughlin, R.R. No. 2, Whycocomagh, $3,800; Gordon M. MacDonald, Whycocomagh, $4,500.


EFFECT OF PESTICIDES ON WILDLIFE-ROLE OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT IN STUDY
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): What will be the role of the Department of Agriculture in the forthcoming study by the Canadian wildlife service into the effects of pesticides on wildlife?


Harry William Hays: The Department of Agriculture has no explicit role in the study by the Canadian wildlife service into the effects of pesticides on wildlife. However, the department will keep in close touch with these studies through participation in the work of the interdepartmental committee on pesticides and is prepared to co-operate in any useful way.


EFFECT OF PESTICIDES ON WILDLIFE-ROLE OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT IN STUDY
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): What will be the role of the Department of National Health and Welfare in the forthcoming study by the Canadian wildlife service into the effects of pesticides on wildlife?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The co-ordination
of federal government work on pesticides is in the hands of the interdepartmental committee on pesticides set up by the government and reporting to the Minister of Agriculture. It is presumed the matter will be discussed in that committee.


FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN LAKE SUPERIOR EXPLOSIONS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	What is the role of the Canadian government in the series of explosions in lake Superior?
2.	What is the cost to the government of these experiments?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. Dominion observatory seismologists are participating with the U.S. government in the planning, have recorded seismic data at field stations in Canada and are actively engaged in the interpretation of results.
20220-572J
Questions
2. Cost to the Canadian government involved only field expenses of seismic crews: approximately $3,000 in 1963 and $2,000 in 1964.


APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS UNDER INQUIRIES ACT
Mr. McIntosh: Are commissioners under part I of the Inquiries Act ever appointed except by order in council?


John (Jack) Davis: In any case involving an inquiry under part I of the Inquiries Act where the inquiry is not regulated by any special law, as referred to in section 3 of the said act, an order in council is made authorizing the issue of a commission appointing the commissioner (s).


GOLD RESERVE, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	What is the percentage of the gold reserve deposited in the international monetary fund as a guarantee for the paper money or for the bank transfers made by the central banks of the countries that belong and contribute to the international monetary fund?
2.	Is this gold deposited in the vaults of the international monetary fund or are gold certificates used instead of real gold?
3.	During the past ten years, did Canada have to make certain international payments in gold in connection with its commercial trading?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. Each member of the international monetary fund pays a subscription to the fund, 25 per cent of which is in gold and 75 per cent in the currency of the country. These subscriptions make up a pool of resources which is available to be drawn on by member countries experiencing temporary balance of payments difficulties. The international monetary fund does not issue its own paper and no part of the gold subscription to the fund serves as a guarantee for the paper money or for the bank transfers made by the central banks of the member countries.
2.	The gold resources of the international monetary fund are in the form of gold bars and are held for the account of the I.M.F. in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Bank of England, the Banque de France, and the Reserve Bank of India.
3.	No.

Orders for Returns


CO-OPERATIVE CHARTERED BANK, QUEBEC
Mr. Coie (Chicoutimi): 1.	Does the government intend to amend the Bank Act in order to permit the establishment of a co-operative chartered bank with capital advanced by the caisses populaires of the province of Quebec and other similar organizations, if not, will consideration be given to such question?
2.	Has the government given consideration to the introduction of legislation which would enable caisses populaires of Quebec, while respecting the basic principles underlying their operation, to obtain, if they so desired, a co-operative bank charter implying all the privileges granted the commercial chartered banks and, if not, will consideration be given to such question?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1 and 2. These are matters of government policy which will be announced if and when legislation is introduced in the house.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Barnett: What, for each of the fiscal years commencing with 1920-21, are expenditures made by the harbours and rivers engineering branch of the Department of Public Works on the seacoast of British Columbia, compiled so as to show (a) the total (b) Vancouver harbour (c) Eraser river-New Westminster harbour (d) Victoria harbour (e) the remainder of the coast subdivided so as to show totals for (i) steamer wharves and floats including dredging and breakwater costs ancillary thereto, and (ii) fishermen's harbours including wharves, floats, dredging and breakwaters ancillary thereto?
Return tabled.


SURVEILLANCE OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In how many post office buildings have peepholes been built through which employees can be observed?
2.	In which post office buildings have peepholes been built?
3.	What instructions are given to those assigned by the Post Office Department to observe postal employees through these peepholes?
4.	Have any postal employees been charged with theft as a result of observation through the peepholes and, if so, how many, when, and where?
5.	Have postal employees been checked up for such matters as smoking or taking too long for coffee breaks as a result of being observed through the peepholes in post offices?
6.	Is information obtained by observers at post office peepholes used in making decisions as to prospective promotion for postal employees?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 168 is acceptable to the government, provided that the usual reservation concerning the agreement of the provinces is understood.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the reservation as expressed by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROVINCIAL APPLICATION FORMS FOR STUDENT LOANS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 168-Mr. Canielon:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the application form used in each of the provinces in the disbursement of the moneys under the student loans plan.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Some time ago I asked him to investigate the department's attitude toward appeals against deportation by a number of Greek seamen in Toronto. Is the minister in a position to make a report? Is he able to say that the alleged order that severe measures were to be taken against these seamen, who had jumped ship and who have now become established in Canadian life, will not be applied to them and that they will have an opportunity if otherwise qualified, to become landed immigrants in Canada?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, following the question put to me by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition some time ago, I asked the department to prepare a report on all instructions which might have been given to each of our counsel now engaged in deportation proceedings that could now be before the court. I have not yet received the report. I hope to get it soon so I can answer the question.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONSIDERATION OF ECONOMIC PRIORITIES- PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION OF UNITING PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the Acting Prime Minister. Could he tell the house whether the question of priorities among the needs of the country in the fields of education, health and welfare are to be discussed during the current conference with the provincial premiers, as has been so often advocated by Premier Roblin of Manitoba?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate that the report on the conference be given by those who are on the Canadian delegation, and they will be in a position to make their report to the house tomorrow.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. Might I suggest to the Acting Prime Minister that he put that under the item of "any other business".


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: A supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the further discussions at the conference regarding the union of at least two of the Atlantic provinces, will the government give the assurance that so far as federal responsibility is concerned the minimum constitutional safeguards of House of Commons and Senate representation will be made available to any united provinces as is now the case with individual provinces? I ask for this assurance because evidently British Columbia wishes to minimize the effect on the senatorial floor of the maritime provinces. I would ask the minister to take this question as notice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will take it as notice. It is regrettable that the question is put just as the conference is about to conclude, but there will be a report made tomorrow.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question in respect of the dominion-provincial conference. I think the minister used the word "regrettable". May I ask him what he meant by "regrettable"? Is it regrettable that the maritime provinces want this senatorial guarantee?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. It is regrettable that my hon. friend did not pose the question at a time when it might have had greater application. I do not know whether this matter has been dealt with, but I am sure the matters affecting the constitution have been fully considered. If my hon. friend had wanted to make his point clear, it seems to me the time for him to pose the question was before the conference had terminated.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that there will be a commonwealth conference next month in Britain which senior officials of each commonwealth country will attend for the purpose of discussing the formation of a commonwealth secretariat, and in view of the fact that Canada's attitude in the past has been against institutionalizing the commonwealth in any way, can the minister tell us who will be the Canadian delegate to this conference and what will be Canada's official attitude with regard to the setting up of a secretariat?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to indicate all the Canadian personnel at the conference but, as is publicly known, Mr. Arnold Smith of the Department of External Affairs, who played a very active part in the discussions at the recent prime ministers' conference as one of the officials, will be in charge of the Canadian delegation. It would be inappropriate until their deliberations have finished for me to go beyond this.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: supplementary question. Can I ask the minister whether he does not consider it important that at a conference of this nature a cabinet minister should represent Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the conference is a conference of officials. There has already been one discussion among officials representing commonwealth countries following the prime ministers' meeting, and this is another. Any final conclusion in matters of this sort, of course, can only be taken by representatives of the governments.

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



CONTINUATION OF OLDER WORKERS INCENTIVE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Can he inform the house whether the government is granting at present or intends to grant this year a $75 a month allowance to industries that will take on unemployed aged 45 and over? Are such amounts being paid at the present time and, if not, when does the minister believe that measure is to be applied?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, since this is a matter of policy with respect to the future of the older workers program, I cannot properly deal with it on orders of the day.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour.
Is the government now paying $75 to certain industries employing people 45 years of age and over who were unemployed?



INQUIRY AS TO FRENCH EDITION OF GOVERNMENT TELEPHONE DIRECTORY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Can he explain to the house why the telephone book issued by the federal government which we used to receive simultaneously in both languagies, was published last year for the year 1964, in English only in the month of June, and why we have not received as yet the French version of that telephone book from the federal government?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire into the matter and report thereon to the hon. member for Lapointe.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell the house whether his department is considering the purchase of up to 25 Buffalo aircraft from the de Havilland Corporation; and will he tell the house who the ubiquitous spokesman is who is always giving the reports to the press?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the initial stages of the Buffalo program have now been nearly completed, and I refer to the development of the aircraft on a cooperative basis by the United States army, the Department of Defence Production and the de Havilland company. A number of aircraft have been flown and are being given tests of evaluation.
It is only normal at this stage that the Department of National Defence would consider whether there is any requirement for these aircraft in respect of the roles that our forces will be asked to carry out in the future. No decision has yet been taken.
In respect of the latter part of the question, I am just as curious as my hon. friend.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the statements in the press about the allegations, claims, possibilities or probabilities with regard to changes in the national defence policy, regarding airplane purchases, could I ask the minister whether, if no decision has been made as yet, he will consider discussing this matter with the house and the defence committee before a decision is reached?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the requirements are set out in the white paper in general terms. I am not sure whether the committee had an opportunity to discuss these matters at their previous sittings, but I would think the department has to accept its responsibility for the administration of the policy which has been laid down by the government and accepted by the committee in making selections which it can recommend to the House of Commons.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is it then the position of the minister that a decision of his department is in fact a fait accompli, and cannot be considered by the defence committee?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I would not put it exactly that way, but in respect of the selection of individual items of equipment this is clearly an administrative responsibility of the department which cannot be delegated to a parliamentary committee; because under the constitution the minister has a responsibility to make recommendations to the government, and the government has a responsibility to make recommendations to parliament. When decisions are taken they are referred to the House of Commons in the form of requests for appropriations for the purchase of those particular equipment items. The decision is then subject to discussion in respect of the merits of the items as related to the merits of other available items. This is a very good system which provides ample opportunity for discussion by hon. members who are directly concerned.



