1964-08-21

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
{Translation]
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which, in my opinion, should be of the greatest interest to all members.
I should like to call everyone's attention to the fact that we have finally received the French version of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.
The Ralliement Creditiste group, of which I am the leader, has been asking for the translation of that manual ever since we came here, in this house, in 1962.
The Conservative government, then headed by the Leader of the Opposition, initiated talks which finally resulted, under the present administration, in the translation and distribution of this work on parliamentary procedure.
Therefore, on behalf of my party, I should like to express our gratitude to those who have finally understood that, in matters such as this, the French Canadian element ought to be on an equal footing with the others. We do hope that in another field, especially as regards publications distributed by the printing bureau, the same principles of justice and equality will apply, so that Canada may be strong as well as united.
rTertl



CANADIAN FLAG


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, three meetings of the party leaders have been held this week to discuss the parliamentary situation arising out of what is now known as the flag debate. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to report that no agreement was possible on the subsequent parliamentary procedure for dealing with this matter. As leader of the 20220-450
government I felt that whatever procedure was to be followed, there should be accepted time limits on discussion to ensure that a decision would be reached at a reasonably early date. The principle of such limitation did not find unanimous acceptance.
There has been criticism that the government was attempting to influence a decision in its favour by the threat of an election if it were defeated on the issue. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I stated at yesterday's meeting, and I am glad to repeat it to the house today, that in our view votes on the resolutions and on amendments to them will be entirely free. That is, an election will not be at stake on such votes. Parliament will make its decision by individual vote of all its members. This position of the government is not tied to any other conditions or proposals.
The flag debate will continue next week, but I want to assure the house that no doors have been closed for any subsequent meeting on the party leader or house leader level to discuss the situation as it develops.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, so there will be no misunderstanding or misconception of the position taken by the members of the New Democratic party I should like to say, very briefly, two things. First, we are appreciative of the statement made by the Prime Minister with regard to a free vote on the flag issue. We do not think this will make any difference in so far as we as individuals are concerned; if I were opposed to the maple leaf design I would vote against it even if the government were to call an election the next morning, and I think most hon. members would feel exactly the same way. Nevertheless it does remove from the members of parliament any imputation that their vote is coloured by the fact that a vote on the main resolution might involve an election. For that reason we welcome this statement by the Prime Minister.
The second thing I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, is that we are most anxious that if at all possible some compromise be found by which we can break the present deadlock which holds the House of Commons in its grip.
We have been favourable to the idea of setting up a small committee of the House

Canadian Flag
of Commons to look into this matter to see whether there is some common ground that can be found. My colleague the hon. member for Greenwood put forth a suggestion the other day which, among other suggestions, might be considered. Members of this party feel that such a committee would be useful, and there is a strong possibility that it might find some unanimous basis upon which we could launch a flag. Certainly if this could be done it would be highly desirable; because in our opinion, if Canada is going to adopt a flag, it would be much better that it be launched with almost unanimous support of this house rather than on a divided basis.
The members of this group want to make it abundantly clear that we would only support the idea of setting up such a committee if there were some prior agreement that the debate on the report of that committee would be for a limited period of time. If that cannot be agreed upon we could quite easily find ourselves, when the committee returned at the end of its six or eight weeks of consideration, exactly where we are now and then proceed to have a protracted and interminable debate at a time when much more important legislative matters should be receiving the attention of the House of Commons. Therefore the members of this party feel that if we are going to spend a lot of time in prolonged discussion of this matter it is better to do so at a time when we would normally be enjoying a recess than to use up time which will be required to deal with the heavy legislative program which is on the order paper.
Mr. Speaker, I have merely stated the position of this party, and it is up to the other parties to state their positions. I would urge that members in every part of the house give serious consideration to the possibility of establishing a small committee of the House of Commons with the proviso that there be a limit on the debate regarding the report of that committee. It seems to us that if the government should make a concession in agreeing to such a committee rather than proceeding with the debate, as it originally intended, the other parties in the house ought to be prepared to consider a matching concession of limiting the debate on the report of that committee.
As the Prime Minister has said, and as was agreed this morning at the meeting of the party leaders, this matter is not closed, and I would urge most strongly that members in every part of the house give serious consideration to accepting this kind of compromise; because I am convinced that a long and

tedious debate when the committee reports back will do nothing to enhance the prestige and effectiveness of parliament.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to comment briefly on the statement the Prime Minister has just made, and likewise to make the position of our party very clear, not only for the sake of the record but also for the information of each of us.
We welcome very much this statement which the Prime Minister has made, which brings us to a non-partisan position in the house as far as our vote is concerned on any subamendment, amendment or main motion. It is unfortunate, I believe, that this policy was not maintained from the very beginning of the flag issue. Nevertheless it is indeed encouraging that the Prime Minister has seen fit to make this statement now. It is encouraging to our group and I would think it is also encouraging to members on the government side. I believe this decision places again on the shoulders of each of us the responsibility which I believe the electors regard is ours of making a decision on this important issue.
We have had three leaders' meetings, and the fact that these meetings have taken place and that there has been sincere and keen discussion on every aspect of the issue that came before us is something that should also encourage us. However, it is not encouraging, indeed it is disappointing as far as I am concerned, that we were not able to arrive at a unanimous decision on some alternative course that would bring about the conclusion of this matter reasonably soon. I had hoped originally that some compromise alternative could have been agreed upon which would have meant amending the two resolutions on the order paper in such a way that we could all agree. Personally, and I think this is the unanimous position of the members of our party, that it would have been much better if parliament could have brought forth a flag that could have been known as Canada's flag because it had been decided upon as a result of the corporate opinion and action of parliament rather than just the government. Therefore I had hoped we could agree on some amendment to the design that would provide an honourable solution for those who favour the red ensign. A partial compromise has been accepted by the Prime Minister in his announcement of a free vote.
Our discussions also concerned the setting up of a committee, and I must say I agree

completely with the statement the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has just made in this regard. If a committee could have brought us together in such a way that a recommendation would have come before the house with the assurance that debate would be limited to a reasonable time, and if the committee could have come forward with a decision on the basis of a reasonable majority, it would have done a great deal to improve the situation in which we now find ourselves and would have brought us to some satisfactory conclusion. However, if it is not possible to limit the debate on the recommendation of such a committee, and if its terms of reference cannot be such as to offer it some hope of bringing back a recommendation to the house, then mere postponment of the issue is certainly not going to assist in solving the problem.
I am convinced that a prolonged debate on the flag issue will produce irreparable damage as far as national unity is concerned. I should think every member of the house would agree with me when I say that, regardless of whether we are dealing with the flag issue or something else, it is our responsibility to carry on the proceedings of the house in a way that contributes to the over-all improvement and strengthening of the unity of our nation. I appeal not only to the other parties in the house but to every individual member that we should welcome unitedly the announcement the Prime Minister has made. In addition, we should not close the door to further discussions or to a future coming together that would end this issue in a way satisfactory to all Canadians and which will foster national unity.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the group I represent, I wish to say that I am very pleased with the decision taken by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that a free vote will be called on the flag issue. The longer we discuss that matter, the more ticklish it becomes, and I feel that calling for a free vote will enable all representatives of the people to take a stand on that matter, because, after all, we are elected by the people. That procedure will enable a majority to choose a national flag for Canada, and the Prime Minister is certainly entitled to congratulations for his decision to give the whole house and each member individually the occasion to vote freely on the flag design.
Canadian Flag
However, unfortunate statements were made, especially in western Canada, to the effect that the purpose of the proposed flag was only to please the French Canadians of the province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker it is unfortunate that some hon. members, of whatever political affiliation, have made statements likely to stir up strife among various groups in the country.
As for me, I have found nothing in the action taken by the government or in the choice of the flag submitted to parliament that might please French Canadians in particular. I said in committee this morning, especially to the Prime Minister and to other party leaders present, that we wanted a distinctive national flag. Whether it includes three maple leaves or only one, whether the maple leaf is replaced by a beaver or a wheat-sheaf, in short, as long as it will be a distinctive Canadian flag we shall support the government.
Mr. Speaker, in the third committee meeting we discussed it again and again. Before going to the meeting I said: "Behind closed doors or not, the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste will not attend any more meetings of political leaders on the flag issue." Our position is clear and I think a free vote would clarify the matter.
In my opinion, the best way to select a flag would be to stop this filibustering. We must put an end to the division which is shaping up in this country; let us stop setting one group against the other and, above all, a whole country or seven or eight provinces against six million French Canadians who are only seeking true unity in their country.
We are not requesting anything special, we are not set on having a Quebec symbol, but a symbol which is completely and genuinely Canadian. We are, of course, insisting on Canadian symbols in our national emblem, but no foreign symbols, not from France any more than from England. We want, of course, to belong to the commonwealth of nations, but with our own symbols, our nation's symbols. Thus, Canadian unity will be safeguarded.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I refrained from saying anything following the statement by the Prime Minister because, as I understood it, the agreement, while not explicit in terms, was that the Prime Minister would state the facts in an entirely unprovocative and objective manner. However,

Canadian Flag
some members of the committee or the group that met have seen fit to make observations on that statement. My failure to do so, therefore, would be misinterpreted.
I am going to make one or two observations, while refraining from participating in the kind of argument advanced by the last hon. gentleman who, if I were to answer him in kind, has in some of the policies he has advocated done a great deal to harm the unity of our country. I am not going into that, but the gratuitous observations impel me to maintain myself within the most circumscribed limits in replying to the statements he made.
The Prime Minister has stated that he has decided on a free vote. It is too bad that decision was not made earlier. It is too bad the statement having been made originally by him that a free vote would be declared, that on reflection, he later decided to refine the meaning of that term, and state that a free vote would be one in which all would be free to vote but if members voted against the government's stand it would be tantamount to a vote of non-confidence and ensure the calling of an election.
The decision announced today should have been made long ago. Indeed, in the intervening weeks there has been a freezing of attitudes; and while entirely approving of the need of such a declaration being made, the decision to do so today appears to be too late to permit the carrying into full effect of the meaning of that term.
Second, there has been a suggestion that we should get on with the important business facing Canada. Hon. members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition have strongly advocated the need of getting on with that business, but we are placed in a position where these important matters cannot be dealt with-matters of pensions, matters of agricultural economy, particularly in eastern Canada, and other questions of paramount importance which are being kept in cold storage pending the completion of the flag debate.
I think there would be widespread appreciation of the government-though I know it won't be achieved-if this debate were adjourned now and we proceeded with matters of importance to the economy of the country. Then if an adjournment took place the flag question could be considered fully after each of us had the opportunity of visiting our constituencies and being made fully aware and cognizant of public opinion. After all, Mr. Speaker, one of the great difficulties for those of us who have constituencies far removed from Ottawa is that we find ourselves cut off,

as it were, from public opinion by inability to meet with our constituents and understand their views.
Mention was made of a committee of the house, and I take a very strong stand in that connection. I think a committee of the house, following the models of 1945 and 1946, would have been the proper way to start this question; in other words, not have the government introduce it and take the stand, "Either you take this or you find yourself challenged by an election." If we had had a committee where members could sit down together, as they sat down in 1945 and 1946, and they had come up with a virtually unanimous agreement, that would be the way to determine a flag for our country rather than introducing a model or design and then, because of pressure of public opinion and events, having to change the original.
If the original is changed now from the three maple leaves I feel for the embarrassment of many of those who have supported the government and who have been flying the tremendous numbers of these flags that have been imported into Canada from abroad. It is going to be very embarrassing to have to pull down the three maple leaf design if parliament decides otherwise.
My suggestion, and I advanced it tentatively, was that a committee of 15 would be an effective committee; not a large committee but one of 15 composed of seven members supporting the government, five of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and one each from the other parties. I feel that if at this time we were to adjourn the debate on this question and allow such a committee to get to work-and I would play my part in that connection; the committee members appointed by this party would go into the committee free and untrampelled in any way-a decision could be reached; for the choice of a flag is above and beyond political considerations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Let the committee meet; give it a couple of months. During that time members could get together, realize the importance to the unity of Canada of arriving at a basis acceptable to Canadians as a whole-I think they would do it-and if, as I would hope there would be, in consequence of full discussion removed from the limelight of parliament, a recommendation was made that, as I said a moment ago, would be virtually unanimous, the matter would be concluded there and then; for I think the house

would certainly, in general, willingly accept such a recommendation.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, if there was not a high degree of unanimity, then I suggest-and again I come back to this-that whatever recommendations came from the committee could be submitted to the Canadian people at the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am trying
to keep away from any partisan discussion-*


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -but the groans from over there indicate that they are trying to push a flag down the throats of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This is why they are objecting. This is why we hear these unintelligible groans translating the thoughts of hon. gentlemen who have just interrupted. I believe in that way this matter would be taken out of the realm of partisan considerations. That is the reason I made the suggestion.
I join with the Prime Minister, who was fair and reasonable in every way in his presentation today, in saying that while we have not come to agreement in these meetings, our assembly together has been characterized by extreme frankness, candour and a fine spirit. That has been the theme throughout. I am glad the Prime Minister said that the door will not be closed, for the door must never be closed by members of parliament- for, after all, they are Canadians first-on any action that may result in the assurance of unity in our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of bills.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to-


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Are hon. members rising on a question of privilege or a point of order?


Georges-J. Valade: I rise on a point of order-


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I should like-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Mary.


Georges-J. Valade: -because I was the originator of these suggestions. I do not say that in personal homage; I am just saying I would like
Inquiries of the Ministry to say something on this subject because I submitted the suggestions to the conference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The customs and precedents which we follow in this chamber decree, if I may use that word, that only the leaders of the different parties shall speak on this matter. This is not the time for general comments.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am in order, but I did not make any statement except on the facts of what occurred at the meetings. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition-and I am not complaining at all about it-referred to the suggestion that a committee should be established to look into this question. I think I ought to put on record that we on this side are not opposed to such a committee, but we do not think such a committee should meet for an indefinite period of time and thereby unduly delay this matter. In addition, we believe that the report of this committee should be subject to a time limitation of debate when it is received by the house.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I would direct one or two questions to the Minister of Labour regarding Mr. Banks. The first is this. Is the minister now in a position to advise the house when the members of the maritime unions board of trustees or a representative thereof will appear before a committee of parliament? This should certainly take place before adjournment.
Second, in connection with Mr. McLaughlin, who is a vice president of the S.I.U., I would ask the minister this question. Is Mr. McLaughlin, who is a candidate for the presidency of the S.I.U., one of those who await trial on September 15 on a charge of conspiracy? What did the maritime trustees do; did they pass as proper his candidature, with such an outstanding charge against him? Who are the members of the credentials committee; and did they give approval to Mr. McLaughlin being a candidate under these circumstances?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisler of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make further inquiries about the details of the questions

Inquiries of the Ministry asked by the Leader of the Opposition. My understanding is that an election will be held this fall or later this year in the S.I.U. for a president and other officers. To my knowledge the board of trustees have not disqualified Mr. McLaughlin from standing for election although, as the right hon. gentleman knows, there is an opposition slate of candidates running in this election, which is a very desirable development in this organization. The board of trustees are, I think, making a very determined effort to see that these elections are conducted in a democratic way. There is a committee composed of a representative of the Canadian Labour Congress, of the Department of Labour, of the board of trustees and of the S.I.U. which would oversee the election to see that it is democratically conducted, and I am hopeful that this will be possible.
In connection with the question with respect to appearance of the board of trustees before a parliamentary committee, the hon. member for Port Arthur asked the house leader this question recently and it was taken as notice. I would prefer the house leader to deal with it, except that I will say that in his letter to me Mr. Justice Dryer stated his wish that the appearance be later in the session, and I interpreted that to mean some time this fall. I would prefer the leader of the house to deal with this particular matter.


John George Diefenbaker: I am most grateful to the minister for his very detailed answer but I would ask him, in view of the fact that the charge facing Mr. Banks is one arising out of his labour activities, whether he is in a position to give the house today a progress report, or a lack of progress report or whatever it might be called, regarding Mr. Banks and his whereabouts.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to say where Mr. Banks is. If he is outside the country then I am sure this is a situation which would be congenial to the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is the circumstances under which he got himself out of the country, after long delay from the time the present government when previously in office gave him a welcoming hand; but is there any ground for believing, and does the answer suggest, that it has at last been determined that he is out of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite frank with the Leader of the Opposition. I have no definite knowledge as to the

whereabouts of Mr. Banks. It has been suggested that he is in the United States, but there is no firm indication as to his whereabouts.



INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL LABOUR CODE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister now in a position to tell us when the legislation respecting the national labour code will be placed on the order paper? In April we were going to get it as quickly as possible; in July we were going to get it soon, and three weeks ago we were going to get it as soon as possible and the minister hoped that would be soon. Will we get it next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether it will be on the order paper next week. I cannot give my hon. friend a definite indication when it will be on the order paper, but it will be soon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will it be on the order paper during this session?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he has received any protests from any of the civil service organizations regarding the increases in salaries which were announced yesterday for those in group B; and are these protests particularly centred upon grade 1 stenographers, typists and clerks owing to the fact that their increases are only some $90 a year and it is some years since they have had an increase, there being no immediate prospect of another one?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this morning I did receive a telegram, which I have not yet had a chance to study, protesting the inadequacy of the increases in respect to certain classes of civil servants. This and other protests, if they are received, will certainly be considered by the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. I understand those protesting have asked the Prime Minister or the government whether

they would agree to having treasury board review these increases. May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to have treasury board do this?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to discuss the matter at once with the President of the Privy Council as head of treasury board.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, Is it the intention of the government to recommend similar increases for the House of Commons staff?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to look into that, Mr. Speaker.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Canadian government will support the idea of a commonwealth peace corps, the creation of which is to be discussed at the third commonwealth education conference which opened in this chamber this morning? Also, does the government have any specific plans to present to the conference in regard to this commonwealth peace corps?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the idea is, of course, a very imaginative one and certainly commands not only the attention but the sympathy of all hon. members of the house as well as of the government. I think I should reserve any further expression of opinion until I have had a chance to discuss the matter with the delegation to the conference. Perhaps I will be able to make a statement on the matter shortly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, or perhaps it is a related question, which I would address to the Prime Minister. In view of the importance and the worth of the statements which were made at the opening of the commonwealth education conference here in this chamber this morning, and in view of the fact that they were made in this chamber, I wonder whether copies of the statements by the Prime Minister, Mr. Massey and Mr. Gerin-Lajoie could be obtained and perhaps made an appendix to today's Hansard.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will certainly be possible, Mr. Speaker, to circulate what I thought was Mr. Massey's very important statement to all members, because it has been reproduced and I received a copy of it myself. If members would like to have it appear in Hansard as an appendix I am sure it can be arranged.


Stanley Howard Knowles: From my observation I believe a stenographic report was being made of all three statements, and I do think it would be worth while to have all three appended to Hansard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure that can be arranged.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the three statements be made an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of statements referred to above, see appendix.]



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the Minister of Transport confirm or deny a rumour to the effect that he and the Secretary of State for External Affairs intend to oust the Prime Minister from his position and replace him with the hon. member for Essex East in a short while?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I wonder how silly some hon. members can be, sir.


Georges-J. Valade: The only silly member is the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfori-
Tisdale): Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could he inform the house on the frost damage to grain in the province of Saskatchewan and in the west? This is a very urgent matter.
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that the latest information I have received about the wheat crop in Saskatchewan indicates that there was more extensive frost damage than had originally been

Inquiries of the Ministry thought. On August 11, 12 and 13 there appears to have been fairly extensive frost damage which is now showing up in the inspections which are being made of harvested grain.


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to my colleague the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale regarding the serious frost damage in Saskatchewan, is the minister considering applying the same policy the former government applied in 1961 in respect of the benefits of P.F.A.A.? I make specific reference to the fact that in that year we allowed the farmers who suffered damage to crops due to drought to cut them for forage for the maintenance of livestock rather than hoping they would reach maturity.


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to this question would involve government policy. This will be announced by the Minister of Agriculture in due course.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Forestry whether he has met with the delegation from the maritime federation of agriculture today, or whether the meeting has been arranged for tonight.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting with the delegation from the Canadian federation of agriculture will take place this evening at nine o'clock in my office.



OMISSION FROM TRADE REPORT OF DETAILS RESPECTING LAMB AND MUTTON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, and in view of his absence perhaps the acting minister or parliamentary secretary could answer. My question arises from the fact that the weekly livestock and meat trade report of August 6 no longer lists details pertaining to lamb and


mutton, in particular. In view of the fact that this is a very highly competitive part of the agricultural economy would the minister not see fit to reinstate or at least supply these figures in this report, so this trade can be aware of the competition that it faces?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his question about this important matter. I will bring it to the attention of the minister on his return.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport which is related to the reply he gave the house last evening relative to the possibility of providing service between the Atlantic provinces and Bermuda and the Caribbean. In view of the fact that the minister stated it may not be economically possible to establish this service on a regular basis, has he given any thought to recommending to Air Canada officials that a service be established either once a week or twice a month between the Atlantic provinces and Bermuda and the Caribbean area?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that it could be established on a more frequent basis than that. I think the real obstacle is not the frequency of the service but the revision of the bilateral arrangements with the United Kingdom. Incidentally, I might add that I spoke to the president of Air Canada about this matter this morning and told him I had announced that T.C.A. was going to start the service immediately. He was a little surprised.



MEDICINE HAT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: A supplementary question. When the minister was speaking to the president of T.C.A. did he suggest to him that it was time they instituted an air line service in to and out of Medicine Hat?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In fact, sir, I invited him to dinner so I could talk to him about it at length on Monday.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Could the minister answer the following question which is often put to me. Why is the province of Quebec not represented at the garden of the provinces by its official fleur-de-lis flag?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which I would like to take as notice.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production?
I should like to ask the minister whether he gave orders to Mr. J. J. Simoneau, officer of the Quebec office of the defence production department, to correspond only in English with his countrymen of the province of Quebec who do not know that language? I have several proofs to that effect.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I never gave such orders and I would never think of doing so. Moreover, I am certain that nobody in my department gave such orders.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question occasioned by the written representations which I think came to all members, including the Prime Minister, from Mr. Cooke of Liberty magazine, in which Mr. Cooke alleged that Liberty ceased publication because of the lack of advertising revenue occasioned by pressure from Time and Reader's Digest. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has
Inquiries of the Ministry changed its position, or whether it is going to continue to let Time and Reader's Digest enjoy the same status as Canadian magazines.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter is still on our list for legislative action in the autumn. I hope we will be able to deal with it before the end of this session.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have a supplementary question. The Prime Minister will remember that when it was put on the order paper indications were given that there was no intention of doing anything that would affect Time and Reader's Digest. The purport of my question was to ask whether the government's intentions had changed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will not mind waiting for a few weeks longer when I hope to satisfy his very legitimate curiosity in a way which I hope will be satisfactory to him.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In connection with the recent announcement in respect of assistance to the film industry in Canada, can the minister inform the house whether the government plans a gradual withdrawal of the film making activities of government corporations, particularly in the commercial and theatrical fields, in order to further assist our private film industry?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: I have a related question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
Since the C.B.C. refuses to let the public see the "Mr. Pearson" film, could the minister say whether it would be possible to hold a public auction for its sale so that at least part of the production costs may be reimbursed by private enterprise?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, it has been said many times that the film is the exclusive property of the C.B.C.


Georges-J. Valade: Does the Secretary of State refuse to let the public see it?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, that question has been answered several times in the course of this session.


Georges-J. Valade: So, the answer is "no".



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. I am sorry I have not been able to give him notice, but I do not think he will need it. Can the minister say whether the report of the feasibility study made to his department in respect of the Prince Edward Island causeway recommends against the inclusion of a railway, as unofficial reports of the last few days seem to indicate?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the second interim report was received a few weeks ago and we are in the process of examining it. Actually I do not think it would be proper at this time to enter into a discussion in this regard. Perhaps it would be a good idea for me to make a short statement one of these days covering the actual studies in respect of this project. It is my intention to do that.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's statement. If he would be good enough to make such a statement on motions, when he is in a position to do so, I know it will meet with the approval of people in the maritimes vitally interested in this matter.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I had already called orders of the day, but if the question is short and urgent perhaps we can hear it now.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister aware that a national defence building at Kingston, Ontario, formerly used for navy stores and now occupied by the army, is being restored by the army at a cost of $250,000, and that Indiana limestone


is being imported from the United States for refacing a building intended for military functions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a question for the order paper.

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



DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, Including grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,381,000.
Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Hamilton:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, before the minister makes his statement could we have clarification of just what items are to be before the committee this afternoon. The Chair will recall that when we were considering the estimates of the Department of Agriculture we debated and discussed briefly that portion of the minister's responsibilities dealing with ARDA, but our discussion was curtailed because of the lateness of the hour in reaching that item and because the minister had to leave before the end of the day.
My first question is, is ARDA up for discussion under these estimates today, and under what item? My second question has to do with feed grains. Under what item will this subject be discussed? If the minister could answer these questions of order in his statement we on this side of the house would know when we are to raise these matters.


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want to make a statement about this problem at the conclusion of my opening remarks on the forestry estimates.

Mr. Chairman, today I have the privilege of introducing the estimates of the Department of Forestry for the year ending March 31, 1965.
Hon. members know that I took over the Department of Forestry in February 1964.
I am, therefore, submitting my first estimates to the house and would ask hon. members to bear with me if I am not quite up to the mark in giving the explanations they will ask of me.
May I at the outset pay tribute to the first two ministers who were responsible for the Department of Forestry which was created in

August 1960 by the government led by the right hon. gentleman who is now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
The first incumbent of the Department of Forestry, who is now the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), has left an indelible memory in his department and he was succeeded in the discharge of his responsibilities by the present Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson). Those two ministers gave to the department leadership which I find very difficult to pursue with the same energy, for having always been linked with the forest industry they were both particularly qualified in this field.
I do not propose to make a lengthy statement at this time when introducing the estimates of my department for the fiscal year 1964-65, as it will officially change its name and significance when the house is called to consider the resolution introduced by the government on July 2 last, which can be found on the order paper under No. 60. When that resolution and the ensuing bill are passed, the Minister of Forestry will be the minister of forestry and of rural development, and I will then have the opportunity of explaining to hon. members in what way the department of forestry and rural development will discharge its new official responsibilities.

The hon. member for Qu'Appelle brought up the problem of the estimates covering ARDA, feed grains and the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act. All these estimates were adopted by the house on July 10. I recognize quite well that although the discussion lasted for 70 to 80 minutes it was short, and I am quite prepared on vote No. 1 of the Department of Forestry this afternoon to entertain discussion of problems relating to these three items although they were carried on July 10 under the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
May I be allowed to pay homage, Mr. Chairman, to the highly qualified personnel of the Department of Forestry and to the deputy minister, Dr. Rousseau, a well known scientist, who accepted the direction of a large and highly qualified team of researchers in the recently created Department of Forestry. Last year several special developments of considerable moment made history for my department. Outstanding among these was the convening of the first federal-provincial forest ministers' conference in Ottawa under
Supply-Forestry
the chairmanship of the then minister of forestry, now Postmaster General. The department also acted as official host to a meeting of the North American forestry commission sponsored by the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. Dr. Rousseau, our deputy minister, acted as chairman of this important meeting. Leading foresters and forestry scientists from many countries attended this conference. My colleague the former minister of forestry, now Postmaster General, headed the Canadian delegation to the twelfth biennial conference of the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations held in Rome.
A first step toward the development of a departmental organization orientated toward our function of responsibilities to the Canadian forest community was also undertaken. A draft report of the reorganization survey team is nearing completion. The main problems facing the Department of Forestry are the following:

Because the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Forestry is limited, since the administration of forests is the exclusive responsibility of the provinces, we feel that the department ought to make a special effort to direct its research work in order to meet the requirements of industry and the lumber business.
Consequently, I feel that it is extremely important to help in organizing, in co-operation with the provinces, the universities and the industry, the direction of the departmental research work, which is carried out in the field of the basic sciences or applied sciences related to forestry.
We feel that up to the present the efforts of the department were probably too limited and an extensive development in this field will be required.
On the other hand, the Department of Forestry has been urged for a long time to give more thought to forest fire prevention, a problem which, even though coming under exclusive provincial jurisdiction, could be solved to some extent through co-operation between the provinces and the federal government.
It is therefore our intention to try to promote more co-operation between the provinces in this respect, so as to eliminate the evil of forest fires in Canada.
Moreover, the federal government has a very definite responsibility in the economic field. We feel that the Department of Forestry,


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask the minister a question on procedure? I wonder if the minister would find it acceptable, and the Chair would find it easier, if we were to agree that our discussion in the early stages this afternoon should be concentrated on the Department of Forestry, and then reserve the right

under item 1, when all the forestry items are completed, to come back and discuss ARDA, the feed grain policy and such other related items? This would avoid mixing up forestry with a partial discussion of ARDA, feed grains, and so on.


Maurice Sauvé: I have no objection.