INQUIRY AS TO DISBANDMENT OF SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN REGIMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister say whether he has had representations from interested bodies in the province of Saskatchewan requesting the retention of the South Saskatchewan regiment; and have he or his officials come to a conclusion as to the future status of this famous regiment?


Mr. Speaker:: It does seem to me this is a proper question for the order paper.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Is the Post Office Department contemplating any action against the national states rights party in connection with the recent and current distribution of racist hate literature in the Toronto area?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of this question.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In recent months, as most members of the house well know, my attention has been drawn to the hate literature issued by certain organizations in the United States which was being distributed through Canadian mails. After examination of some of the material,
I determined that it was scurrilous to such a degree that I issued interim prohibitory orders under section 7 of the Post Office Act against two organizations. One was issued in July against the national white Americans party, post office box 2013, Atlanta, Georgia. The second prohibitory order was issued on September 29 against the national states rights party, post office box 783, Birmingham, Alabama.
Both the individuals and the organizations concerned were informed that they had a right to request a board of review. There was no request in the case of the national white Americans party for a board of review and the order became final. However, I am sure every hon. member will recall a 19 year old youth, named Stanley, who was involved in the earlier stages of this matter and who was connected at the time with the national white Americans party. I did receive over the week end a communication from this same youth, Stanley, now approximately 20 years of age, asking for a board of review on behalf of the national states rights party. That would indicate that these two groups are obviously the same people.
They have requested a board of review under section 7 of the act. That request will be granted. They will be given an opportunity to put forward their case, and the Post Office Department and others concerned will be given the opportunity of questioning them as to their objectives and what is behind their activities.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General. Where are these boards of review held, and are they open to the public?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The boards of review are held here in Ottawa, although we have not had any in respect of hate literature. The people concerned did not act in time in respect of the first prohibitory order. There have been two boards of review held in respect of other matters with public hearings here in Ottawa. I cannot answer the hon. gentleman as to whether they are open to the public, but I will inquire and let him know.
9042	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL VISIT



LACK OF TRANSPORTATION FOR PREMIERS TO ATTEND DEPARTURE CEREMONIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State, asking him why official transportation was not provided for the provincial premiers who wished to attend the departure ceremonies at Uplands airport on Tuesday morning, and why in one or two instances when it was requested this courtesy was refused.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I wish this question to be put on the order paper.


Stuart A. Fleming: Do
you want them out of town first?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Forestry?
It follows from the statement made last night by the minister on television to the effect that the federal government will soon announce a comprehensive program designed to improve the standard of living of eastern farmers.
Could the minister tell us when this program will be announced and whether it will take into account the suggestions made by members of the opposition to establish a national dairy control board and a minimum price of $3.50 per hundredweight for industrial milk?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the first part of the question asked by the hon. member deals with a comment made by the announcer and not with a statement I made.
Indeed, yesterday I addressed the co-operative milling trade of the province of Quebec, which had gathered under the auspices of the federated co-operative. I spoke before those representatives of the agricultural sector and I stressed the necessity for cooperation between the provincial governments and the federal government so as to improve living conditions in rural centres and particularly in the agricultural field.


I raised many problems, but I did not announce any policy, and if my hon. friend would only read the text of my speech-


Mr. Vincenf:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask an
additional question?
Does this mean that the present government has no legislative program to announce within a few days, a few weeks or a few months, to raise the standard of living of farmers in the eastern provinces?


Maurice Sauvé: My remarks had nothing to do with the legislative program of the government.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compfon-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I will put it to his representative.
Is the minister aware that the Canadian Pacific intends to reduce by 50 per cent its schedules in various regions of the province of Quebec and, among others, cancel the run known as 202 and 203 between Lac Megantic and Montreal which is most useful to Megantic citizens?
Is the minister not aware that such an arbitrary decision cannot be taken without consulting the parties concerned, that is the people involved? Could the minister intervene to prevent or delay the implementation of that decision before October 25, 1964?


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



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he will be in a position to introduce the legislation concerning the Indian claims commission at an early date, in view of the uncertain position in which the Indian people of Canada find themselves with regard to their treaty rights.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, as I have already mentioned in this house, the large number of recommendations received from the Indians regarding amendments to this bill are under consideration and I hope we may shortly be in a position to submit to the house the bill as amended.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that Her Majesty the Queen flew back to England in a newly marked Air Canada plane, can he tell the house when all the other planes of T.C.A.-


Some hon. Members:: Air Canada.


Léon Balcer: -will be marked as they should be as well as all stationery, tickets and other necessary gadgets?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraifh (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to provide that information.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[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 Labour. Has he been in communication with the board of maritime trustees lately, and can he indicate to the house the approximate time when the board will be appearing before the industrial relations committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have been in communication with the chairman of the board within the past week. At present the government has under consideration the appropriate reference to the industrial relations committee that might make it possible for that committee to meet with the chairman of the board.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the minister's statement respecting the preparation of a satisfactory reference to the committee, will he give consideration
Inquiries of the Ministry to the terms of reference being made broad enough for the committee to invite other witnesses who may wish to appear before it to give any interesting evidence?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider that suggestion.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General in his capacity as the minister who reports for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In view of the fact that under the policy of the government time is now running out for many veterans in the Fraserview project, has the minister given further consideration to the possibility of delaying any evictions to enable the veterans committee of the House of Commons to make a thorough investigation of the matter and report to the house?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered a similar question within the last week. Out of roughly 1,150 houses, satisfactory arrangements have been made either by sale or lease for well over 1,100. There are approximately 50 people left. They can be dealt with on an individual basis, and if necessary I am prepared to do so on that basis. I see no reason for further delay in view of the long delay that has already taken place.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to challenge the minister's figures, although I might be in a position to do so. Will the minister agree that there will be no evictions until each individual has had the opportunity of discussing the matter with his officials?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I gave such an assurance a week ago, and encouraged any one who had representations to make to come forward and make them. I said they could be dealt with either by the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or that these people could deal directly with me if they preferred to do so. I said I would do so at the request of an individual tenant or at the request of a member of the house or any other friend or amicus who wished to intervene.


Harold Edward Winch: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Because this project is in the city of Vancouver and the matter is of

Labour Conditions
major importance, would the minister be prepared to meet with these people in Vancouver as a group, and not individually, at his early convenience? Will the minister answer that question?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think these cases will have to be dealt with now on an individual basis. I would be prepared to meet with them individually rather than as a group.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask why you will not meet them collectively?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen for the second reading of Bill No. C-126, respecting hours of work, minimum wages, annual vacations and holidays with pay in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes prior to the house rising last night I had been speaking about the new Canada labour standards code introduced by the minister yesterday. The essence of my introductory remarks at that time was by way of complimenting the government and the minister for bringing forward this type of progressive legislation which is badly needed. I referred also by way of introduction to the main elements of the bill. Provision is made for a minimum wage of $1.25 per hour, to limit the number of working hours per day to eight and the number of working days per week to five, the total number of hours in a working week to 40. Provision is made also for overtime pay over that number of hours per week to the total of eight. Seven statutory holidays have been provided, and if work is performed on those days provision is made for overtime pay. The only remaining feature of the bill with respect to standards is the provision with respect to two weeks vacation for each year of employment with pay, or in lieu thereof 4 per cent of his wages if he has not worked for a total of one year.
These standards are generally in line with all the presentations that have been made to this government, and are in line with our commitments. I think that in the discussion that ensued yesterday with regard to this bill, the two general features of the bill could have been dealt with in greater detail. The two

general features, as I see them, are the elements relating to the minimal nature of the standards and the scope of the bill in its application to the number of people under federal jurisdiction, and the constitutional jurisdiction that has been assumed by this legislation. There were several references yesterday by hon. members to this measure as setting a standard. I feel it would be more accurate to say that the bill sets a minimum standard in relation to the five elements I mentioned earlier. In this way it is designed to be example setting legislation for other jurisdictions in our country.
The second, and what I consider to be the more novel, general feature of this bill is the number of people in Canada under federal jurisdiction to whom it applies in the labour field. As we all know, under the British North America Act our legislative scope in this area is severely limited. When we look at other labour legislation dealing with standards -and I am not talking now about legislation dealing with labour relations-we see that the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act applies essentially to employees who work for a contractor who has a federal contract and the federal government is of course, one of the principal contracting parties to that arrangement. This act does not affect directly federal employees of crown corporations or employees of the federal government, nor employees in industries, private or otherwise, falling under federal jurisdiction so it is quite limited in its scope. The only other type of legislation that I believe is noteworthy in the federal area which deals with standards is the Annual Vacations Act, and I understand that it affects only federal employees directly. However, I believe that particular measure does not have the scope of this particular bill, because the bill we have before us applies to national industries whether they be privately owned or otherwise, falling under federal jurisdiction as outlined in clause 3, the application clause of the bill. The industries, businesses or firms affected, generally fall under the headings to which the minister referred yesterday, namely transport, communications, banking, uranium mining, grain elevators and certain works carried on by federal government corporations. I believe, by way of example, reference could be made to Polymer, the Canadian National, C.B.C., the national film board and so on. When we look at this bill and understand the application of the section applies to private industries within federal jurisdiction, we can see that the scope of this measure is as wide indeed as the federal