The Chairman:: Is that agreeable to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I thank the minister for his statement, and particularly his complimentary remarks with regard to the former minister. It has come to my attention that there has been a great need for this department. As we all know, it was established by the former government and I greatly appreciate the minister's remarks, particularly the complimentary way in which he spoke of the former minister. We all feel much the same. I say sincerely to the minister that I hope he will enjoy a similar association with this department.
I want to bring to the minister's attention this afternoon some aspects of forestry management, particularly as they relate to what is known as the eastern Rockies watershed. This area is important not only to my constituency but to the prairie provinces as a whole. I find some difficulty, Mr. Chairman, in separating the actual management and conservation of forests from water and soil conservation and the production that is so closely related thereto. However, in discussing forest conservation and production I have to bear in mind, as I said before, the relationship of the conservation of our water supply.
I have in mind an example or two to which I should like to call the minister's attention as well as the attention of the members of the department. The need is very urgent at the moment, and the sooner something can be done about this the better it will be for the whole country. I am referring to the recent floods we have had in this area. Practically everyone in this house has had his attention drawn to the floods that occurred on the eastern watershed of the Rockies, particularly in the southern area where most of the damage was done. Those floods were not entirely the result of an act of God but resulted from what I might almost term mismanagement. I do not choose to use that word at this stage, but there are one or two things that should be brought to the attention of the department and of people in general. It is something we have to be aware of and,
Supply-Forestry
as a matter of fact, should be aware of before it happens. That is the way real conservation and production are reached, to recognize the needs before things like this happen.
I may be just a little bit out of order, Mr. Chairman, but I wish to point out two examples, one of them being something that happened in a national park and the other adjacent to it on the eastern slopes of the Rockies. I believe it would be well for the minister and his officials to consider closer co-operation with the parks department because the first example I mention deals with an area of mature timber. A strong wind went through it and levelled this timber which, a few years previously, had been in its prime and, if handled properly, would not only have benefited the park and the people who visit it, but the country as a whole. Now, however, this watershed is completely waste.
With proper co-operation between the departments this could have been avoided, thus aiding the beautification of the park, the utilization of valuable forest products and the preservation of the watershed to maintain supplies of water for the adjacent areas.
I mention this example because the minister said he wanted advice. I do not purport to present this as advice. I do not pretend to be advising the minister, but things like this require urgent action and they are happening all over the country. The other day I visited in Ontario and a few weeks before that in Quebec, and in both places I saw the results of forest mismanagement in depletion of the soil and water supplies. If I may digress for a moment, there is one very real example of this in the reduced water levels of the great lakes and in the St. Lawrence seaway. The low levels in the St. Lawrence seaway have actually affected the delivery of western grain and other products. Boats are not able to load to their full capacities, which results in higher freight costs and stiffer competition for export trade.
The other example I want to mention is related very closely to forest management. I believe the departmental officials should co-operate with provincial authorities on the practice of allowing livestock to be pastured in forest areas. Some areas have been badly damaged by over-grazing in the summer months. They are very valuable sources of pasture for livestock producers and could become much more valuable, but the sorry fact is that some of them have been abused and neglected. This is something which is closely related to forest conservation and

Supply-Forestry
Canadian production as a whole, and if matters like this are neglected or ignored they can tend to deplete our water supplies.
In my area some people think we will never run short of water, which is used in three main ways, namely for irrigation-we have half a million acres under irrigation- for commercial demands, and for domestic uses. Other people however are beginning to wonder which use has a prior right. A few years of drought and, through neglect, a forest fire, would result in a reduction of the water supply. What would happen then when the three prime users would begin to vie and compete with each other for the existing supply?
The very fact that this department was created a few years ago has brought home more than ever to the Canadian people the great need for conservation, and I like to relate this to production, because through proper management we can aid the production of forest products and agricultural products and at the same time conserve our water supplies. I would like to relate this need for conservation to the ARDA program but I understand we will be doing this a little later and that other speakers will mention it. I think the ARDA program is a good one but I believe it has not been applied as rapidly and as usefully as it should. Related to forest production and conservation, it is a wonderful program. I complimented the minister earlier. I am quite sure he will take a very active interest in this matter, and before long I hope these two programs will dovetail and not only increase our production but our potential in this connection.
I also wanted to say something with regard to ARDA, soil and water conservation and the management and production thereof. I also have a word or two to say about feed grains. I will not say very much about these matters at this time except to mention that I am extremely interested in them and will be looking forward to hearing other hon. members putting forward their points of view this afternoon. This all ties in, Mr. Chairman; it is so hard to separate conservation from production. Forest conservation and production, water conservation, land conservation and their production are all tied together.
I shall conclude my remarks now, Mr. Chairman, and urge the minister very sincerely to keep these few suggestions in mind. I would also say that we on this side of the house, in spite of some of the things that take place now and then, are very sincerely interested in these matters and would be glad

to co-operate with the minister and his department on any and every opportunity.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I cannot dissemble my disappointment at the introductory remarks of the minister. I will not say he was beating around the bush, but he reminded me very much of a former minister of this house, Henri Courtemanche, when he presented his first estimates. There was that diffident approach of, "I have only been here a few months", sort of thing, "and I haven't really got a grip on things. But you just wait. One of these days I am going to be there". I would like to point out to the minister that he entered upon his portfolio with a considerable reputation, a reputation that I think a great many of us respect; that of a man of energy, education and imagination. He has been given the responsibility of a portfolio that has a great opportunity. Yet here, when he introduces his estimates, we get in effect the old, traditional lead-off speech by a minister who is in charge of nothing more than a bureaucracy, tossing off a few statistics, a few remarks and a brief outline of the organization that has been prepared for him by his deputy.
I suggest to the minister that this kind of introduction is not what we expected from him and I do not think it is up to his capacities and abilities. I suggest he has a magnificent opportunity with this department, and so far he has not given any indication that he is going to seize it. I am not talking about feed grains and eastern agriculture; I am talking about forestry. I want to give credit to members who are no longer with us, having been defeated in elections. I refer to the then members for Nanaimo, for Comox-Alberni, Mr. McQuillan, and for Coast-Capilano, who are no longer with us. They shared with me the task of writing a committee report several years ago following many meetings of the committee on mines, forests and waters, which in many ways led to the creation of the Department of Forestry. I would also like to compliment the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who it seems to me was the man in the cabinet at the time who had the perspective as to what this department might be.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The vision.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I was bitterly disappointed- and I have expressed it in this house before-over the fact that the first minister and the one who followed him were in a sense carrying on what were nothing more than the traditions that had been established by rather

effective but limited branches dealing with forestry; I am thinking particularly of the forestry branch and the forest products research organization. I have nothing critical to say, but if the minister would go back and look at the recommendations that came out of that committee he would realize we had a much wider and greater dream, or vision, if you want, for a federal Department of Forestry. He has not given any indication that he has anything of that sort in mind.
I suggest to the minister that he may be confounded over the fact that he is an ambitious person within the political framework and may be seeing his role more as a politician than as the imaginative leader of a department. I suggest that the way for him to move to a really senior place in our political situation is to really do something with this department. I believe that nothing has really been achieved yet by the Department of Forestry. As a matter of fact, if I could make the recommendation now or have any influence on it, after taking a continued interest in forestry and being one of those who wanted the department set up, I would say we might as well go back to the old situation, stick the forest products branch and the forestry branch back in the department from which they came, and look to the Department of Industry for the kind of imaginative development in forestry on the economic and industrial side that we would want.
As hon. members may be aware, I represent the largest constituency in Ontario. Its whole base is in the forest industry. It is perhaps the most productive part of Ontario, in dollar terms, where forestry is concerned. The regional, Port Arthur branch of the provincial department of lands and forests is probably the most important one in Ontario. In other words, the lakehead plays somewhat the same part and holds the same position in the pulp and paper and forestry industry in Ontario as the community of Three Rivers traditionally plays in the province of Quebec. Because of this basic economic factor, anyone who represents the area has to be concerned with and involved in forestry matters.
As a result of this I have spent a considerable time looking at American installations in the lake states; I have paid a visit to Finland and Russia to look at some of their forestry methods and the way they do things; I have had contact, as someone who established a forestry research library, at least with the literature on the subject; and I am very much aware-at least, this is my opinion -that we desperately need some kind of
Supply-Forestry
breakthrough in leadership on the federal scene in order to achieve the kind of solutions to our forestry problems which have not yet been forthcoming.
I would like to suggest to the minister some of the ways in which he should move and some of the reasons for the difficulties. I think one of the prime reasons for the difficulties in forestry relates to the very success of the forest industry itself; I am thinking particularly of the pulp and paper industry. I think the position was put in a nutshell by perhaps the most famous of all Canadian foresters, certainly the wealthiest, namely H. R. MacMillan. In 1957 H. R. MacMillan, with 50 years of professional experience behind him, said:
It is doubtful whether Canada, with its present attention to forest management, can sustain today's annual cut in perpetuity, even by going farther north each decade into virgin forest (at greater cost for logs) or by using a higher proportion of inferior species (thus reducing our competitive ability in the foreign markets on which we depend).
I know of very little since 1957 which has changed that basic situation which H. R. MacMillan pointed out. One of the real tragedies is this. When I raised this matter in the house once before, one of the senior people in the forestry field in Ontario belaboured me in the forestry newsletter; but I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that one of the prime difficulties is the very success of the forest industry, which in its pulp and paper aspect has given the actual foresters as a profession really no choice at all. I think forestry is more than a science; to a considerable extent it is an art. But a forester has to take a very long view because he is dealing with something that moves in cycles. A decade means nothing when you are managing a forest. The very approach of the forester, with his long range view and concern for the whole climate and the ecology of materials, and the large corporation with its annual report and quarterly dividends, tends to pull things asunder.
One of the unfortunate things is that foresters, as persons professionally trained and dedicated to an ideal, have not made their way with great speed up the ladder in the country's industries. It is much more often the chartered accountant who becomes the big wheel, or the logging superintendent with an engineering background, and one of the consequences is that all too rarely in our forest industry do we have that kind of idealistic conception. A forester, I would put to you, does deal with an ideal. It is the ideal of the perfect forest with the best possible use being made of it. You cannot live in a Utopia

Supply-Forestry
and you cannot create a Utopia, but it seems to me that it should always be an ideal; and it should always be the ideal in forestry to have the kind of conservation in silviculture which is always considering the forest at its best and optimum use, and getting the most commercial use from it.
In Finland I was impressed with the way both private and public forestry has entered the country and enabled it to get a fantastic return from its forests. I would point out to hon. members that Finland is a country approximately the same area as my constituency with approximately the same amount of forest cover. In many ways we have a better soil and climate than Finland has. Perhaps we do not have quite as long a growing season but there is quite a similarity. Yet Finland, a country with four to five million people, is able to accomplish a tremendous amount in paying back reparation, in supporting one of the best and most attractive small countries in Europe largely on its forests. Those forests represent an area no more than what we have in my riding of Port Arthur in terms of square miles. Dr. Piha, head of Finnish forestry, when I told him I was so impressed with their practices in Finland, said to me: "I am afraid you do not get good forestry practices till there is a desperate shortage of wood; till people begin to realize that there is no alternative to good forest management. We had to wait for it in Finland". He said the same thing followed from his Swedish experience.
Then I asked him what the Russians were doing, and he said that they have so much forest land they are just biting into it and really do not know where they are going. I had the pleasure of going to Leningrad and talking to forestry specialists there, and I think his judgment was correct. The Russians do have so much by way of forested land that they really have not got a good preliminary survey under way yet and they are not sure as to their future. But they have a logging and management concept which I think is tremendously advanced. They have plans for their cut-over areas which are much ahead of anything I know or which has been conceived of in this country, particularly by the provinces.
I make these points, Mr. Chairman, about what I saw in Finland and Russia really to come to my conclusion, that I do not think the experience of any other countries can be at all translated. I did not come back from there with the feeling that there were great lessons to be learned from either Finland or

Russia on the part of Canadian foresters. I am sure that some of our logging people could get ideas in the way of mass producing and whole tree logging, but I do not think you can apply experience of other countries to the kind of traditions and experiences which we have. However, I do think it is worth while going to see what other people such as the Finns and the Swedes can achieve by way of greater use of forest resources which are much greater than we have, and this is all tied in with a total use concept, which includes recreation, boating, camping, and living in the forest, things we have not even thought of or reached for yet.
Our problems in this country really come down to the fact that we have 11 different forest policies. Given 11 different forest policies, what role has the federal government in forestry? I can only put it in simple terms, Mr. Chairman: We have no role at all. I think it has been something of a charlatan here with regard to what we have been allowed to develop in terms of federal forest agencies, because these agencies really cannot play a positive role at the present time. They go through the motions, and they are rather good motions, of the forest roads program, the reforestation program, support for forest fire protection, a bit of general collusion on information, and some good research in forest products. But there is a tremendous limitation on it because of the variety of jurisdictions of operation, because of the jealousies which are in existence and because the forestry profession in Canada itself is not sure where it is going or what it needs to be doing.
I suggest to the minister that there are at least three places where he can look for and find opportunities to enlarge the scope of the Department of Forestry and to enable it not only to give leadership but begin to wipe out some of the varieties of standards which we possess. I want to start with what is the simplest one, and in a sense the least far-reaching. This is a suggestion I put to the former minister of forestry, who is sitting in the house now, but I never heard any more from him. I told him that he should be the first minister of forestry to realize that the best way to solve our Indian problem in this country is to tie in a real forestry development program with the Indians, who in most parts of the country live in forested areas, so that the Indian has some kind of economic confidence and is able to work in the forest. At the present time there is hardly a reserve in the country with a decent forest stand. I

suggest that a lot of things could be renegotiated with the provincial governments. At least, they are now paying lipservice through their departments of lands and forests to doing something for the Indians.
Forestry work, whether it is planting trees for a couple of weeks in the spring or fall or whether it is actually doing logging work, is something which the Indians can get on to. It is a natural for the kind of community in which they are used to living. But there must be much more leadership coming from the Indian affairs branch in this particular regard. Several years ago I tried to set up a project on forestry work for Indians in a reserve near lake Nipigon and I wound up with an involvement of four different private organizations which held leases from the provincial department, and also the trade unions became involved. So this is the complicating factor: The forests of Canada are being exploited at the present time within the private management framework and the trade union framework. It is going to take a tremendous amount of development work and initiative, and the sort of expenditure that the federal government might provide, before we are able to make a breakthrough and employ Indians to work as trained technicians, or loggers, or people carrying out the most routine and simple kind of silviculture improvement work.
It is my suggestion that this is one of the things which the Minister of Forestry can do in the country, but it will not be done by sitting in an office in Ottawa listening to officials who are used to a bureaucratic approach for all their generation. It will not be any good going to the Indian affairs branch and talking to their officials, who think in terms of rations and some kind of handout program, of $500 here or $1,000 there, or letting them cut cordwood for the winter to keep their houses warm. It must be something which both the government and the minister throw themselves into. I suggest that this is one field which would take the Department of Forestry into almost every province in the country and give it and its officials and the professional people a much greater understanding of some of the problems met by the local communities.
I mention this because so often when I talk with foresters and loggers in the industry I encounter a kind of pleasant contempt which they have for the federal Department of Forestry. I do not go along with their contempt, but their attitude is usually based in
Supply-Forestry
dollars and cents terms. They feel if something pays, it is worth while, but that these fellows spend too much of their time in Ottawa and Petawawa, and forestry stations, frigging around with experiments. This department has sample plots all over the country, and what good are they? I understand if one could put the sample plots that have been established in this country end to end, in order to visit them all a man would have to go across Canada and back. As a matter of fact, I imagine a good deal of the foresters spend much of their time trying to make sure they have not lost track of all the records in respect of the sample plots. Perhaps I am exaggerating somewhat, but in many ways that is the situation.
I believe that if some of our professional foresters in the federal service were really at work bringing the Indians into a program associated with forestry, lumbering and logging, which was practical and really trained them, we would really begin to move the Indians off the reservations and provide the type of income that would do something for them. I should like to point out to the minister that I have on occasion witnessed an Indian who got out and worked for a pulp and paper company and eventually earned $6,000 or $7,000 per year. If one really wishes to consider the materialism aspect of this situation, he has only to look at that kind of Indian who is earning a good income, which captures him, so that he begins to move up in social class terms. This may sound crude, but this is the kind of thing we need for the Indians in order to give them the kind of income and economic future that will enable them to share in the material things we have and provide educational opportunities for their children. The Indian is not going to do this as long as he is sequestered on a reserve, living on the rations, handouts and paternalism that he now receives from the Indian affairs branch.
The Indian affairs branch was very pleased last year because in my area they found the opportunity of appointing an officer to look after the educational and employment opportunities for Indians in northwestern Ontario. He is looking after the employment and educational opportunities for about 16,000 Indians scattered 800 miles east and west and 500 miles north and south. What kind of an impact do you expect to make in respect of creating employment opportunities for Indians with that point of view?
I suggest to the minister that the first step he must take as the Minister of Forestry to really achieve the kind of reputation he would

Supply-Forestry
like for his department is in the direction of using the forestry industry as a means of making the Indians in our country full time citizens with economic opportunities. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, the minister will not have an easy job in this regard. The situation will vary from place to place in the country, and a successful approach will require a tremendous amount of diplomacy, having regard to trade unions in particular, and provincial departments. I think the people in Canada have good will and intentions in this respect.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal now with the second point I wish to draw to the minister's attention. When I was rather young I travelled a good deal in northern Minnesota and was rather impressed by the example set by the United States civilian conservation corps. During the depression years the civilian conservation corps employed 3,000 boys and young men during the first year it was organized and 5,000 in its second year. This is the kind of undertaking we need to deal with the growing problems with which we are faced. We would be required to follow this example on a smaller scale, of course, but through such an organization I certainly can see the possibility of both a meaningful conservation program developing, about which so many foresters love to talk at conventions-and that is about all-as well as some useful conservation being carried out by young people. This program could also include the planning and developing of parks.
It seems to me we have built a raft of schools all over this country under the vocational and technical assistance act. We have spent an astronomical amount, approximately $500 million. I think within two or three years this program will cost the federal government almost $1 billion. This is a good program, and certainly provides training schools in many parts of the country, but the basic industry relies upon forests, which in many ways have been disappearing. One can talk a good deal about sustained yield, but approximately 35 per cent of the cut-overs in the pulp and paper country of Ontario and Quebec are really not regenerated to any degree of quality. Considering the kind of personnel we have, water pollution, low water levels, the demand and response in respect of the parks we have created, I feel a civilian conservation corps could play a tremendous role in this country. Such a program would tie in perfectly with the kind of

practical education opportunities we wish to provide a great many people.
In Ontario there is a junior forest rangers scheme in operation. Young lads are put to work during their summer holidays, but there are almost ten times as many boys who want this opportunity as there are opportunities provided by the department of lands and forests. The greatest demand for this kind of opportunity exists in the larger urban areas where the population is concentrated. Such a program would tie in magnificently with forest management and would help in respect of thinning, planting and a return of our forests to the magnificence they possessed in their natural state.
I realize that the question which must be in the minister's mind in this regard, in view of the fact he is from the province of Quebec, concerns provincial jurisdiction. I suggest this kind of program would have to be a shared program, and that it could not be just one allowing a national group of individuals to run around in uniforms and work in the bush. I think the minister should approach this problem by working with one provincial forestry department which might be co-operative, such as the department of forestry of British Columbia or Ontario, and find out whether after a trial run of perhaps two years it would be possible to take a number of these people, who are looking for work and training under schedule 5, and are carried by the Department of Labour, in an attempt to develop a team of men who would receive training and perform useful work in our forests.
I can visualize a number of ways that this program could be tied in with ARDA. The minister will acknowledge that ARDA does allow a training program on a regional basis as far as financing is concerned. It seems to me that ARDA could be used in this way to provide the framework of a program to carry out this kind of thing.
Mr. Chairman, we need a minister of forestry who has sufficient imagination and drive to take advantage of this opportunity and move with it. I believe my suggestion is practical, although I realize one of the difficulties that was encountered in the United States in respect of the civilian conservation corps developed because it became a political football. Both the civilian conservation corps and the W.P.A. became political footballs. I remember the signs which hung in United States bars and which said: "Don't shoot it; it is not a bear, it is a W.P.A. worker having a sleep." That was the suggestion on the sign.

I agree that a program of this kind cannot be developed on a sound basis of the people who are to participate in it are a select group. Mr. Chairman, I can visualize the potentialities of such a program. Many good things could be done in this way and I recommend this idea to the minister as the second thing he should do as the Minister of Forestry.
The third thing I should like the minister to do is tackle the problems which face the forestry production industry in Canada. Surely the federal Department of Forestry, which is the senior department, should have some idea of the future need and demand for foresters in this country. There is considerable confusion in this regard. Recently in the lake-head area we have had discussions about attempts to establish a degree course in forestry. We have had a tremendous variety of prognostications in respect of the need for foresters, the required level of training for men who now know this industry in its entirety. We have also considered how far we must train individuals required in the different technical sections of this industry.
It seems to me that the forestry industry will continue to be the basic and most important element of our economy, and it is for that reason I suggest the minister could best become informed and enthusiastic about forestry in Canada by carrying out a study in respect of future needs in the field of forestry personnel. He should make this a very wide ranging project, because the situation is continually changing.
People have the conception that a forester is someone who wears a boy scout hat, high boots and travels around marking or blazing trees. It is a much more complicated field than that and it has much more variety. I think we need to know more about what our needs are in this field at the present time. Again, there is no central agency that really knows these things. Certainly the Canadian institute of forestry, which is the foresters' national organization, has really not come up with anything like this. I suggest to the minister it is with this organization he should co-operate and work in getting a draft of our future needs in terms of foresters and technicians. I think this would fit into the other two proposals I have put before the minister and I would hope they would at least interest him.
The one thing I would ask of the minister is that he would at least consider my suggestion seriously. I do not expect him to give the usual defence, what I might call the Henri Courtemanche defence, which would
Supply-Forestry
be to get up and read something prepared in rebuttal by his officials, pointing out all the worth-while little things that the Department of Forestry does or has done or plans to do. I have seen that in the department's annual report and in the publications that are listed here. I should like to suggest to the minister that we need something much bolder and more creative. He in particular more than anyone who is likely to fill that post has the opportunity, because for some reason he has the reputation. If the minister has been good enough to create the reputation, I think it is about time that, given the job he has, he began to come through and back it up with something solid.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to make a few brief observations in a general way with regard to the estimates of the department now before us. Others of my colleagues will be dealing with various aspects of the estimates and also with ARDA and the various programs to which reference has been made this afternoon. I should like to extend my congratulations to the minister on his appointment to this portfolio but in doing so I express some disappointment that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was transferred from the Department of Forestry to the Post Office Department. I believe he is a man of experience who was prepared to give definite and positive leadership in the department. I do not say that, however, with any intention of downgrading the present minister. I feel he will build upon the foundation laid by his predecessor, as his predecessor built upon the initial work of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton in setting up the department.
As I have indicated, Mr. Chairman, I want to make some general remarks in regard to the Department of Forestry. I think we all recognize the fact that forestry is one of Canada's greatest industries. I suppose there are those in various parts of the country who will sometimes question that statement because of the fact that in their areas forestry does not particularly concern them. In fact, we were talking in a jocular fashion a little while ago and one of my colleagues said he did not have a tree in his constituency and therefore he would not presume to speak on forestry. Nevertheless I believe all of us in the house today recognize the tremendous importance of the forests and the forest industries to the Canadian economy.
Like one of the other speakers today I was somewhat disappointed that the minister did

Supply-Forestry
not take this opportunity to present a challenging program to us and outline some of the things he is contemplating as far as the development of the department is concerned. However, a very interesting pamphlet came to hand just recently from the Department of Forestry. It is publication No. 1002 titled "Canada, A Forest Nation". I think this is basically true. I should like to refer to several sections. It begins with the statement that Canada is a forest nation and the second paragraph reads as follows:
The total forested area of Canada is more than 1,700,000 square miles. Productive forests-those capable of producing usable timber-cover one million square miles. About 80 per cent of this forest land is publicly owned and administered by the ten provincial governments which make the forest crop available to the forest industries through a variety of systems. The remaining 20 per cent is made up of farm woodlots, forest land owned by companies and individuals, and of areas for which the federal government is responsible.
With respect to the annual forest harvest it states:
The annual harvest from the forest averages 3.200 million cubic feet.
Further on it states:
The forest industries employ over 300.000 and pay out $1,200 million in salaries and wages each year. Woods operations account for about $400 million in salaries and wages and provide employment in the neighbourhood of 80,000 man years, or the equivalent of 80,000 year round jobs.
Then it goes on to refer to the pulp and paper industry and to the fact that over a period of 50 years it has grown to become Canada's leading manufacturing industry. The pamphlet goes on to set out some of the important facts with relation to Canada as a forest nation. I think this information should be of real interest to many who come from sections of the country that are not forested. I give this information once again to indicate the fact that the minister has jurisdiction at least to a certain degree over one of Canada's greatest industries. I also wish to point out in this connection that even as forestry is one of Canada's great industries, so in my own province of British Columbia it occupies a very important place. The hon. member for Vancouver East interjects that British Columbia has 60 million acres of forest. I have here a pamphlet headed "British Columbia, Facts and Statistics, 1963". It contains some very interesting information with regard to British Columbia and I should like to put a few of these facts on the record. With regard to forestry it states:
The forests form the backbone of the British Columbia economy and contribute most to provincial income and employment. The estimated net

value of production of all forest industries amounted to $850 million in 1963, or approximately 38 per cent of total production.
The report goes on to state:
Of all manufacturing industries in British Columbia, lumber ranks first, pulp and paper ranks second, while plywood constitutes the fourth largest industry in the province. At present the British Columbia forest industries produce nearly 70 per cent of all the lumber manufactured in Canada-
I think this is something for us to appreciate.
-20 per cent of all the pulp, almost 15 per cent of all the paper, and approximately 85 per cent of all the plywood. The forest industries are an important source of employment. In 1963 they directly employed approximately 78.000 persons.
During the year 1962 British Columbia exported to foreign countries $602,400,000 worth of wood and wood products. Of this total, 75 per cent went to the United States, while 12 per cent went to the United Kingdom. The most important wood products exported in order of their value were: Lumber, $303,500,000: pulp, $123,600,000; newsprint. $105,900,000.
I think we in British Columbia have a tremendous heritage and a wonderful opportunity so far as this particular aspect of our economy is concerned. As I have pointed out, it is important not only to Canada but to British Columbia. Of course, as indicated by the percentage of the wealth that is accumulated from this source in British Columbia, there is a tremendous contribution in turn to our national economy.
Now. the entry of the federal government into the areas of activity and responsibility that have hitherto been considered of provincial concern now extends to forestry. I just read a booklet the other day pointing out the periods of time during which the federal government moved into certain areas that previously had been under provincial jurisdiction. It referred to national health and welfare, labour and the trend now to accept certain responsibilities with respect to the education of our people, especially in higher education. This trend has been extended now to forestry. Here, we come again to the importance of federal-provincial relations. Forestry comes under provincial jurisdiction, yet it seems as though the problems in this area are of such a magnitude, so widespread and so general across the country, that it seems advisable the federal authorities should assume some particular role so far as the development of our forests is concerned.
This was pointed out by the hon. member for Port Arthur as presenting one of the problems, the fact that we now have ten provincial jurisdictions and a federal jurisdiction. If there is going to be satisfactory progress made in the various fields of endeavour

there will have to be close co-operation and liaison maintained between federal and provincial jurisdictions. I do feel, however, as I have pointed out, that unquestionably the establishment of the federal Department of Forestry has been worth while. It has a legitimate function to perform so long as it is careful to confine itself to those matters outlined when the department was set up.
Reference has been made to the matter of conservation. We know that this is a very important part of forestry development in our country. If we do not have proper conservation and reforestation, then the time is going to come when we are not going to have any forests. This has been recognized by those who have been interested in this particular matter, and a great deal of attention has been given to it. I was reminded the other day, when there was a discussion taking place on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, that natural resources were included in the setting of the bases for the equalization grants, but no attention was given to the cost involved. The gross income was considered.
I should like to refer to a brief statement from a publication dealing with British Columbia forest industry facts, which states that the provincial government received $35 million in direct revenue, exclusive of income and sales taxes, from the sale of timber licences and stumpage in 1963, but the British Columbia forest services spent $17 million on all phases of its activities which included protection and the renewal of the resource. We see here therefore that in the province of British Columbia, and I imagine in other provinces that have extensive forest resources, a great deal of money is expended on the matter of conservation. I feel that in all of our discussions and in all of our negotiations we should remember, or the federal government should remember, that there is a great deal of money spent in conservation and promotion of these different things which should be taken into consideration. This includes, of course, fire protection to which the minister made reference in his introductory remarks.
There is just one other matter to which I should like to make a brief reference, and that is the matter of research. I think it is very necessary for research in this particular field to be accelerated. A certain amount is being done in universities by provincial governments. Then of course the industry itself is expending considerable amounts of money on research. However, the problems that affect the forest industry are more or less general. I suppose there are some local
Supply-Forestry
problems, but to a large extent the problems that affect the industry are country-wide, from one coast to the other. I feel there is a legitimate area here in which the federal department could expand its research facilities. The minister made some reference today to the fact that facilities are being extended in the province of British Columbia. We do appreciate this. As I pointed out, this is one of the fields in which I think those in the forest industry have a part to play. They could do so by pooling all their resources, pooling all their research facilities. Only in this way will adequate and effective progress be made in the field of research.
As I have stated, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make these brief remarks. Other matters will be dealt with when we come to the various items.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is no department of the government of Canada that can better be described as the Cinderella department than the Department of Forestry. I do not believe I need to hold up the committee by reminding all Canadians that the forest industry, not only presently but for long years in the future, is the most important industry we have in Canada. Under the constitutional arrangement that we have, this industry is under the ownership, management and control of our ten provincial governments. The only direct control the federal government has in this field is in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
Having mentioned the simple realities of the background of the situation, I may say it has become increasingly clear in the last 15 years that something was drastically wrong with the handling of our forests in Canada. There is no need quarrelling about how this complicated situation developed. The fact remained that something had to be done. The reasons something had to be done were clear. In 1949, for example, the food and agriculture organization pointed out in its report that tremendously increased demands would be occurring in the world markets for products of the forests. This report in 1949 should have warned us in Canada that we, with our tremendous base of forest resources, should begin to plan for the day when we would be under pressure to supply the market.
In 1959 the food and agriculture organization of the world published its second report, pointing out once again in a revised form that the calculation on which the demand factor had been predicted in 1949 was wrong and it should have been much greater than had

Supply-Forestry
been indicated in 1949. It was on the basis of the 1959 report that the government of the day decided to do something about the challenge facing the forestry industry of Canada. We based our decision in setting up a new forestry department on the fact that demand by the people of the world for the products of the forests, primarily in paper products at that time but also in sawn lumber, would increase at such a rate that if something was not done in the lumber and paper producing countries of the world there would be a serious shortage all around the world. This was the first premise on which we worked.
The second premise on which we worked was that since the ownership of the forests and their management lay in the hands of the provincial governments, it was impossible for the officials of the branch of forestry, which was then in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, to deal on a basis of equality with ministers and deputy ministers at the provincial level. It seemed clear to us that if we were to take advantage of the opportunities that existed in the markets of the world for the products of the forests, we had to raise the status of this branch to the full level of having its own minister. It is, after all, our No. 1 industry; and this was done.
I would like to be able to say that in the intervening four years much progress has been made, but quite frankly I am appalled at how little has been done to meet the challenge of the opportunity that exists. As the hon. member for Port Arthur pointed out, you cannot move in the forest industry quickly and get the results you want. All your planning is based on 20, 30, 40 and even 100 years ahead, but the basic fact is that the demand is there, and just as the people of the world need food, so do they need the fibres of the forest.
In the Department of Forestry there is collected under one department three main branches. Each one of these branches, whether it be the forestry resource section, the pathology and entomology division or the forest products division, have concentrated in their respective divisions probably more brainpower and more dedication than any other department of government which we have. Yet with all this ability-undermanned, not supported fully by treasury board, not achieving what they should be able to achieve- in spite of all this tremendous asset, we are missing the boat.