government can really hope to design it in the labour standards field, and at the same time remain within the jurisdiction allocated to it under our constitution. I believe it is particularly commendable that the bill relates to this wide area so tar as the number of employees affected is concerned.
I have made inquiries over a period of time as to how many employees would be affected by this legislation, as well as other private members bills dealing with the same area. The number of employees to whom this legislation refers run anywhere from 400,000 to 500,000. Of that total number, the closest estimate I have been able to obtain of the number of people who will directly benefit from the legislation, is 50,000. In other words, these are people who are working under conditions which are below the level set out in this bill. I think we can say that this legislation, as example setting legislation in the federal field, does at the same time embrace quite a number of people who are going to benefit substantially from it. It is a good exercise indeed to multiply some of these figures. If the measure affects roughly 400,000 to 500,000 people who come within the jurisdiction claimed by the bill, and you multiply that by 3.9, which is the average family according to the last census, we can see that the measure will affect a great number of Canadians. Certainly if you say that roughly 50,000 people are going to benefit directly and substantially by the implementation of this legislation, and you multiply that figure by 3.9, then I think one is justified in saying that the bill is commendable for the really tangible assistance it is going to provide for many people now working within federal jurisdiction.
Another aspect of the legislation in connection with jurisdiction, I think, is the constitutional jurisdiction claimed by the legislation. From a reading of clause 3 of the bill we can see that it includes all those areas that fall within federal jurisdiction, so I do not believe it could be wider in scope. There are certain main words which I feel should be emphasized in connection with the application clause for this measure. They are:
This act applies to and in respect of employees who are employed upon or in connection with the operation of any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada excluding any work, undertaking or business of a local or private nature in the Yukon territory or Northwest Territories-
Then, the clause gives a list of undertakings included, but without restricting the
Labour Conditions
generality of the foregoing statement. I do not believe I have seen any federal legislation which has claimed any wider jurisdiction in relation to the labour field. I think it is particularly commendable on that score. I would hope that this measure takes into account an element put forward in the private bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Bill No. C-36, in clause 2 of which "employer" was defined as
-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-
And the definition continues in considerable more detail. The words I am interested in are "contractor" and "subcontractor", and I would hope that clause 3 of the minister's bill will take into account many employees working under contract or, if you like, under subcontract. I hope the minister and his department will arrange to enforce this legislation with respect to all such contractors and subcontractors.
One excellent case, commonly known as the stevedoring case, which went to the supreme court in 1955, dealt with this matter. It involved a section in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which claimed just about equivalent jurisdiction as does this bill, although in that particular case the legislation did not in the true sense deal with labour standards but rather with procedures in labour relations.
In that case the application of a particular section of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act came before the supreme court, and the question involved certain employees of the Eastern Canadian Stevedoring Company in Toronto. The court held that the act applied to the company's employees in Toronto, employment of stevedores being an essential part of navigation or shipping, which are specific items covered in this bill. I believe that type of decision certainly would embrace contractors and subcontractors whose work can be regarded as an essential part of any work or operation that falls within federal jurisdiction.
We all know that at various times this business of contracting and subcontracting has been used as a device to defeat government labour legislation, but I hope the wording in this bill is such that it will limit that type of activity to an absolute minimum.
Another matter connected with this bill that should be emphasized, and to which I referred last night, is the tangible effects it


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the hon. member permit a question? I wonder whether in his compilation of figures he has taken into account the incidence of double employment. Has he taken into account how many of those employed at the lower levels of wages, especially, actually occupy two jobs?


John Carr Munro: I can only answer the hon. gentleman by saying that these figures come from the dominion bureau of statistics and were accumulated during the last census in 1961. Many questions were asked when that

census was taken with respect to incomes earned. I would think Canadian employees holding two jobs would have made the position clear.
For these reasons I think legislation of the type before us is particularly helpful. I think the present bill falls within the general design of the legislation which was brought forward by the previous government and the legislation which this house has adopted during the past year. I hope this labour standards legislation will be regarded as another phase of governmental attack on poverty. I hope that all the programs which have been initiated by the previous government together with those which have been put into effect over the last year will be co-ordinated so as to combat poverty more effectively. If this is done I think we can regard the measure before us as being truly a step forward.
In this connection I should like to read into the record one excerpt from the minister's speech-the speech to which I referred on January 24, 1964. It is as follows:
It may be that to break the vicious circle in which they-the poor-find themselves we shall have to launch a frontal assault on the problem not only by a measure of integration of our present federal programs with these problems in mind but also by working more closely together with the provinces.
This is the pattern which has been followed in the United States.
There is another aspect of this legislation with which I should like to deal. It has to do with the political justifications of the standards set out in this bill. In this connection I would refer hon. members to the last memorandum presented by the Canadian Labour Congress to the government of Canada-a memorandum dated December 11, 1963. This is what the congress had to say with reference to labour standards:
We have on previous occasions advocated a minimum wage act providing for $1.25 an hour and an hours of work act establishing 40 hours a week as a maximum, and amendments to the Vacations With Pay Act.
Then the brief goes on to deal with other matters. I think it can be said that the legislation before us is on all fours with that particular recommendation, one which came from the principal labour organization of this country. For this reason I believe the standards set out in the present bill will commend themselves to hon. members. I would point out, too, that the provisions in this bill measure up to the standards advocated in various private members' bills which have already been discussed in this
Labour Conditions
house or which, though before us, have not yet been discussed because an opportunity has not arisen. I refer principally to the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). His Bill No. C-36 recommends in essence the same standards as are contained here, except that the statutory holidays for which he asks amount to eight compared with the seven set out in the bill before us. The hon. member is requesting a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour as of February 20, 1964. There is further justification for the standards embodied in this legislation on the basis of the commitments of this party during two election campaigns. These commitments have been included in the Liberal party leaflets. We gave firm pledges that these standards would be incorporated in legislation and brought before parliament, and the standards contained in this bill are in line with the commitments this party made to the Canadian people prior to the elections of 1962 and 1963.


Mr. Knowles:: And in 1919.


John Carr Munro: That is going too far back for me.
I think the situation tcTday certainly justifies the passing of this legislation, taking it in the context of the amount of discussion there has been on the question of poverty in this country and the revelations with regard to it.


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


John Carr Munro: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of his reference to the minimum standards set in the present bill and his statement that they are similar to those for which such bodies as the Canadian Labour Congress have asked, can the hon. member tell us whether he is aware that at its convention in April this year the Canadian Labour Congress altered its previous request to the government and asked that the minimum wage standard be raised to $1.50 an hour and that there should be nine statutory holidays?


John Carr Munro: Yes, I am aware that such a resolution was passed by the C.L.C. at its last annual meeting. But I limited my own remarks to the recommendation of the congress as embodied in its last submission to the government. I believe these submissions are made every year-

Labour Conditions


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member said last night he wanted to be up to date, that he did not want to talk about the past.


John Carr Munro: I am only going back to December 11, 1963, yet the hon. member is complaining. He should understand, then, how I feel when he goes back to 1919.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know how you feel.


John Carr Munro: I think it can properly be said that the standards contained in this bill come within the area of those which have been advocated by many organizations during the last few months. I assume that the submission of the Canadian Labour Congress as to the $1.50 an hour will shortly be incorporated in some formal submission, probably as part of the next memorandum.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was most complimentary with respect to action taken by the government to establish $1.25 an hour as the minimum wage and I take it, therefore, that neither he nor the congress are too critical of the standards set by this legislation. In this regard I think the C.L.C. did issue a statement indicating support of the provisions of this bill only a few weeks ago. However, it did refer to the fact that the amount requested was recently increased from $1.25 to $1.50. I might also point out that unless I am badly misinformed the last private bill which dealt with this matter was the hon. member's own bill of February 20, 1964; I do not believe he has submitted a further private bill to provide for this increase. I might add that this bill was dated February 20, 1964, so I am only going back a few months-not to 1919.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the hon. member's desire to be up to date, does he not recall that during the debate on the bill he mentioned I pointed out that the C.L.C. had since recommended a minimum wage of $1.50 and that I suggested that when the bill got into committee the alteration should be made accordingly? All I want from the hon. member is that he should be up to date.


John Carr Munro: I am only surprised the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has not found time to put in the hopper a bill advocating this $1.50.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you challenging me?


John Carr Munro: Not necessarily. I think it can be said for all these reasons that this legislation commends itself as far as the standards are concerned. It is also in conformity with

this party's own political commitments made at the time, which were in essence I believe the same as those of the New Democratic party prior to the last two general elections, namely $1.25 minimum wage. For that reason there can be little question of the standards involved.
As I said earlier, and as I say again in conclusion, I hope this legislation will fall within the general design or area of governmental legislation which has been passed and is anticipated in the future. If this is regarded as a further step in an over-all program, and if we carry forward now and combine the various government agencies to fight unemployment and lift the income of the lowest income groups in the country-and this can best be done by combining all the government agencies-I say again that this would go a long way. I think the bill is also in keeping with the general design of the government in matters affecting training of the unemployed or making grants to industry for training people already employed in industry.
I say this because education, as has been emphasized, is a very important part of coping with poverty. I think it is in keeping with the governmental program regarding re-employment of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is used to talking these bills out.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two very brief observations to make with respect to this bill. I am not going to hold up the house in what I have to say more than a few minutes. As hon. members know I am always brief and to the point when I speak on matters of this nature. However, I cannot help observing that I listened for about ten minutes to the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) drawing this gloomy picture of poverty in Canada, a habit hon. members opposite acquired while on this side of the house, and yet I reflect on what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) had to say a week ago about Canadians never having had it so good. It seems to me that these two statements do not tie together very well. I was speaking to a chap the other day who said that he had not had a job since the Liberals came to power. He said to me that the Minister of Finance had said in the House of Commons that we had never had it so good in Canada, that

the economy is really rolling; and yet this fellow has not had a job since the Liberals came into office. He said: "Yes the Minister of Finance is right; I have never had an easier or nicer time in all my life. I had been employed all my life until two years ago, but have been unemployed for the last two years. Yes, the Minister of Finance is right".


Mr. Gray:: Would the hon. member permit a question. Is the person to whom he is referring a defeated Tory candidate?