To my mind the reason is very simple. Because they are restrained by the constitutional limitations on what they can do under the federal government, the tremendous achievements and accomplishments within this limited framework have not been sufficient to make a big impact on what I think is the crucial challenge before us.
The hon. member for Port Arthur pointed out what he thought was the problem. I can say this, and I think the minister will understand as his predecessor understood-this is not a partisan political criticism-that there is a problem and a challenge that has to be met, but it cannot be met by the minister's officials. This is a challenge to the minister. The responsibility rests on his shoulders, and if I may repeat a bit of what the hon. member for Port Arthur said, knowing from the minister's background and from the province of Quebec the difficulty he will have in the constitutional field, in spite of all the difficulties they place before him the country expects from the Minister of Forestry, to use the words of the hon. member for Port Arthur, such diplomacy, such charm, such practical inducements that he can lead these provincial departments, not only of forestry but all the ones that surround that industry, into the light of the opportunities that now exist. The opportunity is there. I said this to the minister's predecessor, that no minister in any government had a greater opportunity to serve his country well than did the Minister of Forestry.
What are some of the things that can be done to bring these provincial governments to see the light of opportunity? First of all they should be impressed with the fact that the federal government has a place in this picture, and the place the federal government has is in the marketing arena through the Department of Trade and Commerce. Second, it has a place in taxation policies, yes and even monetary policies, which have a direct bearing on the success or failure of getting the provincial governments, through their control of the forest licences, to do the things that the national interest demands.
A moment ago I mentioned the reports of F.A.O. in 1949 and 1959. So desperate is the situation that in 1964 F.A.O. did not choose to wait until 1969 for its regular decennial report, but issued a special report just a month ago, appealing to the whole world and warning the whole world not only of the impending shortage in pulp and paper products but also in sawn lumber.
Look at the figures of the proportions of use of wood products in Europe. Just a few

years ago 80 per cent of the forest production of Europe went into the sawn lumber section of the industry. Now that is rising to 90 per cent and 95 per cent, to meet the demand for sawn lumber as the people of Europe rehabilitate themselves and have better standards in their housing. Thus the demand for sawn lumber is rising at a very rapid percentage rate, and as they lessen the supply of wood production going into paper production this gives us an opportunity.
Just a few months ago I visited the mainland of China and in conversations I had with vice-ministers of that government one of the things they emphasized to me was that in addition to the farm machinery and fertilizer they needed for their 300 million acres of farmland, they had to face up to the practical fact that they would have to come into the markets of the world and buy newsprint in tremendous quantities. You can readily visualize why that is so.
Over there in the score of provinces in China the great forests of centuries ago were denuded and those which were left were burned off by the Japanese, with result that only two provinces have forestry reserves of any substance. You cannot take a nation of 700 million people and leave it without paper. What is the use of educating 80 million students in their schools unless there is something for them to read? How can they build up an industrial nation without the paper on which an industry is based? Here is one of the greatest demand factors that the world has faced in the last 10 years, and the only thing that stops unlimited purchases by the Chinese of paper and paper products in world markets is the fact that they have to earn the money to buy them; and they are desperately striving to do that. But here you have a demand factor. If the intentions of that government are going to be met, they want as a minimum to put a newspaper into every home in China. There are 700 million people in this one market, compared with 200 million in the United States and Canadian markets. Even if the newspaper that goes into those homes has only three or four pages, or even eight pages, as compared with our many-pages newspapers, the demand factor is tremendous.
When the Chinese look around the world for sources of supply they see the great forest reserves of Russia, but they know these forests will not meet their need because their products have not yet been adapted to the making of pulp and paper. They know that in the southeastern United States there is a
Supply-Forestry
potential for increasing production in pulp and paper because of the rapid growth of the forests in that part of the world due to the climate. But the potential is limited, in the face of this tremendous demand. They look at the heavy pressure on the forests of western Europe and see there is not much hope for them there. They look at the forests of the tropical areas of the world. They are not yet suitable for pulp and paper production on a large scale. Then they know that the one area in the world which can help them out is Canada, with its tremendous forest reserves.
How, then, I ask the minister, are you going to take opportunities like this, when as minister you have no control over the provincial governments except in regard to inducement in connection with markets? This is where the leadership test occurs. I think the minister should accept the fact that our paper industry, for instance, has grown up like Topsy and is to too large a degree integrated with the markets of the south. It is not a case of the production of a forest limit being available to buyers all over the world; the product of that timber limit is dedicated to the same newspaper in the United States every year. In too many cases this is so.
So far no provision has made any effort to change this situation. I am sure the minister also knows that, generally speaking, the forests of Ontario eastward are fairly well dedicated to some form of production right now. He knows that the only available virgin forest for pulp and paper production are in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. These areas of the interior of British Columbia through to Manitoba cannot easily assimilate pulp and paper mills, even though there is a demand factor in the world for their production, because they are cut off from the place where the demand exists. The demand for pulp and paper products is first in Europe, where the growth rate is nearly 15 per cent per year. It is slowly and steadily increasing in the United States, I think by about 5 per cent. Then there are these virgin markets in China that I have outlined. But these areas cannot possibly get into those markets because they are in the centre of the continent. The mills on the eastern seaboard, on the St. Lawrence seaway and the coastal areas of British Columbia are to a large measure dedicated to southern market integration and their production is taken up by those markets.
I put these facts before the minister because on the basis of these facts, with the

Supply-Forestry
market opportunity here, with the system of marketing that is going on, X am sure the minister, with his reputation of getting over tremendous difficulties, can see the obvious solution to the problems. This one challenge met in the next five to ten years would be the greatest contribution that could be made by any minister of any department of any Canadian government, in dollars and cents; there is no question about it.
I do not know precisely how many more new mills we could develop in virgin forests. My guess would be, somewhere around 20, or maybe as high as 30; but that is all. Here we have a demand factor much greater than this extra number of mills could meet. This raises the proposal of the hon. member for Port Arthur. I know that the departmental officials all know that sooner or later this country has to turn its attention to systematic silviculture; but that is not going to come easily in view of this nice, comfortable rut into which the forest industry has got itself, particularly on the paper side, in dedicating its production to markets southward, when most of the new markets are eastward and westward.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the second challenge which the minister faces is how to make a breakthrough in this respect and induce the industry to look for greater marketing opportunities. The minister must impress upon the industry that in the long run not only will they be meeting the dividend requirements of their directors day by day or year by year, but there will be an increasing use of their products and a much greater production within the limits of their territory as the years go by-if not now, then 25 or 30 years from now.
The minister must use all the techniques at his command to get the industry to depart from the well established tradition of relying upon the type of cutting they carry out and leaving regeneration to nature. All this must be challenged. I am no scientist, Mr. Chairman, but I know enough about it to realize that the scientists can talk about it, write papers on it, and get no place. This is what is happening. The minister, with all the prestige of a federal ministry behind him, has to take the case to the industry, to the provincial ministers, and eventually to the people of Canada. He can do it if he will hold out the inducement of more money at the end of the rainbow. I do not think I was wrong when I said earlier in my remarks that the forest industry is the Cinder-

ella industry. Take it out of the kitchen and put it up at the top level.
I do not think there is any question about it; many of us would just love the opportunity of accepting this challenge and tackling the problem. I personally am envious of the minister, that he has this great opportunity in his grasp. If he does measure up to the opportunity, I will be the first to praise his name; but if he does not; I will be there as hard as I can go asking for action. He has one of the best groups of men ever collected around a minister. They will give him all the scientific information on production, control of disease, forest products research, and so on. But the minister's job is to realize that only he has the prestige, working within the limitations of the constituency, to get rid of these tremendous taboos that have been built up over the last 60 years and make a breakthrough in the ways I have suggested.
There are many sidelines I could lead the minister into. I do not think I would be wrong in suggesting that with all his opportunities, and in spite of the reluctance of the provinces-because they have treasury boards too-he could take much of the land in Canada which has no particular purpose and rededicate it to forest use. That might be done under the individual farm program, under ARDA, or through the county forests. But do not forget that it might also be done under the national forests. We have never moved into that field in Canada. There are arguments both for it and against it, but it cannot have escaped the minister's notice that in the last congress in the United States a bill went through one of the houses allowing the minister there to take over a ten year period some 50 million acres and add it to the national forests. The use of these national forests is not limited just to watching trees grow; it is also used for other purposes, mainly recreation.
In addition to that the hon. member for Port Arthur has spoken with some reason in expressing satisfaction regarding the tremendous contributions made by the civilian conservation corps in the United States in the 1930's. He suggested that we should take a look at this in Canada, and I agree with him. Not only do our forests lend themselves to a great business opportunity for the country, but they serve as a training course for young people not only from rural areas but from our cities, who have two months every year in which they could serve their country well. I do not follow things in the United

States closely but I understand that they expect to have one million people functioning under the youth conservation act the minute it goes through this year. Unfortunately, in Canada we could only speak of about 100,000; but these 100,000 could not only be used on work in the forests but could be tied in with the recreational and redevelopment activities around our cities and would provide a working force which would not only assist in their training but would also build assets for which there are markets at the end of the road.
I think I have said enough to indicate that there are some things which the minister will have in his mind, and I will be looking forward to the introduction of his bill in the house which will set up a new department. I do not blame him for reserving till that time his own personal philosophy, and for taking that opportunity to describe in some detail what he intends to do about these things. I hope that the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur and myself will have some bearing on the ideas which he will be presenting at that time.
While I am on my feet, although I may be a little out of order in asking for clarification, I should like to say now that I realize that much of this redevelopment work which will be done under ARDA will have to be through the forestry arm. Over the next few years we are going to require thousands of foresters, in the same way as over the years we have developed thousands of farmers. These foresters will be devoted to the shifting over from a very inefficient method, in my opinion, of handling forests into the more efficient methods of silviculture in areas close to civilization. In this field, which is purely within the hands of the provincial government, the key to the situation is that the federal minister can dangle before the provinces opportunities for markets. Where his persuasiveness will be really required is in the fact that the provinces will have a positive return.
If I may give an example, the province of Ontario puts 100,000 acres a year into reforestation. It is estimated that there are eight million acres as a minimum which should be shifted into forests in Ontario. At the rate they are going it will take 80 years. But the demand factor is on us now and in five or ten years the world will be in a precarious position in regard to supplying the needs of the woods section of the economy. I suggest that this matter is very urgent.
Supply-Forestry
If I may move a little further into this field, let me say I know the difficulties cannot be cured all across the country all at once. Under the ARDA concept you have an opportunity of selecting certain areas upon which you can concentrate. I have been watching the reports coming in from the interlake area and the news from Gaspe, and they have been getting the facts out. But on reading these reports I keep finding the prejudices of the past coming into them, even when people are supposed to have approached the subject completely from an all-resource use concept. In the report on the interlake area of Manitoba, which I assume the minister has seen, there is outlined the various opportunities for redeveloping the whole area between the two lakes in Manitoba. But they forgot the forestry part. If I were minister and paying half the cost of that study I would say: "Look, I don't mind paying half the cost, because this report came at the initiative of the province of Manitoba, but have you not forgotten something?" Forestry provides one of the great opportunities for redeveloping that area, and because the provincial authorities in Manitoba have been disappointed so often in the last 20 or 25 years about getting pulp and paper mills you cannot blame them in one sense for being disillusioned. However, it is the purpose of the minister to restore their faith and not to overlook the possibility of that type of use in the redevelopment of that area.
Likewise in the clay belts of Ontario and Quebec. I drove through that area last week end to look at it once again. In an area of good land where the farmers are farming good farms, I see 90 per cent of the area going back into natural forests. I know the land is good but they are suffering from a very simple missing ingredient-lack of markets. I know the initiative lies in the hands of the provinces under ARDA to make proposals, but that does not stop a livewire minister from having frequent chats with provincial ministers and telling them they are overlooking something. I should like to see a good land area on the northern slopes going to Hudson bay, James bay and Quebec. Take this area on as one where you realize that there is a market for these products which are there-beef and wood products. These may be combined. There are people there trained to do this sort of work. As the hon. member for Port Arthur mentioned, you have an Indian population which adapts itself to this type of work. Another area which I think is ideally suited,

Supply-Forestry
with good land but cursed with a lack of markets, is the Lake St. John area in Quebec. The whole area up from the Saguenay I should like to see looked at as an area like the Gaspe and the interlake area in Manitoba.
We accept the principle that the provinces must provide the initiative, but not the whole thing entirely. I suggest that the minister make a proposal to the provinces and they may bring forward something as a result. But it must be suggested. If two, three or four areas in Canada are being given the opportunity of going into pilot operations on a silviculture approach, this gives an opportunity to the trained men in the minister's department to work with the ARDA people and show that forestry can produce dollars and cents per acre in a superior fashion to what is now being produced from marginal agriculture and nutritional soil.
I thank you very much for allowing me the privilege of putting these ideas before the minister, because after the hon. member for Port Arthur had spoken I could not resist the opportunity of expanding his remarks.