Erik Nielsen: No; as a matter of fact he is a Liberal living in Ontario. However I want to direct a serious observation to the minister with respect to the application of this act.
The minister will have noted-I did raise this question with him privately-that the Yukon and Northwest Territories are specifically singled out as exceptions to the application of this act. I cannot for the life of me think of any reason for this. Like the provinces the Yukon-and I can speak knowledgeably of the Yukon in this specific instance-has an act, the Yukon Act, under section 16 of which the legislative council of the Yukon has exclusive jurisdiction over the same class of subject matter as do the provinces. Labour is one of them, it being a matter of a local or private nature. I am wondering why these two territories have been singled out as exceptions. I hope the minister will reply before we get into committee because it may be that an error has been made and that an amendment will be necessary to eliminate the exceptions which have been made of the two territories.
The labour provisions ordinance governs working conditions and hours of work in the Yukon territory. That ordinance was passed pursuant to the exclusive legislative jurisdictional authority which has been placed in the Yukon legislative council by the federal Yukon Act. I believe the situation is the same in the Northwest Territories, but my colleague from the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) will be able to enlarge upon that.
May I say to the minister that clause 3 is one more indication why it becomes essential for federal-provincial conferences, where such matters are discussed, to include members who are familiar with the affairs in each of these territories to act at least as observers so that they can be asked questions first hand. My colleague from the Northwest Territories has on several occasions, as I have myself, advocated that when these conferences are held there should be represen-
Ldbour Conditions
tation on them, either by way of observers or otherwise, from the two territories. This sort of thing would be remedied if that first hand advice could be sought.
I imagine that when the minister speaks later on he will be giving the house some explanation as to how he expects this legislation to tie in with existing legislation in the provinces and the territories. Under the labour provisions ordinance in the Yukon, for instance, the minimum work week is 44 hours, except in the case of miners, who are required to work 48 hours a week.
I believe this legislation is desirable. We have been waiting a long time for this type of thing. It can do nothing but benefit the workers in my riding, and I am sure the workers right throughout Canada. The quicker the legislation is on the statute books, the better we will all be for it. With the request to the minister, then, that in closing the debate he answer the specific question I put to him with regard to clause 3, so that if there is need for an amendment I might discuss it with him perhaps privately and be helpful in suggesting a method of procedure, I have no further comments to make.


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafoniaine):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to join with the hon. members for Ontario (Mr. Starr), Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), Lapointe (Mr. Gre-goire), Hamilton (Mr. Munro), Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and others, to congratulate the Minister of Labour for the courage and tenacity he has shown in preparing and presenting the piece of legislating dealing with hours of work, minimum wages, paid annual leave and holidays for federal projects, enterprises and businesses, in brief, a Canadian code of working standards which has long been awaited.
Mr. Speaker, a nation which has the courage to adopt progressive labour legislation shows that it is mature and this constitutes an excellent example for many other countries in the world.
I have no trouble reconciling my remarks today with respect to the legislation under consideration with the personal views I expressed on March 6 and June 12 last, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre introduced bills dealing with related questions.
I cannot let this opportunity go by without saying that I have no difficulty at all in doing so because, last October 7, the press gallery correspondent of a certain Montreal

Labour Conditions
newspaper, Montreal-Matin, wrote that I would have trouble reconciling my present attitude with my statements of March 6 and June 12, 1964.
It is an article entitled:
A Liberal member talks too much.
In that article we read the following:
He opposed measures which are advocated at the present time by his party.
Mr. Speaker, if a member speaks too much in this house, I wonder if a parliamentary correspondent does not write too much.
I also wonder why this parliamentary correspondent, who can obtain all copies of Hansard and of speeches delivered in this house, waited until the month of October to write his article and say that on March 6 and June 12, 1964, the member for Lafontaine stated this and that.
The first time, that is on March 6, 1964, the house was considering a bill providing for two weeks vacation after one year of employment. On June 12, 1964, the bill provided for a minimum wage rate of $1.25 per hour.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the press gallery correspondent could come to such conclusions, especially if he took the trouble to read what I had said. I suppose he did not have enough time, because he could easily have realized that I supported the labour standards mentioned in the legislation now before us. It may be that he is preparing his campaign for the next election. I suppose it is his privilege, but I do not think the people of Lafontaine riding or the rest of the country could fall for such publicity.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I would not have raised the matter if it were not for the fact that, in the past, I had the opportunity to deal with the labour class, with the leaders of labour movements. I must admit' that I had not read the article referred to because I very seldom read that newspaper. However, several people got in touch with me to ask how the hon. member for Lafontaine could be against the labour standards proposed in this legislation.
I immediately made a point of checking with the heads of that paper and I have in my mind the article entitled: "A Liberal member talks too much".
I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that I see no difficulty in reconciling th remarks I made on March 6 and June 12 with those I wish to make now concerning the legislation introduced by the Minister of Labour.

However, here is what that article said:
Wages-same support, on June 12, 1964, to a minimum wage of $1.25 per hour but with the following reservations: "If the minimum of $1.25 is extended to all regions, there would be reasons to believe that there will be more benefits for industries located away from larger cities.
Mr. Speaker, the press gallery correspondent certainly did not check page 4278 of Hansard for June 12, 1964, because he did not say so in his report. But if one refers to my remarks, one can read this:
Far be it from me to be against a minimum rate of $1.25 but we must face the facts, and those are problems which must be discussed and examined thoroughly before setting up legislation for that purpose.
One can certainly not say that I am against the setting up of a minimum wage.
And a little farther I said:
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre introduced a bill suggesting a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour. In a year or two, it might have to be increased to $1.50.
If the press gallery correspondent for the newspaper Montreal-Matin did not refer in his report dated October 7 to the paragraphs I just quoted, I insist on reminding him of the speech I made on June 12, 1964 and on asking him to add the two paragraphs I read to the report he published on Wednesday, October 7.
The press gallery correspondent was once active in politics, and perhaps he is preparing his next election campaign. That is why I wanted to clear up those points.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the people in Lafontaine county and those of labour circles did not believe that report, because according to another important and popular newspaper in Montreal, the report may have seemed biased, for it does not speak the whole truth.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see this bill before us today. I hope that it will have an early implementation and that it is the forerunner of other labour standards. In my opinion, it is a shy attempt, but often a shy beginning leads to a better ending.
I think that other labour standards will be considered by parliament, and I shall have, no doubt, the opportunity to discuss the matter further in committee of the whole.


Mr. Mather:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am wondering whether there is a quorum in the house at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, I believe there is a quorum in the house.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to take a moment or two to echo the dismay of my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in relation to the bill before us which specifically excludes the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territories from its provisions. I rise not only because these areas are excluded, but because it seems to me to be a sad state of affairs when, in the introduction of legislation of this kind, the minister does not even refer, in passing, to those two northern areas of our country, which for some reason or another known only to the minister were not included. I am not quarrelling with the minister, but it does raise this question in my mind. Why in the world would the minister not want the legislation to apply to those two areas of the country where more than in any other areas of Canada there are federal operations and large numbers of undertakings being carried out by the federal government?
I do not want to rub it in, but when the minister was having his conference with the provincial labour ministers early this year I raised the question with him. As can be found on page 134 of Hansard I asked him if it would be possible to have representatives of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory sit in on these meetings and the minister promised me at the time that he would look into the matter. I know he was very busy but he said he would look into it and give the house an answer. For some reason or other the conference was suddenly upon us and he either could not or did not make a decision to allow spokesmen from these two territories to participate in the discussions. It makes me ask this question: Who in the world was it that gave the minister his advice? Was the advice, such as it was, checked against the opinion of residents of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories? Was any contact made by the minister with the councils of the Yukon and Northwest Territories to find out if there was any way in which the legislation could be changed or revised to aid and abet those of us who live in the north, in our efforts to get suitable labour legislation? I know for a fact that the minister never discussed any of the provisions with me and I am certain he never let the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) know what his intentions were.
On many occasions in the house I have pointed out to the minister the need for a careful study of the whole question of labour legislation in our northerly areas. I have also
Labour Conditions
raised many other problems with him that I felt his departmental officials should be investigating. If he had deigned to take my advice or had even looked into my suggestions he would have found that useful research needs to be done. In his comments last night the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) noted this shortcoming. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, between the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) protecting my rivers in the north from exploitation and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre protecting my people, there is not a half decent cause left for me to champion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We know you are a worthwhile fellow to support.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I would hope the minister would not only give us an explanation on this occasion, but would keep the matter in the back of his head.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Get it to the front of his head.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Well, there is lots of room in the minister's head. At any rate, I would hope that this kind of oversight does not occur again. As a member of this house it is a continual source of dismay to me that every time a piece of legislation comes before the house or an announcement is made there is no mention of the northerly areas. I am not too thin-skinned, but I feel the time has come when those who sit on the treasury benches are going to have to remember that there is a large piece of Canada that does not readily fall into the sphere of federal-provincial relations. They have got to consider these matters, and I can guarantee that on every occasion from now on that members of the treasury benches fail to refer to these two territories they can be sure that the hon. member for Yukon and myself will be up on our feet bugging the treasury benches until we get some recognition.


Erik Nielsen: They are already bugged.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I am convinced that somewhere in the federal bureaucracy there is a minor and evil bureaucrat whose sole job it is to go through proposed pieces of legislation to make sure that all good programs such as unemployment insurance, ARDA and so on contain within their provisions no reference to Indians, minority groups and the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
I was fascinated by the statement of the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) that there is a recognition today that mil-

Labour Conditions
lions of Canadians are not affluent and, indeed, that millions are in poverty. I suspect that the government has picked up this technique from our friends south of the border, where a massive campaign is being based on unexcelled prosperity on the one hand and on a war on poverty on the other hand. In any event, I am happy there is a realization that some parts of our country are having a pretty tough time and that this kind of legislation Is needed.
I believe I have made the point that those of us who live in the northerly areas are tired of being excluded from the provisions of good programs. It should not be up to me to do it but at some point I can see the member from the Northwest Territories rising in his place during the committee stage to move an amendment that the title of the bill be changed to "southern Canada labour standards code". We are going to have to consider this sort of thing if no reference is made to the territories.
When the minister rises to close the debate I hope he will explain his thinking whereby the two northerly territories are excluded. Furthermore, I hope he will indicate whether or not he is prepared to put forward some kind of suitable amendment when this good legislation is being considered in committee, because I believe there should be some way of working out a mutually acceptable amendment to include the two northerly areas of our country.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to get into this debate and speak on this measure because I do not believe any legislation has come before the house that is of greater general interest to my constituents than the bill now before us. It deals with hours of work, with vacations with pay, with minimum wages, the sort of things that concern people that I for one was sent here to represent. Therefore, although I perhaps have nothing very original to add to what has been said already, I want to enter the debate.
I do not want to detract from the chorus of congratulations in which the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) has been basking since he introduced this bill. I think it is good legislation and I join with other members in all corners of the house in welcoming it. I do not disagree with the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) who pointed out that with certain exceptions which have already been noted the legislation goes as far as the constitutional structure of this country permits at the present time. We have already heard about the exceptions, of course, in
[Mr. Rheaume.l
respect of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories and I will not repeat what has been said on that matter.
I notice that for some reason which is not clear to me-perhaps we can discuss it in detail later-members of professions will not get the benefit of this legislation. As I am a member of a profession may I say that if I were employed by a federal agency I would very much like to be included in the legislation. I should like to ask the minister why members of professions are excluded.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You will have to resign as a member if you want to come down to these hours.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think lawyers ought to get $1.25 an hour too.