Mr. Macdonald:: Mr. Chairman, I should like the opportunity on the occasion of the minister's estimates being before the committee to take a few minutes of this committee's time to make a few remarks both to affirm some of the statements made just now by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and to discuss a particular problem related to forest and potential forest land in part of southern Ontario surrounding the city I represent.
Coming as I do from an entirely metropolitan riding perhaps I should establish my qualifications to make some remarks on this subject. I think possibly I may claim a more intimate and longer standing association with the federal government forestry branch than almost any member of the house, being the son of a man who was an employee of the federal forestry branch for 40 years, ultimately becoming a director. I have heard from him and his associates many expressions of the frustrations about which we have just heard from the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, in respect of the problem created by division of jurisdiction over Canada's forest resources, and the particular frustrations of people with scientific training in forestry and related sciences who see what Canadian forests are capable of, what they require and the way in which they are failing to receive the attention they deserve.

One particular area that seems of importance to me, and that I should like to stress today, relates to some of the marginal lands, some of the worked out lands, and some of the farm lands in southern Ontario stretching right from the Quebec border to lake Huron which, initially cleared as long ago as a century, or a century and a half, have over a period of time been worked out or by maltreatment ceased to be productive for farm purposes.
I think it has been clearly established over a period of years, including consideration by the Senate committee on land uses in Canada, that there is a great potential for this land, and a great opportunity for various levels of government to introduce and encourage reforestation of these lands, which perhaps should never have been taken out from under forest cover in the first place. A great many recommendations in respect of the development of these lands have called for intervention of governments. I point out there is a great deal of initiative on the part of private operators, and chiefly individuals who have over a period of years both for profit and purely on the basis of a hobby, established tree farms in areas where they have engaged in reforestation in an attempt to put these lands again under tree cover.
One of the difficulties that has stood in the way of people carrying on this enterprise has been the manner in which, over a period of years, property assets represented by these reforestation projects, have been treated for tax purposes. In this respect the federal government does not have sole and absolute jurisdiction.
The first difficulty arose in that area which might generally be described as death duties where both the federal government, by way of estate tax, and the provincial government, by way of succession duties, have levied taxes against the assets of deceased persons. The remarks I have made I address both to the Minister of Forestry and his colleague the Minister of Finance, for consideration at the time of the budget. I would also suggest that the Minister of Forestry keep these ideas in mind for consideration when he is next talking with provincial governments in respect of agreements between federal and provincial governments which are initiated on the basis of the present statute, and which were originally negotiated on the basis of the Canada Forestry Act.
The chief effect, I would suggest, of the present arrangement in respect of estate

taxes and succession duties is the encouragement of bad forestry practices because of the necessity of recovering cash to pay these estate taxes and succession duties. The necessity for a quick turnover so that the claims of the crown can be satisfied means that bad forestry practices may often be followed and land that has, with great care, been brought slowly along to the point where it might be put to a sustained yield basis, may for example have to be subject to strip cutting altogether, or other bad forestry practices which will yield an immediate or early cash return. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it deserves the consideration of both the federal and provincial tax authorities, to see how, by constitutional arrangements and related legislation, changes can be effected, making it possible to postpone the payment of succession duties and estate taxes until such time as, in accordance with good forestry practice, the forest crop on any particular land is realized. In the case of lands which are on a sustained yield basis I suggest a formula could be worked out for periodic payment of succession duties and estate taxes or, if it is land on which the forest is ultimately brought to maturity and is going to be cut clear, then at such time the estate taxes or succession duties which may have been outstanding, with added interest, could become payable.
At the same time, I would suggest that municipal taxes may have a serious effect on tree farming and tree farmers in our different provinces, and that efforts should be made to recast the structure of municipal taxes so they recognize the special character of a forest. As hon. members know, land devoted to forestry may for very many years, in accordance with good forestry practice, not yield any income at all. But, as we all know, nothing is more certain than that each year the county tax assessor will be around to collect his mite from the owner of the land.
Mr. Chairman, what I am suggesting again today is that the payment, or if not the payment perhaps the assessment arrangements under provincial legislation, could be changed so that the assessment and payment of municipal taxes could be postponed until the crops from the particular land is realized, in accordance with good forestry practice.
In respect of these various amendments, and for inspiration in connection with this type of amendment, I would suggest the minister and his department could possibly look to some of the measures which have 20220-451i
Annual Vacations Act
been enacted in the United Kingdom in recent years for the purpose of encouraging the owners of particular lands to maintain them under forest, and to follow good forestry practices. In particular I would refer the minister to the provision in the United Kingdom death duty legislation which defines timber and agricultural land, or that devoted to timber in a particular way, at the lower rate which is applicable to that part of a person's estate which is under forest. I think both the provincial and federal governments should seriously consider this kind of amendment to our taxation statutes, which in the long run I suggest would ultimately lead to the same revenue but would adjust the structure of the taxation in such a way as to be consistent with the manner in which these very valuable resources by Canadians should be developed and realized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is five o'clock. I will therefore wait until the next opportunity to make my remarks.

Progress reported.


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



ANNUAL VACATIONS ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. C-54, to amend the Annual Vacations Act (three weeks after five years).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple and straightforward bill, the entire purport of which is contained in the title. The bill proposes to amend the Annual Vacations Act which is already on the statute books, to provide that an employee with five years employment shall have three weeks annual vacation with pay. As hon. members are aware, at the present time the act provides for one week after one year and for two weeks after two years of employment. The present act goes no further. But in this day and age a great many people, especially those who have served for any period of time, do have a longer vacation each year than two weeks, and it seems to many of us that such

Annual Vacations Act
a provision ought to be part of our national labour legislation.
I hope it can be clear at this time, because it has not always been clear with respect to these bills of mine, that this does not refer to civil servants. It does not refer to federal employees. It refers to workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction. I mention that because on two or three occasions when I have had companion bills before the house I have read the next day in the press that the member for Winnipeg North Centre was again trying to get something more for federal civil servants. I do that in its place, Mr. Speaker; but this is general labour legislation which applies to all those workers in Canada the nature of whose employment is such that they come under federal labour jurisdiction. These include railway, transportation and communications workers, bank employees and quite a long list of others. The list has been put on the record a number of times.
Although the list is a long one we know that labour matters in this country are the subject of divided jurisdiction. Some come under federal jurisdiction, some come under provincial jurisdiction. Roughly speaking, about one tenth of the labour force comes under federal labour jurisdiction and the remaining 90 per cent come under provincial jurisdiction.
The purpose of this bill is to improve a piece of federal legislation that we already have. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the request, if I may call it that, made in this bill is a very reasonable one. In fact, it is so reasonable I am almost ashamed of it. Instead of asking for three weeks vacation with pay after five years I think the bill should have asked for three weeks after three years or four years at the most. But around this place one has to learn to expect things to move slowly, especially with the 1919 Liberals still in power, and so if we could get this much at least it would be a bit of progress.
But I say, Mr. Speaker, that no one can deny the utter reasonableness of this proposal. It is not breaking new ground as to principle. The principle is already established that by federal labour legislation we declare that workers who come under that jurisdiction should have holidays with pay. So far we have provided just two definitions. We say that those who have worked for one year shall get one week's vacation with pay and we say that those who have worked for two years shall get two weeks vacation with pay. It is our contention that we should widen this definition and say that those who have worked

for five years shall get at least three weeks vacation with pay.
Because this proposition is so reasonable I hope that the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), who I see in his place and who as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour will no doubt be replying, will treat it in the simple, straightforward, reasonable manner in which it is presented. I hope he will not give us another of those profound orations that go all around the subject but fail to deal with the simplicity and straightforwardness of the proposal. I do not know whether he can do it but I throw out the challenge to him. He has been on his feet a lot this week and has had a good deal of practice. I suggest that today he come up with something new, and what he really ought to come up with is an admission that this proposition is so reasonable that the government is prepared to accept it. If he cannot do that, the least it can do is to ask the house to refer the subject matter to the committee for that further study that is so often a way out for the government.
One of the other answers that the parliamentary secretary no doubt will make is that this is an item in a national labour code and why does the member for Winnipeg North Centre not wait for the national labour code and see if this provision is not included in that code? As the hon. member for Kootenay East knows, I have been waiting and waiting and waiting. For a while he sat over on this side of the house and he complained about having to wait and wait and wait. At the moment I am not going to rehearse the long wait it has been for most of my lifetime, since 1919, but I remind the parliamentary secretary and the house of how difficult it is to get action on this simple matter at this session of parliament.
As everyone knows, in the last session of parliament, the first after the 1963 election, we were told categorically we would get a labour code at this session of parliament. Sure enough, when we met on February 18 it was promised in the speech from the throne. That promise is to be found on page 2 of Hansard for February 18. Two days later the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) spoke in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and as found on page 57 of Hansard he underlined during the course of his speech this promise in the speech from the throne, a national labour code, and said it would be brought forward at this session.
Four days later the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) spoke in the same debate and as

recorded on page 157 he confirmed that a national labour code would be brought in at this session. In the meantime we have had many weeks, many months, of the session, and where are we getting? On April 21 I asked the Minister of Labour for about the umpteenth time if we could expect the national labour code to be put on the order paper soon. His reply was that it would appear on the order paper "as quickly as possible". That is to be found on page 2397 of Hansard for April 21. We let a few weeks go by, but because "as quickly as possible" did not seem to be very fast I asked a similar question on July 13 and the answer is to be found on page 5380 of Hansard where the Minister of Labour said that the national labour code would be on the order paper "soon".
On August 4, as recorded at page 6351 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) if we were not going to get this on the order paper soon in view of his promise that it was coming soon. Some members will recall that he replied that I was misquoting him; that it had not been promised soon, but only as soon as possible. Well, there is a fine distinction between those phrases. When I was able to show the minister that he had said "soon" on one occasion, he came back with that interesting quip to be found on page 6351 of Hansard, that it would be on the order paper as soon as possible, and he hoped that would be soon.
Well, as the parliamentary secretary knows, I asked the minister a question about this matter this afternoon on orders of the day. He was still unable to give an answer as to when this matter would be on the order paper. I must say that in reply to one question I got a definite, one word answer, "Yes". What was the question to which that reply was made? The question was, will it be on the order paper at this session? I see my genial friend, the parliamentary secretary, nodding his head confirming what the Minister of Labour said. How long is this session going to last? It could be the longest session in history. Sessions have been known to last over three calendar years. There is no requirement that a session be prorogued so long as there are items on the order paper with which the government wants to proceed. This session may go on interminably.


Miss LaMarsh:: It already has.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For once, I agree with an interjection by the hon. lady, who just said that it already has gone on interminably. But look at what that does to the things we
Annual Vacations Act
have been promised. I suggest that is not good enough, and because that is not good enough I say to the parliamentary secretary that he should not give this item in a national labour code the kind of treatment he has given some of the other measures I have introduced.
I say to him also that it is no use using the argument that these things should all be introduced in one package. He knows very well that if I were to introduce a bill containing all of the things in one package he would say, "You are asking us to swallow too much at once; you should introduce these things one at a time." I say to the parliamentary secretary as simply as I can, in terms I am sure he can understand, that this is a simple, reasonable proposition. There is no new philosophy, no new principle. It is already the law of the land that workers under federal jurisdiction must get holidays. All that is asked is that those employees coming under federal labour jurisdiction should receive three weeks holidays with pay after five years of service. I put it to the parliamentary secretary: Come on, come through today.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The new parliamentary
secretary?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Thank you. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate for a few moments in this discussion. There is no question but that a review of Hansard over the years will show that the question of annual vacations with pay has long been of keen interest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I think he would have to grant, however, that over the years some progress has been made in that direction. There was a time, of course, when there was no provision for paid annual vacations, but there is provision at the present time. I think that the time the hon. member took this afternoon might well have been utilized in telling us how he reached the exact formula of three weeks after five years. Why not two and a half weeks or four weeks? Why not four years, ten years or seven years? I think it would be very interesting to know the amount of research the hon. member conducted on this particular aspect of the bill before presenting it.
I believe that therein lies the consideration the government must give before coming forward with minimum standards legislation that covers not only vacations with pay but

Annual Vacations Act
also minimum wages, the length of the work week and so forth. This is legislation that will be forthcoming at this session and, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) said in the house today, it will be on the order paper before this session is completed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When is that?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The hon. member, I believe, would have to agree that there is no magic advantage in having legislation on the order paper when we have a backlog of legislation on the order paper for which priorities have already been established. If there is no end in view for the present debate that is under way, if the pension legislation has to be dealt with next and if there is other legislation to come, what is the advantage? You have the undertaking of the minister that it will be dealt with at this session of parliament. I suggest there is certainly no great advantage in having it on the order paper now as compared with having it on the order paper a month from now.


Mr. Winch:: You can settle it right now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This bill is on the order paper; let us pass it.


Gerald Augustine Regan: In so far as the subject matter is concerned, we have already pointed out to the house that there should be a considerable amount of research given to this matter of the type that has been undertaken by the Department of Labour. This research should be directed toward the length of the vacation, and after how many years of service it should be given. The hon. gentleman did not go into that question at all, although in his research he may have done so. At any rate, I believe he would agree that there should be research conducted into these questions. How much vacation should a worker receive and after how long a period of work?
The principle has been rather widely accepted in collective bargaining for some years that there should be a gradual extension of vacation periods according to the length of service of the employee. I suggest this is a recognized principle, that the worker who stays a long time on one job has some sort of vested interest. He perhaps builds a home in the area and so perhaps becomes more settled in that particular region. He puts his children into the schools of that region to which they become accustomed. In general, he is contributing more, acquiring more of a vested interest in that particular position. By the same token, he may or may not be progressing on the salary scale by staying on the job over the years. I feel this is a sound

principle and he is entitled to a greater amount of vacation.
The hon. gentleman's formula suggests that after five years service three weeks should be granted. Certainly, as many members of the house know, there are collective agreements in the country today that do provide three weeks vacation after five years. There are collective agreements that provide four weeks after ten years and some provide four weeks after 20 years. This is an extension of the principle. There is a great deal of variety in the provisions of collective agreements in this country today concerning the length of the vacation period. Certainly I feel, despite the fact that the hon. member has pointed out only one out of ten Canadian workers is subject to federal jurisdiction, that it is desirable to extend this principle. A great many of these people are covered by pretty good collective agreements and I refer, for example, to the railway employees. Other employees should have something comparable.
Even so, I think it is good that the federal parliament should be concerned about this question. The federal parliament, in general, should show the way for the provinces when it comes to minimum standards for employee benefits of this type. I think that this is the next best thing we can do to having full jurisdiction. As the hon. member pointed out, there is divided jurisdiction today and, as a consequence, our legislation directly affects only very few.
I would be accused by some of my hon. friends of being a centralist if I said it is a shame that all the workers in the country are not subject to federal legislation with regard to labour standards, but I think it is unfortunate that there is not uniformity in this regard across the country. I think federal legislation as it has existed in the past, and as it will be in the labour code which will be presented for discussion this session, is a good thing to show the way to provinces, and I would hope those provinces that do not have as good legislation would see fit to fall in line as time passes.
Dealing with the progressive philosophy of such legislation I would point out that there are many people in Canada who are not subject to the protection of trade unions, and many who do not have the benefits of collective bargaining agreements, people who are at the mercy of their employers. But let me hasten to say that sometimes the employer is a very benevolent man or company and takes good care of them. Unfortunately that is not so in other cases. In England, on the

other hand, a higher percentage of the working population has always been subject to collective agreement. Over the years in that industrialized economy there has been such a history and tradition of trade unionism that even those who are not protected by a trade union, because the number involved may be too small for a union to be effective, are by custom and tradition covered by the principles of the legislation.
Unfortunately we in Canada find that something less than 25 per cent, or some such small percentage of our workers are unionized, and there are whole areas of the country where many people are employed in small industries, in the retail trades and other work, who do not have the protection of collective bargaining. This type of legislation, and that which will be included in the national labour code to be presented by the Minister of Labour, will be important to these people because it will provide them with that sort of protection. It gives them coverage by law that other employees sometimes receive by negotiation through collective agreements.
Over the years in my law practice I have encountered trade union people who have not been in favour of widespread legislation to provide minimum standards, because they say if one goes too far in that direction then what need is there for a person to belong to a trade union, and thus it would be difficult for unions to maintain their membership. I do not suggest this has been a general statement. I do not suggest it comes from the enlightened trade unionists, but the answer to it is obvious in that there is always need for collective bargaining and collective representation for workers.