Francis Andrew Brewin: In the case of members of professions, it really was not the wage rate that concerned me so much, but rather vacations with pay which seem to be strangely lacking for some of us in this part of the world at any rate.
Having said that I welcome this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I think it only proper to point out that this is not a national labour code in that it only covers-I am not blaming the minister or the government for this-approximately half a million employees at the present time. It is true that they are in important industries under federal jurisdiction. However there are over five million people gainfully employed in Canada, and the result of this is that the present legislation deals with only one tenth of all those gainfully employed in Canada.
I realize, and I want to deal with this for a moment, that the reason for this is that our constitutional structure brings the question of minimum standards for labour largely within the field of provincial jurisdiction. I want to urge the government, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) in particular, not to be satisfied with the maintenance of this situation, not to be satisfied with saying that we in the federal field are setting an example which we hope will be followed by others. In my view, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that in Canada we establish certain minimum standards of labour legislation across Canada as a whole. Of course there are fields which are properly within the provincial sphere, and there always will be in Canada.
The last time any careful survey was made, so far as I know, of the respective fields of labour legislation by anyone looking at the total picture of jurisdiction was at the time

of the Sirois report which, as hon. members will know, was made shortly before the last war. The problem of course was temporarily removed by reason of what happened during the last war, and the fact that federal jurisdiction was expanded. However, we are back again in a situation where we do not have reasonably uniform standards. I point out what was said by Professor Grauer in a brochure he prepared on labour legislation for the Sirois commission. He said:
First, there is a marked lack of uniformity in legislation as between the provinces.
He then went on to deal, and I shall not quote him in detail, with the failure to implement international conventions. This was mentioned in the house a day or two ago. Then he dealt with the fact there is no adequate technique worked out for co-operation in bringing about more uniform standards of labour legislation. Then, Mr. Speaker, he went on to say this:
The lack of uniformity of labour legislation as between provinces has serious implications for internal policy. In the first place, it has to some extent encouraged competitive bidding between provinces for industries at the expense of labour standards. Where industries with poor standards have been encouraged, sore spots in labour relations and social conditions have been created. Once established, these sore spots are very difficult to get rid of.
The hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) spoke about poverty in this country, and it is in these sore spots to which he referred.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Finance says there are none.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not happen to agree with him. This article goes on to say:
In addition, as long as competitive bidding for industry is allowed by labour legislation, there will be bad feeling among workers and bad feeling between provinces. In the second place, lack of uniformity in labour legislation is in itself a condition that prevents adequate and more uniform standards being set.
It creates difficulties in the way of enforcement and leaves the way open for undesirable economic and financial results, because they encourage or allow industries with poor standards. Now, in order to deal with this problem, Professor Grauer referred to various remedies, one of which I do not think we would accept now. I refer to his suggestion to turn over to the dominion parliament jurisdiction in the whole field. Another method he suggested was concurrent powers, with the dominion being granted the right to implement international
Labour Conditions
conventions and so set minimum standards while the provinces retained residual powers with a right to enact higher standards. The third one he suggested was to leave the jurisdiction as at present and work out some mechanism for consultation and action in setting standards.
His recommendations were adopted by the full commission, which ended this chapter of its report dealing with labour legislation as follows:
In order to protect the principle of freedom of trade between provinces and to facilitate the handling of relief for employables by the dominion, the dominion parliament should have jurisdiction to establish basic minimum wages and maximum hours of labour, and to fix the age of employment, leaving to any province jurisdiction to raise minimum wages, lower hours of labour, or raise the age of employment if it so desires. But, as noted previously, the powers of parliament should be precisely defined in order to protect the autonomy of the provinces.
The minister may well say that this is a matter to be taken up perhaps with his colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) when constitutional issues are being discussed. However, I suggest we will not have satisfactory conditions within Canada as a whole until we accept the principle that, at least in basic industries in which employers and trade unions are national in scope, these standards shall be national in scope as well. Whether this can be done by delegation from the provinces to the federal government, whether by constitutional amendment, whether by closer working together of the provinces, it seems to me that is urgently needed.
Just a few days ago the Ottawa Journal produced a list of the existing provincial minimum wage rates. They make talk of a uniform standard of living in Canada rather ridiculous. In British Columbia the rate is $1 per hour. Of course in each of these cases there are certain exceptions. In Alberta, it is $34 per week for centres of 5,000 population or over and $30 per week for centres under 5,000 population. In Saskatchewan it is $36.50 per week for ten cities. In Manitoba, it is 75 cents an hour in the cities and 70 cents an hour elsewhere. Ontario started with $1 per hour in industrial areas and is moving toward making that general. In the Montreal area of Quebec it is 70 cents an hour and elsewhere 64 cents an hour. The notation for Prince Edward Island is $1 per hour for men, and then there is a note which I do not understand, "less 80 cents in the food processing plants". If this is correct it would give food processing plants a very

Labour Conditions
low minimum. The rate for women laundry workers only is 55 cents an hour. In Nova Scotia it is $21.60 per week in major centres. I understand there are hearings at the present time with a view to establishing a new rate. In New Brunswick, the rate is 60 cents per hour.
These minimum rates present a hodgepodge picture across Canada which, as I say, in the long run creates depressed areas. This creates the situation mentioned by Professor Grauer of competition between industries in the various provinces. I hope that while we have now or we will soon have a Canada labour standards code, the minister and the government, and this parliament as a whole, will try to see to it that we do really expand the field where uniform standards can be established across Canada. This would not prevent provincial autonomy in connection with improving standards; it would not take away responsibility for safety precautions; it would not take administrative responsibility away from the provinces, but it would establish certain basic standards which I suggest would help to deal with the pockets of poverty to which the hon. member for Hamilton East referred a few minutes ago.
I do not want to repeat what has been said by other hon. members. However, there is one feature of this legislation I wish to mention, and that is the question of vacations with pay for people who have been employed for a considerable period. This is something to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred.
The bill falls short of the standard proposed by the Canadian Labour Congress, and in my view falls short of a reasonable standard. Why shouldn't employees who have been employed for a considerable period-I do not intend to stipulate a period but I would like to see it a short period-receive three weeks vacation with pay in this day and age of automation? I know as a professional man that I started getting three weeks vacation with pay after one year in the office in which I worked, and I cannot understand why those who spent a long period in industry-after 30, 20, or ten years of steady employment-should have their vacations cut short.
It has always been demonstrated that reasonably long vacations produce better workers and add to the productivity of industry. In this age of automation, when experts talk about the fact that they will have to pay us for not working, it seems ridiculous that we should be laying down a standard for Canada

that does not recognize a minimum of at least three weeks vacation with pay for those who have been in steady employment in industry.
Many of the other things I would like to say can be said more appropriately at committee stage. There are various details we intend to discuss, but one matter I would like to mention now is the question of the regulations, because the success of so much of this bill will depend on the regulations. Much will depend on the exemptions which may be granted by the regulations, or upon the deferments that may be granted by them, and I urge the minister to make the details of the regulations available to the house as soon as possible. I know there are provisions for some of the regulations to appear in the Canada Gazette, but any hon. member who has tried to find things from the Canada Gazette knows how inadequate a means of publicity it is.
Under clause 51 there is provision that upon the submission "of any person" the minister may defer or exclude the application of part I of the bill, dealing with hours of work, etc. I am not suggesting this is not entirely necessary, but I am wondering why it would not be possible to ensure, by some specific provision, that before this is done adequate notice be given to the employees who might be affected, or to their unions, so that they too can attend and make submissions. Presumably in the first instance "any person" would be an employer, and I think it would be unfortunate if under clause 51, and also under clause 52, submissions were made by one party without the other parties involved being notified. In that respect I think the bill could be improved.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say once more that we welcome this legislation, in our opinion long delayed but welcome none the less. There are specific improvements we would like to see made to it, and we urge that the measure be regarded merely as a start. In this age of automation any standards we adopt today will be inadequate shortly hereafter. We should be constantly pressing forward to improve our standards in this field of labour legislation, and by doing so we would benefit not only those directly affected but also the community as a whole.
No one benefits from depressed conditions in industry, whether directly involved in industry or not. A community that has enough sense in this age of automation to shorten hours, to provide adequate vacations, to provide adequate minimum wages and does so