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


Gerald Augustine Regan: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before he sits down would he tell us if he favours the principle of this bill?


Gerald Augustine Regan: If the hon. member has not gathered from my remarks whether I do or not, then I have been totally ineffective.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Granted.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Thank you. I only want to say I favour the principle of this bill very much. I am not sure whether I said earlier that I questioned whether it should be this exact amount for this exact number. I think we should have full facts and figures to determine this.
Annual Vacations Act


Harold Edward Winch: How many years do you want for your research?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I do not want any years for my research. Fortunately the Department of Labour, with its vast resources, has already done this. If the hon. member will contain himself just a little, I would point out to him that the Minister of Labour has already indicated that before this session is finished parliament will have the opportunity to debate a national labour code, which I think hon. members on that side will find attractive. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I support the principle of this legislation; but I am sure my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre will look forward to seeing the legislation which the minister is introducing.
Before I sit down perhaps I might be allowed to say that along with other types of legislation that go hand in hand with this, such as that covering minimum wage standards, hours of work and so forth, I would like to see consideration given by the house toward providing a statutory security clause so that a worker who has worked 15 or 20 years in a job, in a place where there is not a collective agreement and where there cannot be a union for one reason or another, cannot be booted out by the employer when he reaches the age of 50, or becomes half a step slower because of his advancing years, without that worker having the right to have his case reviewed by some committee of the labour relations board to determine whether there was proper cause for his dismissal. This would recognize that a worker who has spent a certain amount of time in the job, possibly 15 years, has acquired a vested interest in that job and has contributed to the enterprise, just the same as its owner. I would like to introduce a bill to that effect on some future occasion and-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the hon. member does so it will not be talked out by this side.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Referring to this security business, can the hon. member fcite any examples where this may be taking place in industry, and does he not realize that in industry the unions in negotiating their general agreements protect the worker in this instance?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) missed the point of what I was saying. I was speaking about the worker in a store where there: are only three people, or in a small plant where there is no trade union. The hon. member knows there are many people in our own

Annual Vacations Act
province who, for one reason or another, do not belong to unions. What I am saying is that legislation of this type would provide to a man who did not have the protection of a collective agreement the same type of security of tenure, so long as he was a good employee, that the trade union can provide in a larger industry.


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member might reread what he has just answered me, especially with reference to clerks and others who do not have the advantages of unions. If he is talking about Nova Scotia he is not entirely correct.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I do not want to pursue this point because it is not relevant to the bill, but as a lawyer I have acted for the I.R.W.D.S.U. in many places in Nova Scotia and I know that only a very small percentage of the clerks in that province have collective agreements at the moment, and that there are many employees in stores in Nova Scotia who do not have the advantage of the protection of a trade union.
I would conclude my remarks by saying I support the principle of the bill and I look forward to the idea of increased vacations according to the principle set out in the bill. I look forward with keen anticipation to the national labour code which will be introduced by the man who I think most of us would have to agree is an excellent Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen).


Harold Edward Winch: You also believe in Santa Claus.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the principle of Bill No. C-54 is likely to draw the sympathy of every hon. member.
In my opinion, the spirit of the bill is better than the suggestion made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) who said that it would be advisable rather to deal with the seniority of Canadian workers and guarantee them the same position at 55 years of age, if their usefulness is half of what it was 20 years before.
I think that the best solution then, and I hope that it will be included in the labour code which is supposed to be introduced in the near future, that at 55 years of age, if a man is unable to work any longer, he should then be retired with a sufficient pension to make room for younger men or the growing generation. This way, I think that everybody will be respected, and the labour code will

play quite a satisfactory part in the whole country.
Coming back to Bill No. C-54, under which, after five years' employment, any employee should be entitled to three weeks' holidays, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) tells us that this legislation will affect about 10 per cent only of the Canadian labour force.
We must not forget that even though Bill No. C-54 affects only 10 per cent of the Canadian labour force, this legislation will have the same results in each of the Canadian provinces. This is probably the objective which is in the back of the mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that this bill passed in Ottawa will have results in every province, that everywhere the same specification will be adopted, namely, "three weeks' holidays after five years".
We have no objection to three weeks' holidays after five years, but I object-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would permit a question. He realizes that I do not mean mandatory; but I do agree that it would give a lead to the provinces.


David Réal Caouette: Well, that comes to about what I said.

Quite sincerely, Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the granting of three weeks' holidays after five years of employment but as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated a while ago, the results of such a legislation at the provincial level would be that the owners of small businesses like groceries, haberdasheries and restaurants would be hard put to balance their budgets and would find it impossible to abide by the law and give their employees three weeks' paid holidays every year.
I wonder whether it is truly necessary to enact either federal or provincial legislation in that respect considering the existence of collective agreements as it was mentioned a few minutes ago.
In this day and age, several Canadian industries give their staff three weeks' holidays after five years of service. Several private enterprises do so. No federal or provincial legislation was necessary to achieve that. That is why we have unions.
My good friend from Winnipeg North Centre is familiar with the work done by unions in Canada, because he has been a

union member for years. Under the circumstances, why not let employers and employees settle their differences through the unions?
When an industry is able to give three weeks' vacation after five years of employment or when a businessman or a private enterprise are able to do so, there are no more difficulties, in my opinion, and the principle of the three weeks' vacation quickly becomes a fact in many fields or sectors of our economy.
However, what I cannot admit is that we, in Ottawa, decide to enact legislation which does not provide that it will concern only 10 per cent of the Canadian labour force but which obliges the whole country to give three weeks' vacation after five years of employment.
In my own business, we give three weeks' vacation after five years of employment. We did not need federal or provincial legislation to do so. But we acted and we still act in good faith. In fact, throughout the country we see that more and more of those cases are settled more and more easily.
I wonder if federal legislation which would have implications in the provinces-because it is intended to give direction to the provinces-would not be likely to disturb many small businessmen and industrialists who do everything in their power to maintain their business and their trade in operation.
So, why compel those people, why drive them up against the wall? Because in the end salary increases or longer vacations do cost money, and ultimately the consumers will be the ones to pay for them. There will be an increase in costs, in the price of services or products, and those who will get three weeks' holidays or higher wages will be the ones to pay for those increases. Because the businessman, the industrialist-and my good friend from Winnipeg North Centre knows it-when I have to increase my employees' salaries, it is obvious that the consumer who comes to have his car repaired pays more per hour than he did before.
It happens in every field of the economy.
My good friend from Winnipeg North Centre should, therefore, think about that. Why always introduce measures that will further burden the Canadian consumer. To take a certain amount from one pocket and put a lesser amount back in the other pocket is no solution, I think.
I appreciate that this bill will please employees since it provides three weeks' holidays after five years of service. But they are the ones who will pay for those holidays,
Annual Vacations Act
because then carrying charges and operating costs will rise and that, in turn, will entail a rise in retail prices to be paid by the consumer. We are always back where we started. The solution suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre reminds me somewhat of the dog going around in circles chasing his tail.


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


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the line of his argument, may I ask him how he justifies his contention that old age pensions, family allowances and things like that ought to be increased? Does not the same thing happen; they have to be paid for? Is the hon. member not aware that these principles of social justice are part of twentieth century thinking?


David Réal Caouette: You are still in the seventeenth century.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon, friend does not know where he is.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this is what I shall say to my hon. friend: Old age pensions and all social security are paid by the Canadian people anyway. If my good friend who is sitting here in the house had understood what Social Credit is suggesting as an alternative, as the true social security, he probably would not have moved a bill in this vein.
Now, we are paying for social security, whereas Social Credit has for 30 years been asking for the distribution in Canada of a national dividend which would not come out of the people's pocket and would increase the income of every Canadian citizen, being based on Canada's national production. This dividend would be paid directly to the Canadian consumer, without creating either inflation or deflation, while maintaining a steady commercial balance. If my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre realized this, he would not ask silly questions like the one he just directed to me with regard to old age pensions and social security.
Mr. Speaker, we are going around in circles, and I shall say and repeat, that as long as we continue to look at the matter from that angle, we shall probably also continue to accept legislation like Bill C-54 or a similar one. We shall go on with the same system, which is the very cause of this legislation.

Annual Vacations Act
If the Canadian worker received his due share of the tremendous production of Canada through the development of our natural wealth, he would not need three week's holidays a year, because he probably would take two months' leave paid by the surplus revenue from the development of this country's natural wealth. But such things are overlooked.
This year Canadian production will reach $46 billion in goods and services, and because of that outstanding production, the total national revenue will amount to some $3,4 billion. Now, there will be a gap of $12 to $14 billion between production and purchasing power, that is the total national revenue of Canadians. No one talks about filling that gap, but they talk about raising taxes again which will further reduce the revenues of the Canadian people, leaving aside millions and billions of dollars of goods which will not be disposed of.
We see that the government is looking for markets throughout the world, while some Canadians do not even have the bare essentials. The first market is always the domestic market. Then it is in order to try to increase our imports and exports and to try to balance them as much as possible, but I think that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, instead of introducing every year

undoubtedly in order to make some political capital-legislation calling for three weeks' vacation, should take a look at Social Credit suggestions. Then he would be useful to his electors in the Winnipeg North Centre riding and to all the people, all across Canada. [Text]


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, judging from this debate I think it is time we took a recess. We seem to be coming around full cycle. Earlier this session, in fact on March 6, on a Friday such as this, in a private members' hour such as this, and playing to a crowd such as we have here now, I got up and spoke to a bill. For some strange reason the bill was introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and when I look at that bill and then look at the bill before us today I find that even the bills are practically the same. It seems to me that if the private members' hour is going to get as repetitive as the flag debate perhaps we should call a halt and go home.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps we should pass both.


David George Hahn: As I did then, I congratulate the hon. member for introducing this bill, and I do so on two counts. First of all, like the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) I agree with the principle contained in this bill and think it has a great deal of merit. It should be given serious consideration. Second, I bow to the experience of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because when I look at Bill C-15 which we debated on March 6 and when I look at this present bill I find two very similar items which probably could well have been incorporated in one bill. The hon. member's years of experience in the house has enabled him to split these bills and thereby gain two trips to bat. I hope that perhaps we younger members by following some of these learnings and teachings of our more experienced elders will also acquire some useful ideas as parliamentarians.
The bill we have now is one which (a) I agree with in principle and (b) I do not think should pass today, and for much the same reasons as were evident in the last session, or in the previous debate on March 6. I think everyone agrees that holidays with pay are desirable and necessary; and I think we all agree, at least I certainly do, that three weeks after five years is a reasonable proposition. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) suggested that we should do a lot of research into this problem. I do not think that on this particular point a lot of research is really needed. I think three weeks after five years is reasonable. I believe that to some degree industry, and particularly those segments of it which are unionized and are negotiating contracts, has decided to recognize this in some of the agreements which have been signed. I also agree that we need standards on statutory holidays, standards for hours of work, minimum wage legislation, legislation covering employees' safety-in fact, all the things which should be embodied in a proper and comprehensive labour code.
I am as anxious as the hon. member to see this labour code brought forward, but I feel strongly that it would be wrong to do these things piece by piece by piece. I feel that our labour legislation, instead of being embodied in a series of acts, should be contained in one comprehensive act, and I feel that that is the only logical and sensible way to do it.
As stated in the speech from the throne, such a laborer code is to be brought forward this session. I know the hon. member has been asking "When, when, when?", and I know a number of us oh this side of the

Annual Vacations Act
house have been asking the same thing, because we are as anxious as he is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. member a question. Does he get any better answers than we get?


David George Hahn: Perhaps I should give the hon. member the standard answer-"If he will only be patient-". I have every confidence that we will have a labour code on the order paper and before this parliament at this session. There are certainly a great number of us on this side of the house pushing very hard for it, and I think with some degree of success. So to me it is not logical to introduce these bills and pass them one at a time; rather it is logical to embrace all our labour legislation in one code, bring it in, debate it and get it through. This I am hopeful, in fact reasonably certain, will happen this session, and for that reason we should not, as I see it, pass this particular bill at this particular time.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan), when he was speaking on this bill, made several points which I think are worth commenting on. He spoke about the role of the federal government and its labour legislation setting the standard for the provinces to follow. I heartily agree with this. I know we do not have the jurisdiction in the labour field, but I also feel that federal labour legislation will provide a strong incentive, a strong target for the provinces to shoot at. I think if we enact good labour legislation it will only be a matter of time before the provinces follow suit. Public pressures would ultimately force them to do so.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) worried about the effects of a good labour code on the possible bargaining position of unions. He was afraid if we introduced labour legislation possibly the argument could be advanced that we do not need organized labour because the government has done this for us. I think this is a false argument. I do not think the government should or ever would get into specific legislation dealing with wages. This must be a matter for negotiation. Many fringe benefits are matters for negotiation.
What we are attempting to do here, as we should do with all our social legislation, is set minimum standards below which we do not expect Canadians to live and exist. It is then the job of the free enterprise part of our economy, in this instance the employer and employee, through their unions or as individuals to negotiate above this minimum. I feel that a comprehensive labour code could be introduced that would provide a reasonable base, but still allow ample scope and incentive 20220-452J
for trade unions to carry on above that level, industry by industry and community by community across the country.
The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) raised some rather interesting points to which I take strong exception. I take issue with the thesis he was trying to advance. For instance, he indicated that holidays with pay, minimum wages and so on, could be detrimental to certain industries, and he cited the case of the owner of a small store who could not afford to pay certain minimum wages or give holidays. My feeling is that as Canadians we cannot afford to have that type of industry or operation existing in our country. If the operation is below a standard that is decent and reasonable we cannot tolerate it. If that operation can only survive without paying a reasonable wage scale and without providing reasonable amenities to the employees, then in my opinion it has no right to exist in our society.
I think the line of reasoning advanced by the hon. member for Villeneuve can be reduced to the argument: Why pay anything over and above starvation wages? We can follow his reasoning in respect of the economics argument, that an employer may not be able to afford these things, down to a point where we reach a ridiculous situation, supporting conditions of employment likened to those which existed before the industrial revolution. Of course I think we all agree that this is not satisfactory, and I do not believe many people in this country would seriously accept that thesis.
We all agree that there are minimum standards, and that the federal government has a responsibility to legislate in respect of them. Even though they do not apply to all people in the country, they at least would set a standard that should be followed. A standard having been set by the federal government, presumably then' the provincial governments would set their own standards so people will be effectively covered and protected.
Following the reasoning of the hon. member for Villeneuve, who suggested that instead of social security we might have Social Credit, I would ask him this question: If we change from social security to Social Credit what do we have to lose? I think we have a great deal to lose.
Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is extremely anxious to hear from his adversary and friend, the parliamentary secretary, and has been waiting now for over half an hour. I do not want to deprive him of that pleasure, so I will allow the parliamentary secretary

Annual Vacations Act
to answer some of the questions raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit me a question?