will go forward, and any other sort of community will not.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to rise and say a few brief words in support of this legislation creating a Canada labour standards code. When I say this I know I reflect the views of a great many members on this side of the house, some who entered it in 1962 and others who entered it in 1963, because this proposal formed an important part of the program on which we sought election in those two years.
I think it could also be pointed out that some of the happenings of a more sensational nature in this house have tended to obscure the fact, to a quite significant degree, many of the other important measures in that program have already been presented to parliament and put into effect. One example is the area development agency and another is the government's tax incentive program. Now we have the Canada labour standards code presented and this has been done, so far as I and the other Liberal members to whom I have referred are concerned, not because of any prodding by hon. members on the other side of the house but because of our own belief in and feeling of conviction with respect to the need for this type of legislation.
Though reference was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to 1919-it must be some type of mystic number for the N.D.P.-in this respect his was a voice of and from the past. The fact is that members of the Liberal party who entered the house in 1962 and 1963 made pledges during those elections, pledges which were part of the program on which we campaigned. It is a source of gratification to us that this legislation has been presented to parliament less than two years since the government took office, and within less than three years of the pledges which members such as I made when seeking election to the house. I suggest it is only realistic to look at this matter in the context of today's world of economics and labour relations.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre yesterday thanked the government on behalf of the organized labour movement, but it has occurred to me that when one considers the number of union members not affiliated with the N.D.P., and the fact that many Liberal members from urban areas could not possibly have been elected without the support of men and women who are members of unions, many of which are indeed formally affiliated with the N.D.P., one must conclude
Labour Conditions
that the hon. member extended himself a bit too far in expressing thanks on behalf of the entire labour movement and everyone in it. I say this with the greatest respect to the hon. member, and with respect for his contributions to the fields in which he has worked.
This bill, covering approximately half a million workers in private industry under federal jurisdiction, will undoubtedly serve as an example to the provinces of what similar standards under their jurisdiction should be, and the present situation in Ontario shows how this type of example-or pressure if you like-is needed. Yesterday the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) suggested that the regulations of the Ontario provincial government were recently modified, so that in some areas the minimum wage is $1 per hour while in other areas it is $1.25 per hour. In fairness to him I mention that he said that if he was not accurate he wished to be corrected. It is my understanding that a rate of $1.25 per hour applies only in Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto zones, and formerly in some other industrial areas. For other workers, different rates have been set which are to increase at various intervals until $1 an hour will be the rate for both male and female workers by the end of 1965. In addition there are special rates provided for certain industries; the highest of them is $1.25 for construction industry workers.
Surely the province of Ontario has reached a point at which a minimum wage of $1.25 can be set now without any dislocation being caused.
It is unfortunate that the government of Ontario has adopted a regional approach to the minimum wage question but has not as yet adopted a regional approach when it comes to providing tax incentives to encourage industry to establish itself in areas which were or are areas of slow growth. If it is correct that the level of the economy in certain parts of Ontario will not support a minimum wage of $1.25-and this I cannot accept-I would think the province has an obligation to its people to co-operate fully with the federal government in its efforts to help slow growth regions catch up with the rest of the country.
I believe the establishment of this minimum wage will in itself increase purchasing power and thereby provide an outlet, and improve the market for goods and services throughout this country. I should like to refer in this context to an article which appeared recently in the Financial Times. Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Labour Conditions
W. G. Brayley, president of Johnson and Johnson, Ltd., is reported as having welcomed Bill C-126. In fact, he said, with regard to it: "It will help the economy by putting more disposal income in peoples' pockets".
When it comes to the setting of national standards, this is an area in which the federal government really, in my view, needs to do a great deal more than in the past. There is a continuing and growing need for a level of government to which people in this country can turn with respect to their needs and interests as Canadians, not just as citizens of Ontario, or of British Columbia, for example. Having regard to the relative smallness of our population and our open economy, and we must conduct our affairs in a way which will permit us to survive as a country in a world of common markets and free trade areas, and without decreasing and in fact with improvements in our standard of living. This means the existence of a national government capable of maintaining a strong internal market for our goods and services without it being hampered by provincial barriers

a government capable of co-ordinating the economy so as to provide the same basic standards and opportunities for all Canadians.
There are a number of ways in which the federal government can achieve these goals. One is by taking the lead in areas which are clearly within its jurisdiction and setting an example for the rest of the country to follow, as has been done in the case of the present bill. Another is the achievement of desired results through constant co-operation and consultation with the provinces. This is a course we certainly must follow. Nevertheless we cannot put aside the possibility of restructuring government activities even though this might mean the granting of more, rather than less responsibility to the federal government in certain areas of activity, whatever may be the case in others. We shall be obliged to recognize the changes which are taking place in the organization of industry and the counterveiling changes in the organization of the labour movement itself. We must ask ourselves whether matters involving an entire industry operating on a nation-wide basis or even those of a large company with a number of plants spread across the various provinces can be effectively dealt with in the public interest within the restrictions of ten provincial boundaries. The same considerations apply to adjustment to technological change and adjustments to changes in trade patterns. The European countries we have to face in competition for markets have in

at least one instance an economy-wide agreement between labour and management. In other instances they have industry-wide agreements, all of this obviously based on a system of government supervision of similar breadth.
There is no question that our economic growth to date justifies the minimum standards imposed by this legislation, standards which, I suggest, with the continued development of our economy, are just a beginning. I am pleased therefore to support this initiative of our federal government to give an example which will help create basic standards and opportunities for all Canadians.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-126 concerns hours of work, minimum wages, annual vacations and holidays with pay in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
Evidently, it concerns the labourers employed by the federal government. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Gray) stated that 500,000 employees or more would be affected directly or indirectly by this legislative measure and that the whole nation, in his opinion, would benefit from it. As Bill No. C-126 will constitute an increase in purchasing power, it will stimulate the economy of our country. Mention has been made of hours of work, and some hon. members have suggested 40-hour, 36-hour and even 32-hour weeks; some have suggested a minimum hourly rate of $1.25, while the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested $1.50 per hour.
After all those suggestions, a fact still remains: it was mentioned a while ago by a member of the New Democratic party, I believe, that automation, is bound to play, even in the federal administration, a predominant role, the importance of which will be ever increasing, and this means that some of the 500,000 federal employees will eventually be replaced by machines.
Whether they be I.B.M.s or new inventions, it is none the less true that those employees will be replaced by machines. That is the problem which we will have to face. This exists at present in private industry and does not concern the federal or provincial governments, but strikes break out in that field to protest against automation or the substitution of machines for men.
In my opinion, the time has come for the federal government to face the problem which at present exists in Canada and which becomes more serious every day, that is, man

against the machine. It must be clearly established whether the use of the machine must punish men or whether the machine must serve them.
These two different approaches to the problem are altogether different.
If the machine has been invented to punish men, let us continue to procrastinate as we are now doing. If the machine must serve men, let us consider the problem from that angle.
The government is suggesting a minimum wage of $1.25 per hour. I would say to the Minister of Labour that he should guarantee, not only a minimum wage, but a minimum income to all Canadian workers, to all Canadians without exception, so that they may have enough purchasing power to buy the products made by the machines.
We have two solutions before us: On the one hand, socialism, which would like men to serve the machine; on the other hand, private enterprise or social credit, if you prefer, would like the machine to serve men. There is a world of difference between the two.
The first system, we see in operation some periods of the year, for instance, during the winter works period. The Minister of Labour is perfectly aware of what I mean. In wintertime we pay for winter works and, in my area, the federal government has set 60 per cent of manpower as its contribution and the provincial government pays 40 per cent; municipalities and unorganized parishes do not have to pay for that much.
In wintertime when the weather is extremely cold we put machines away and force men to work in temperatures of 40 or 50 degrees below zero. Why? For employment under the winter works act.
Then, we see machines, steam shovels left idle in warehouses. Mechanical arms are at rest while human arms must work to earn what the government agrees to pay.
Mr. Speaker, we are told that automation must be put at the service of mankind. Is that what we do during the wintertime?
The Minister of Labour would be logical in introducing this bill if he said to us: "We will purchase the products of those machines and let the people of Canada enjoy them."
Why punish men with machines? Why tolerate unemployment because men have been replaced by machines? Why not say that we will make it possible for men to benefit from the work done by machines?
Labour Conditions
It seems to me that would be more social, more humane and more Christian than to set the machines aside and keep men working in wintertime regardless of time or place.
Mr. Speaker, the establishment of minimum wages will not matter much if men are replaced by machines.
What does the minister suggest to help the men and women who are thus replaced at
work?
The government is aware that at present in federal services, certain equipment is not being used so as to prevent the lay-off of employees with 15 or 20 years of service, of experienced civil servants in government employ for 20 or 25 years. Since it is not the intention to replace them by modern equipment, this is another refusal to make man benefit from scientific progress.
The human being is considered to be like a beast of burden instead of a superior being who must be subjected all those inventions and automatic equipment available today.
Whether minimum wages be of $1.25 instead of $1.50 matters little to those who do not earn any wages. It matters little, as was pointed out yesterday by my colleague from Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), to a man who now works 48 hours a week at $1 per hour, if he works 40 hours at $1.25, since he will earn the same salary. That will not improve his living conditions. So, if I were minister of labour, after the minimum wages I would have added a minimum income for each Canadian. Any person living in Canada is entitled to his share of the national wealth. In my opinion, it is time we passed legislation aimed at respecting the existence of each and every individual person living in Canada.
We also talk of annual leave, of legal holidays in federal works, undertakings or businesses, and here I refer to paragraph (f) in clause 2 of Bill No. C-126, which reads:
"general holiday" means New Year's day, Good Friday, Victoria day, Dominion day, Labour day, Thanksgiving day and Christmas day and includes any day substituted for any such holiday pursuant to section 28.
For what reason did the Minister of Labour not include in that paragraph what we adopted on division, almost unanimously last Friday night, according to the 14th report of the committee on procedure and organization:
2.(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1 of this standing order, and unless otherwise ordered, the house shall not sit on any of the following days: New Year's day, Good Friday, the day fixed for the celebration of the birthday of the

Labour Conditions
sovereign, St. John the Baptist day, Dominion day, Labour day, Thanksgiving day, Remembrance day, Christmas day.
Remembrance day and St. John the Baptist day were left out in subparagraph (f) of clause 2 of Bill No. C-126.
Why does not the Minister of Labour give the federal employees exactly the same legal holidays as those we voted for the House of Commons? Parliamentary employees will get them. Why should not all federal employees get them, since that proposal was passed by the house last week?
Mr. Speaker, I will not speak any longer on the bill at this stage. We will have another opportunity to do so at the committee stage.
However, I will say this: We hope Social Credit will establish a labour policy which will enable workers to feel, at last, that they are citizens in the economic context of their country. We should respect the human person and realize he is an important individual.
Let us put science, progress, machinery, automation, in short, all new inventions, at the service of each and every Canadian citizen. I believe we would then be rendering service not only to the worker but also to labour unions and to the Canadian people generally, because the purchasing power would be increased considerably. This purchasing power should not be unduly increased without taking the country's economy and production into account, but it should be based on what Canada can produce by means of all this science which is at our service and which should benefit the whole of the Canadian people.
I am convinced that every Canadian would then enjoy economic security and his individual liberty would also be assured and respected.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: 
David Orlikow: They are not covered by the bill either.


Steven Otto: Well, I hope they will be. Bill No. C-126 is a nice neat little bill.
I was particularly interested in the minister's description of this measure as being legislation which will break new ground. I hope that he will not create the impression in the minds of the people across this country that this measure represents the reform promised by the Liberal party. I think the minister was much more accurate in his conclusion that this legislation was in accord with accepted practice, because I think in reality that is what it is.
I was pleased to note that the minister said new legislation will be forthcoming which will in fact be complementary to this measure, and truly legislation of reform. I am sure that following the presentation of that complementary legislation we will be in a position to assert that this party is truly a party of reform and that we are facing the issues which beset labour. I have no doubt that this bill does fulfil the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), but I disagree with the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) when he suggests that this measure will also fulfil the promises made by the Liberal party. There is a far greater promise to be met in respect of the reform promised by this party. That promise as it relates to the Department of Labour has not as yet been fulfilled, and will remain outstanding until that time when the minister introduces what he has referred to as complementary legislation in connection with labour standards.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I should be very interested to hear the hon. member outline the details in connection with this complementary legislation and reform in this field which should be carried out.


Mr.   Olio@: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated the direction in which this reform might move. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) indicated that automation was creating a problem that keeps many people across this nation awake at nights wondering what is going to happen. I am sure most of us will agree with him in that regard. None of the members in that corner of this house, or

in any other corner, have put forward any solutions to this problem. I am sure that when the minister presents his complementary legislation it will consist of sensible reform measures, and will provide an answer to this great problem.
Mr. Speaker, I hope when the minister presents this complementary legislation he will tackle one other thing I believe should be included in any labour standards. As the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) has said, there are many things to be done. I should like to see a solution found in respect of labour strikes. Surely it will be recognized that even after 100 years the procedure for bargaining, particularly in respect of strikes, has not changed, much to the detriment of the nation. Uncounted millions have been lost both in production and in wages as a result of labour strikes. Surely the time has arrived when we should adopt or recommend new procedures for bargaining and settling disputes that arise. If we hope to assist in solving the disputes of nations, surely we should be able to find some solution to labour disputes so as to avoid this tremendous loss in production and wages.
When the minister brings forward this complementary legislation I am sure he will show himself to be a young, vigorous reformer, and his party to be truly a party of reform. In the meantime this measure is welcomed by all, and particularly by the page boys for whom I speak.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I think it was Abraham Lincoln who said on one occasion, "God protect me from my friends because I can look after my enemies myself." That thought occurred to me as I listened to the remarks of the members of the Liberal party who extolled the virtues of this bill and of the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen).
The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) suggested that this minister might have a solution to the problem created by automation. That problem has confounded the experts of the industrialized countries of the world. That hon. member suggests there is an answer or solution to the problems created by strikes. I suggest that if there is an answer which is acceptable to both labour and management in a democratic society, neither the minister nor any other person interested in this field has found it. The hon. member talks about losses as a result of strikes, but forgets to indicate that we are losing more man hours of production in one week, even today 20220-573
Labour Conditions
during this period of relatively full employment, than we ever lost in the past several years as a result of all the strikes which have taken place in Canada. I do not think the contribution made by the hon. member for York East has really helped us in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I was surprised by the defensive attitude taken by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) and the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro). One would think that in their view it would be better if Mackenzie King had never lived. One would think from their remarks that it was a terrible thing that Mackenzie King assumed the leadership of the Liberal party in 1919 and pledged that party to work toward a national labour code which would include a minimum wage, holidays with pay, statutory holidays and those other things dealt with in the bill now before us.
When hon. members in this part of the house refer to the history of 1919 and the Liberal party program of that day we are not being critical, but is regrettable that it has taken the Liberal party 45 years to fulfil the promise made by a Liberal convention at that time. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Essex West that the Liberal party was in power in this country during 34 of those 45 years, so that legislation of this kind could have been placed before the house during that period. Perhaps I should also remind the hon. member that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has been a member of this house since 1935 and served under that former prime minister and leader of the Liberal party, Mr. Mackenzie King, and that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was brought into public office by that same gentleman.
I do not think the hon. member should confuse this house and becloud the record by suggesting that the Minister of Labour is only responsible for the promises made by his party in 1962 and 1963. That hon. minister is a member of the Liberal party and entitled to accept all the credit for the things it has done, belated as they may be, but he must also accept the responsibility for this party's history of procrastination and delay over a period of 45 years.
We in this party greet the introduction of this legislation with enthusiasm and intend to support it, but it seems to us there are some very important and fundamental questions to be answered by the minister, in respect of legislation and administration, if this bill is to be effective. We must ask some

Labour Conditions
very searching questions. If there is one thing which is certain it is that no legislation has been more difficult for provincial governments to administer and enforce than the minimum wage laws of the various provinces. It seems obvious to me that the federal government is going to have the same kind of problem.
I am sorry that the estimates of the Department of Labour have been passed because I am convinced it will be impossible for the department to enforce this proposed legislation. I am convinced it will be impossible for the present staff of the Department of Labour to check employers who come under the jurisdiction of the federal government sufficiently well so that the people who are guaranteed the standards set forth in this legislation will receive the things to which they are entitled. I say that because I am satisfied from what I know of the Department of Labour that they simply do not have the required number of people on the staff to be able to make individual investigations of companies that come under federal jurisdiction to ensure that the employees who should be getting the rates of pay and other benefits provided in the bill will receive them. I hope the minister will be able to tell members of the house and the general public very soon what steps the department intends to take to make sure the provisions of the legislation will be enforced by the federal Department of Labour.
This is not a criticism of the department. I am sure many members of the house saw the news report that appeared in one of the Ottawa papers quite recently in which it was stated that a check made by the Ontario department of labour a short period of time after their new minimum wage law came into effect had resulted in the department being able to secure adjustments in pay amounting to $20,000 or $30,000 for people who were covered by the new provisions of the Ontario act but were not being paid the new rates. I cite this simply as an illustration of the kind of problem that I think the Department of Labour will have to face in administering the act, and I certainly hope they will make sure that the legislation is lived up to by employers who come under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Labour.
I should like to join with other members of the house in all groups who have deplored the fact that the Yukon and Northwest Territories are excluded from the provisions of the bill. I should like to remind hon. members that in the Yukon and Northwest Territories
a substantial number of the people living there are of Indian ethnic origin. I have figures taken from the 1961 census which show that of the 14,500 people in the Yukon, 2,000 are Indians and of the 23,000 people in the Northwest Territories almost 5,000 are Indians.
The whole record in Canada of the treatment of the Indian people has been such that consistently the Indians have earned less than other people in Canada. I have some figures with me which were prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics on the basis of the 1961 census and I think they illustrate the problem very graphically. For the year ended June 1, 1961 the average annual earnings of all Canadian workers, on wages or salaries, was $3,192 while the average earnings of all Indians who worked were $1,661 or just over half.
Here we have a bill which places a floor of $1.25 an hour on wages for all people who come under federal jurisdiction. It seems to me that if the government is serious in wanting to raise the standards of Canadian citizens particularly of the original people of Canada, the Indians and the Eskimos, it really makes no sense at all to exclude the Yukon and the Northwest Territories from the provisions of this legislation. In a report prepared for the province of Manitoba on Manitoba's economic future it was estimated that the per capita earned income of Indians in northern Manitoba was only $155 a year. I am certain that if the same kind of study were made of the economic position of the Indian and Eskimo population of the Yukon and Northwest Territories we would find that the annual earned income of these people would be no higher than the Indians of northern Manitoba to whom I have referred.


Erik Nielsen: Much lower.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Lower.


David Orlikow: The members from the Yukon and Northwest Territories say it is lower. That makes the case even more depressing and tragic. Before we come to the clause by clause study of the bill I would urge the minister to give serious consideration to agreeing to an amendment or, better still, to bringing in an amendment which will include the Yukon and Northwest Territories. It may be there are reasons for exclusion which seem valid. It may be that the government feels that in the not too distant future these areas will be provinces. They may feel that these are matters which should be dealt with by the territorial councils. There may be other reasons of which I am not aware;

but whatever the reasons or excuses may be I do not believe they are valid.
I do not think the government should exclude from the provisions of the bill now before us a group of people who are under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I think the federal government has a responsibility and duty to cover these people.


Erik Nielsen: All Canadians.


David Orlikow: And all Canadians but, of course, that raises the question of the divided jurisdiction in the field of labour between the federal and provincial governments. I do not want to discuss now what can be done about this over the long term but I do suggest to the government that they should not shirk their responsibility and duty in respect of the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
There is one more point which I think we need to have explained. While the bill covers all employees who come under federal jurisdiction, certain clauses give the minister the right to grant exemptions and to set lower rates. In addition the bill provides for lower rates to be permitted under the regulations, which I presume will be drafted after the bill is passed. It seems to me we should have some indication from the minister of the kind of exemptions he might consider granting. I would hope there would be as few exemptions as possible; in fact, I would hope there would be none. But it does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that there are now a large number of employees covered by federal legislation who will be in a difficult situation in the period of transition.
I am thinking, for example, of certain railway employees. The sleeping, dining and parlour car employees of the railways, under the collective agreement under which they work for the railway companies, are working a basic 208 hours per month for a monthly salary. This agreement was signed after negotiations between their union and the railway companies. Now, Mr. Speaker, the wage of a railway porter, for example, is $334.08 per month for a 208 hour month. This works out at $1.61 per hour, which is substantially more than the minimum wage set by this bill.
However, Mr. Speaker, since this bill only provides for a 40 hour week with overtime pay on time and a half basis for 8 hours more per week, this means that unless the railways are given exemption from this provision for these employees, their monthly working hours would have to be reduced by 34. If their pay were reduced by that number of hours at 20220-5734
Labour Conditions
$1.61 per hour it would mean a reduction in pay of $54 per month. If this measure is applied to these employees, and I think it should apply to all employees, it seems to me it should contain a provision to the effect that there should be no reduction in the take home pay of any workers as a result of the implementation of this bill. In the case which I have used as an illustration, the annual rate of pay for these people works out to just over $4,000. If the hours worked are reduced to the maximum of 48 per week as provided for by the bill, their take home pay would be reduced to $3,350 a year. This is a rather substantial reduction for any person to suffer. However it seems to me that this question ought to be considered by the minister before we complete the clause by clause consideration of the bill.
I join with all members of this house, I think, who have welcomed the introduction of this bill. Those of us who have had experience in labour matters know that no matter how good the provisions of a bill may look on paper, they are not of much use unless the enforcement of them is taken seriously by the government. Unless this measure is policed, and unless the employees concerned are informed publicly of the rights which they have, the measure will not be of much value. It seems to me that before we complete our study of this bill we ought to hear from the minister in some considerable detail as to how his department intends to administer it, how it intends to enforce the provisions of the bill which, in principle, have been greeted favourably by the members of the house.


Mr. Cantelon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is a question of privilege which concerns many thousands of veterans of the two wars who risked their lives for this country and, in particular, it is a question of privilege that relates to the thousands who paid the supreme sacrifice. It is disgraceful that in the holidays provided by clause 2, paragraph (f), Remembrance day is not listed. The veterans must consider earnestly-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I am wondering if the hon. member does not feel that his point of privilege, since it refers specifically to a clause in the bill, should be brought up when we are considering the individual clauses of the bill. As the hon. member well knows, on second reading we can only consider the principle of the bill and we cannot discuss the separate clauses. I suggest to the hon. member that the point he seeks to make

Labour Conditions
at this time might be more properly made when we are in committee.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: I know that, sir, but I was hoping that the clause could be changed before we get to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to thank hon. members who have taken part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, and who have been so generous in their acceptance of the principle of a national Canadian labour standards code. I have listened with great interest to the contributions made by all hon. members and I thank them for the way in which they have dealt with the bill on second reading and for the many thoughtful suggestions that have been put forward.
The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), has referred to the role of the late Mackenzie King in the development of the labour policy of the Liberal party. No more apt reference could be made, particularly on a bill of this kind, than the reference made to Mr. Mackenzie King because of the impetus he gave to the development of a fair wage policy in Canada. This resulted from his examination of the garment industry in Toronto. It was because he became disturbed by the disgraceful conditions that prevailed there that subsequently, through the co-operation of his friend, Mr. Mulock, there was inserted in later government contracts a fair wage clause. Hon. members can make this point at a later time, perhaps when we are amending the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.
It might be of interest for hon. members to review, as I have attempted to do, the development and application of this fair wage policy to government contracts. In a sense the application, with the exception of the construction industry, has not gone very far beyond the principles that were applied by Mr. King in his early days as deputy minister of labour. I am not, therefore, defensive about Mr. King and his development of labour policy because I think this bill we are considering is, if not a close, at least a clear historical link to the development of the Canadian labour department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: His ghost has been bothering you.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, there had been no danger in that respect.

As I indicated, I should like to deal with a number of points that were made by hon. members during the debate on second reading.
It is the intention of the government to proceed with a bill in the field of occupational safety, or safety in employment. I have learned the lesson connected with indicating deadlines for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), so I intend to resist the temptation of establishing a deadline for the safety in employment legislation, but it is now being drafted and will be proceeded with as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will that be at this session?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The application of standards arising from this particular bill will be incorporated, so far as certain categories of federal contracts are concerned, in amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. While hon. members have drawn attention to the substantial impact this bill will have on the classes of employment directly affected, in my judgment the application of certain of these standards to federal government contracts will also be very considerable in certain parts of the country and that, of course, will become clear if we have an opportunity this session, as I hope we might, to deal with the amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.
I can understand the concern of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) and other hon. members, that labour standards be applied to these two territories. It is not a fact, as has been stated, that this bill is inapplicable to employment in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. This bill will apply to all the federal businesses that are listed operating in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, such as railways, and all the classes that are listed in clause 3.


Erik Nielsen: Why are they singled out then?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This bill will apply to all the federal businesses and undertakings operating in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. What is excluded are those businesses or activities that are normally under provincial jurisdiction. These are all that are excluded from the operation of this bill.


Erik Nielsen: Would the minister permit me to suggest to him that perhaps he does not appreciate the fact that the territorial administration of the Yukon is on all fours with provincial administration, so that there would appear to be no reason for excluding the Yukon, and I believe also the Northwest

Territories, any more than there would be to exclude any of the ten provinces?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Except that if this exception were not made in this way it could have the effect of overriding the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act. For example, I understand the Yukon Act empowers the commissioner in council to make ordinances in relation to property and civil rights in the territory, and in relation to practically all matters of a local and private nature in the territory. The federal parliament, as I understand it, by not including this exception would override the authority of the commissions or territorial councils in the administration of matters that were assigned to these bodies by the parliament of Canada; so that we are, by this exclusion, respecting the authority that has been assigned to these councils.


David Orlikow: Can the minister tell members of the house whether the territorial councils have passed minimum wage laws, similar to the provincial minimum wage laws, which give some protection to those nine tenths of the working people in those territories who will not be covered by this legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is the question, have they?


David Orlikow: Yes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, there have been labour ordinances passed by the Northwest Territories and by the Yukon, and I might be able to indicate in committee the exact nature of these ordinances. But the point is that we are leaving to the commissions the jurisdiction that is normally exercised by the provinces, and that we are exercising the full jurisdiction in these territories that we are exercising in the provinces.


Erik Nielsen: Just briefly, as it is approaching six o'clock, and so that members could discuss it this evening before the bill reaches committee stage, I want to suggest to the minister that there is no fundamental difference between the powers vested in the legislative council in the Yukon-the commissioner in council-and those which are vested in the provincial legislatures under section 91 of the British North America Act, and so I can see no real reason for the exception to be made.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not arguing that particular point. As I understand it, if we did not make this particular exception-and I would be delighted to check this further- we could automatically override the author-
Labour Conditions
ity that has been conferred under the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act. Since 1953 the federal government has made this exception. In 1954 the Female Employees Equal Pay Act made this exception. The Annual Vacations Act, introduced by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) had this exception, and the safety in employment bill, which the hon. member for Ontario moved two years ago, also had this exception. This is recognition of the principle that the territorial councils are gradually assuming more and more responsibility for local matters in the territories, and it seems advisable that they should handle the problems of regulating labour conditions in local businesses.
It has been a consistent policy of both governments to maintain this exclusion. It is also a practical question that I think hon. members would want to consider, whether the standards that have been incorporated in this bill are appropriate standards for local operations in the territories? We, in the preparation of this bill, with this exclusion in mind, have given no real, intensive examination to the situation that would develop in service establishments in the territories, for example restaurants, service stations and small stores, if these standards were applied. It is for that reason we felt it ought to be left to the ordinances, especially since the councils have already been moving in the direction of regulating local labour conditions.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and later the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), discussed the question of general holidays, and certainly their feelings was that the seven general holidays with pay might not be a sufficient standard. There are several points of principle I would like to deal with, inasmuch as this was raised as a matter of principle on the second reading of the bill. I am sure hon. members appreciate that this bill is intended to provide minimum standards which we expect to enforce, and we have to be assured that the standards we set are reasonable and will have common or general acceptance. In this bill we are not aiming to set the pace for collective bargaining, nor should we. However, we hope to ensure for unorganized employees, or those whose bargaining position is weak, the fruits of progress which others are enjoying and which have been obtained through collective bargaining.
In the light of this principle, seven holidays seems to be the appropriate standard. Accord-

Labour Conditions
ing to our estimates, 10 per cent of the employees to whom the code will directly apply are not now getting as many as seven paid holidays, while some of the 10 per cent are not getting any. One factor which has been of persuasive importance to me is this: In the railway industry where there have been strong unions for many years, the non-operating employees, the largest group, have through collective bargaining established seven paid holidays, we are meeting this standard. If we were to adopt the standard of eight holidays, for example, we would be adopting a standard which has been obtained by only 54 per cent of the employees within the scope of the legislation. So we would be legislating for a group of employees amounting to almost half those who come within our jurisdiction, and this in our judgment would be beyond the proper limit for a bill which proposes minimum standards.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister leaves that point, would he comment, if he sees some way to do so, upon the fact that under the Civil Service Act nine statutory holidays are provided? In other words, this is the number of holidays all civil servants get. Does there not seem to be a considerable gap between nine holidays and the seven specified in this bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is a gap, of course. What we are doing in this legislation is this: We are obliging private employers to observe certain minimum standards. We expect to enforce this bill and make it obligatory. In so doing we have to take into account the results of collective bargaining and the impact this measure will have generally on the labour force under our jurisdiction. In these circumstances it seems to me that the proposal for seven statutory holidays is reasonable. To go to eight would be to legislate for a large part of the labour force. The hon. member should bear in mind that we are legislating here for minimum standards.
I realize there is some significance in the fact that nine statutory holidays are provided for government employees under the Civil Service Act. However, hon. members may wish to consider whether what the government as an employer decides to do is always an appropriate standard to apply to private employers in the economy.
. The question of the actual holidays specified here has been raised by hon. members. The ones included in the bill are I think the accepted holidays, although there is a provision that other holidays may be substituted.

For example Dominion day and Victoria day are each established as legal holidays by other statutes; the names are established by other statutes. So we have to observe these days.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Winnipeg North dealt with the important question of reconciling the provisions as to hours of work with the take home pay of employees. As I pointed out in my opening statement, the application of the 40-hour week provision in circumstances where excessive hours have been worked would result in a drastic reduction in take home pay. We have wrestled with this problem. That is why in this particular bill we have made provision for a transitional period of 18 months so that in the introduction of standards its effect can be taken into account. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said he would not want the result to be seriously damaging. We have reached the conclusion that, given the time factor, 18 months after January 1, 1965; given the bargaining opportunities which will be available, and given the reluctance of employers-and I think they will be reluctant-to reduce take home pay, the result over that period will not be seriously damaging. Having said this I return to what I said in my opening statement, namely that excessive hours of work can be bad for health. They certainly lead to industrial accidents and to inefficiency and maybe it is better for workers to have additional leisure in certain circumstances and more time for rest. Certainly, having looked at some of the statistics which are available on the class of workers likely to be affected most, I conclude there is no doubt they are working too many hours a week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a further question?


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I admit that I ask it in view of the fact that he has had some experience in setting a deadline. Does he feel it is sufficient merely to set a deadline? What happens if within the 18 months period the necessary adjustments have not been made to ensure that certain employees do not suffer reductions in take home pay?


Mr. Churchill:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The alternative of course is to provide that at the end of the period

the take home pay shall not be dropped, despite the reduction in hours.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not see it in the bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, because it is not there. That is the alternative, and it does involve, first of all, almost insuperable administrative difficulties. In the second place it involves legislative increases in the hourly rates beyond the minimum-


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and the introduction of a new principle.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the acting leader of the house whether we shall continue with legislation tomorrow or carry on with the estimates as already outlined?


Mr. MacNaughl:: Tomorrow we will take the second reading and the committee stage
Business of the House and, if the house is agreeable, the third reading stage of Bill No. C-123 to amend certain acts administered in the Department of Insurance.


George James McIlraith: That is to go to committee.


John Watson MacNaught: I beg your pardon; after second reading it will go to committee.
Then we shall take up consideration of the balance of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the votes referring to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the jurisdiction of the Postmaster General. At the conclusion of these remnants we will consider the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask whether concurrence in the eleventh report of the procedure committee will be asked for tomorrow or on Friday?


John Watson MacNaught: I understand that the hon. member who is charged with that report proposes to move its adoption tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, Ociober 15, 1964