David George Hahn: Certainly, if the hon. member will allow me "un moment".


Lucien Plourde: Before condemning the Social Credit doctrine, has the hon. member tried to understand it? Has he ever studied it or has he tried to understand it before he condemns it as a whole?


Mr. Habel:: He cannot understand it, since you do not understand it yourself.


David George Hahn: I do not condemn it in total. I do condemn certain specific points raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve in his speech dealing with this item. I condemn those points of view that were raised. In respect of my comprehension of Social Credit, as the Speaker has often said during the question period, this is too large a subject to be dealt with during private members' hour.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief.
I fail to understand the logic of the arguments of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn), that we should not let this bill pass at this time because there is a labour code about to be introduced by the government. If such is true, that is wonderful and I think we would all welcome it. However it seems to me it would be very wise to let the subject matter of this bill pass to the appropriate committee in order that discussion can take place, because after all we are not sure just when this new labour code will come, or in what form.


David George Hahn: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Robert Norman Thompson: I think the time hardly permits that, Mr. Speaker.
In so far as it is within the authority of the federal government to legislate on such labour matters, the intention of this Bill C-54 is sound and practical. Certainly we live in an age of potential leisure, and stand on the threshold of an age when the labour of men's hands will produce far more with less effort. We had better begin to prepare, and this is one very small step in that direction.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is reasonable at this time to permit this bill to pass to the appropriate committee
for further study, as far as the subject matter is concerned, that committee being the committee on industrial relations. We will then be better prepared to accept this labour code, which we are given to understand will be brought forward this session.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that time will not permit me to give a full answer to the many questions raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As usual he began his speech by telling me that the Liberals made promises back in 1919.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, and we are still waiting for them to be fulfilled.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I was not in the position to make policy in those years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You probably had more influence then than you have now.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I was catching gophers out in the Maple Creek area, and getting three cents per tail, in order to make spending money.
If the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made promises as far back as 1958, you will recall that in very great measure they have been fulfilled.


An hon. Member:: It is six o'clock.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It may seem strange to the hon. member that the Liberals are still around, in view of his suggestion that they made promises back in 1919 and have not fulfilled them as yet. The Liberals are still here and have been in power since 1919, with the exception of a few short periods.


An hon. Member:: It is six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker,
would the acting house leader indicate whether there is any change in the program for next week, and is it possible for him to give an indication of the estimates to be considered next Friday?


Mr. Laing:: I am unable to do that, Mr. Speaker, but on Monday we will resume debate on the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, as outlined in orders of the day under item 44(A).


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


[Stage Direction]
Address of the Prime Minister, The Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson when welcoming the delegates to the third commonwealth education conference, House of Commons, Ottawa, Friday, August 21, 1964.
It is my pleasant duty today to welcome you, as I do most warmly, on behalf of the Canadian people and government, to the third commonwealth education conference.
As you open your 15-day conference, I do not envy you your assignment. I confess that there have been occasions in the last 30 years or so when I have felt that the teaching profession had many advantages over diplomacy or politics; and that I hadn't sufficiently appreciated my good fortune many years ago, when I was on the faculty of the University of Toronto. But when I look at the challenge facing today's educators; when I look at the problems confronting you, I am forced to conclude that my escape from a teaching career may not have been such a misfortune for me after all.
The objectives and the agenda of your conference are certainly impressive. For man's every goal-the good life, happiness, security, even global peace-depends in the end on education; on closing the "education gap" which is fundamental to every other gap.
It is encouraging to see in such a conference as this, delegates from all continents and races, working together in harmony and partnership in a cause so vital to mankind's future, We welcome, along with the representatives of 17 independent members of the commonwealth, delegates from many British dependencies and territories-some 16, I believe. The progress of these regions toward independence and, if they so desire, commonwealth membership-and the development of their resources to sustain the obligations of independence- is a source of deep satisfaction to us all.
This march of colonies to independence is also a fine tribute to Great Britain's enlightened record of "disengagement from empire"; one that others in the world might emulate.
Before your conference president delivers the inaugural address, perhaps I may be permitted to add to these remarks of welcome a few observations on the recent commonwealth prime ministers' conference which was attended by leaders of governments representing
people of diverse races, cultures, creeds and colour, from all parts of the world. The conference made several proposals which will, I am sure, be before you for consideration.
-proposals for new, co-operative development projects; for additional study of techniques in administration and development planning.
-proposals for the possible formation of a new institute to provide specialized training and research to senior administrators concerned with development problems in new countries;
-proposals for strengthening existing commonwealth programs; for promotion-possibly through a commonwealth foundation-of interchanges and closer contacts within professions;
-proposals for a commonwealth medical conference;
-proposals for possible forms of technical assistance to the developing countries which would permit them to participate in the establishment and use of a global system of satellite communications.
Even more significant evidence of the spirit that guides the nations of the new commonwealth in their co-operative endeavours, was the prime ministers' agreement on the importance of the commonwealth's attitude to those interracial problems which threaten the orderly development of mankind.
"As a community of many different races", the prime ministers said, "the commonwealth is itself an almost unique experiment in international co-operation among people of several races and continents."
The co-operation we seek depends primarily on mutual understanding; and understanding is the goal of all education. We made progress toward that goal in London, in the "declaration on racial equality" which was unanimously and wholeheartedly accepted.
The importance of and the need for such a declaration of racial co-operation and equality was never more apparent. Racial discrimination and the intensification in many areas of mutual fear between races must be, for us all, one of the most disturbing features of the present world situation; the root cause of difficulty and danger in many unsolved problems.
The problem of course exists both within and outside the commonwealth. But obviously
[Stage Direction]
if the commonwealth could not meet its own challenge, confidence in our brave experiment would have been badly shaken, if not destroyed-not only among our own members, but among other millions of people who see in the commonwealth example their best hope for co-operation between races.
With this in mind-and I am quoting from the communique-"The prime ministers affirmed their belief that, for all commonwealth governments, it should be an objective of policy to build in each country a structure of society which offers equal opportunity and non-discrimination for all its people, irrespective of race, colour or creed. The commonwealth should be able to exercise constructive leadership in the application of democratic principles in a manner which will enable the people of each country of different racial and cultural groups to exist and develop as equal citizens."
Canada of course takes a special pride in this conference; in the progress made in this field during the past five years. The decision for a commonwealth conference on education came on the initiative of the Canadian government of the day in 1958. This fact naturally makes us feel doubly privileged to have this third conference here, in our capital.
In the progress made in carrying out the four co-operative programs recommended by the first conference at Oxford, this country has demonstrated its faith in and willingness to help underdeveloped and emerging countries and people. I can assure you that we will continue to do that.
As part of this objective, we wish to help make other nations educationally self sufficient. So an ever increasing proportion of our increasing aid programs goes directly for educational purposes.
In the next two weeks you will be assessing the results of this co-operation recommended by previous conferences. You will be recommending ways to improve present forms of assistance; weighing new proposals against problems seemingly defiant of any solution. You will again be asking whether in a world in which no country has enough scholars and teachers, the limited supply of those who can help should be reduced by sending them to the developing countries to teach and to assist, in the establishment of basic programs of study; or whether it would not be better to bring more of the students and scholars from the developing countries to train in established facilities outside their new borders. Both are necessary. But an expert judgment of what the proportions should be, one to the other, would be helpful.
You have before you an agenda which would make the wisest and most energetic blanch. I congratulate the liaison council and the liaison unit on putting forward such a challenging agenda and on their planning and organization of the conference. Among the subjects for committee discussions, I notice that for the first time, the uses of mass media-television, films, tape recordings; the uses of electronic sound and sight-in education-are to be considered. The potential here, of course, staggers the imagination. It will in time affect almost everything you are discussing. It can be the most significant method ever devised for closing the educational gap at a rate beyond our fondest hopes. But it can also become the most frightening of all the results of modern technology in its tendencies to "dehumanize" society.
Before concluding, may I say how fortunate we have been to secure as president of the conference one of our outstanding and most distinguished citizens, Right Hon. Vincent Massey. My own deep respect and admiration for him is shared by all Canadians and indeed by all who know him. His long and brilliant career of public service as educator, in the broadest sense, businessman and diplomat was climaxed when he became, as Governor General, the first Canadian representative of the monarch in Canada.
I am honoured and privileged to welcome you to Ottawa and I am delighted now to be able to turn the conference over to its president.
Address given by Right Hon. Vincent Massey, C.H., at the opening of the third commonwealth education conference, Ottawa, Friday, 21st August, 1964.
My first words must be of gratitude for the honour of being asked to preside at the third commonwealth education conference. As a Canadian, I welcome you to this country, which is proud to be your host for the meeting; as president of the conference, which is so important for all our countries, I welcome you to this opening session.
[Stage Direction]
Allow me to use our other official language to wish a most sincere and cordial welcome to French speaking members of the conference.
[Stage Direction]
Many of you will not have been in this country before. I am glad to know that a number of you will be travelling in Canada

when the conference is over. So that you will better understand what you see, I should like to tell you a little about the background. Here, as elsewhere in the world today, the one certain thing is change. In the course of my own lifetime, I have seen Canada evolve from an agricultural economy to a largely industrial one; from a colony to a sovereign state; from a country with no foreign relations to one represented in over 60 nations.
We have a complicated national pattern. We are a land of many cultures. There is a large French part, a large English part and a host of smaller ethnic parts. Every part by itself is a minority, separate and distinct. Quebec is the home of French culture in North America and so is more than just one of our ten provinces. Some say that our plural society is a mosaic; others call it a salad. Canada in recent years has received great waves of immigration from Europe, increasing our population since the second world war by more than two millions, but these newcomers have not been caught up and reshaped-differences are welcomed here. In spite of this increase, you may be struck by the fact that our population is small for so large a country-even that which we have is, to some extent, reduced by emigration. Many immigrants have made Canada a stopping point on their way to the United States, and many native born Canadians have moved south. Though immigration surpasses emigration, it does not fully replace the skills and drive of those we lose.
Canadian life has been influenced to an extent we sometimes hardly realize by the fact that we are a northern country. This is reflected in the way we live and, indeed, in our national character. We lie between two giant neighbours and are flanked by two great oceans opening out to the occidental and oriental worlds; this results in as many problems as advantages. In Canada there are six time zones across our 4,500 miles of breadth, and we require systems of transportation and communications which would be regarded as unjustified were it not for the fact that national unity demands the east-west links which offset the ever-present pull to the south.
Canada is a monarchy, indeed, she has been since her beginning, whether the crown was French or English. Now the crown of the kingdom of Canada is Canadian. We are really not a young or shapeless country. We are in our fourth century of settlement and are about to celebrate the hundredth anniversary of our constitution. That document is today one of the oldest constitutions in the world continuously in force. It establishes the principle
of "peace, order and good government". This time-honoured objective was chosen in preference to the alternative formula "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'". The choice indicates a society founded upon allegiance instead of social contract, a society reflecting the organic growth of tradition itself rather than one created by an explicit act of reason or will.
Canada has practically no revolutionary background, few national myths and folk heroes. Her existence has always been too precarious, her dependence upon "mother countries" always too real, and her peoples' jealousy of their cultural heritages too intense to permit flirtations with adventure. However, as you will be aware during your sojourn here, we are now passing through one of those periods which most countries, and all federations, experience, of constitutional and political strain and readjustment to a new equilibrium. The hereditary sense of tolerance and compromise which has enabled us to carry on over the generations will, I have no doubt, ultimately help us to settle the questions which today beset us. We have learned tolerance in a hard and practical school. As a Canadian writer has said, "Not only was this country formed out of ... defeated racial and political groups; some of these groups had once been bitter enemies of one another.. .and they had to live in peace ..."
However, compromise in Canadian life has always somewhat blurred our image of ourselves, and has often discouraged bold initiatives in nation building. Through the early years another handicap was our status as a dependency. But this has not been without its compensations. Having been a colony ourselves, we understand more acutely the feelings of those who travel a road with which we are already familiar. Our only wars have been in self defence or for the liberation of other peoples. Our tradition has been peaceable, without even internal strife except enough to remember and fear its possibility.
The result of history, geography and colonization is that there are attitudes and things which are peculiarly Canadian, Canada did not just happen. It was built and is maintained by the concerted efforts of her people. Western and northern Canada have been a workshop, planned and ordered by government and business established in advance of settlement.
For national schemes we have employed the device of the crown corporation, a semiindependent governmental body containing features of both public and private enterprise.
[Stage Direction]
Yet the result-though socialistic-has not been socialism, perhaps because here the public is suspicious of "state planning" and "nationalization". The technique of the crown corporation, a characteristic Canadian compromise, may well be of value to countries with similar problems.
Another result of the Canadian experience that may interest other developing nations is our practice of federalism. Although our loose federal constitutional structure, with vast areas of power vested in the provincial governments, has sometimes made it difficult to tackle some national problems, it has allowed the establishment and development of a single state in which the two major European cultures and a host of minorities have co-existed and flourished.
This confederation is one of the two great political experiments with which Canadians have been concerned. The other one to which we have made a significant contribution is the commonwealth itself, for its pattern of independence, growing from responsible government, was first developed here in Canada a century ago. The peculiar constitutional principles which caught on in the whole empire, and transformed it, emerged as we solved our own relations with the mother country; we became a constitutional laboratory in which the nineteenth century empire was created. The new commonwealth after the second world war was built on ideas of association which Canadians advocated in opposition to those of imperial federation and a united front which found favour in some quarters in Great Britain and the other dominions.
The plural and diverse communities of other commonwealth countries have much in common with this one. In unfeignedly welcoming the new countries to their independence, congratulating them on their achievement and wishing them every happiness and success for their people, we Canadians also hope to be known as understanding and helpful. Like Canada, the more recent members have been formed by practical compromise through a process of evolution, rather than by the application of logic. Indeed, this process is still being adapted to the commonwealth's growing number of member countries. Though necessary and unavoidable, the growing pains of nationhood are always difficult and sometimes severe. They are not unknown to us. One of the great indefinable bonds of the commonwealth is the special and active interest assured to new members in facing the difficult problems that are
bound to arise in setting up a sovereign country.
I am one of those who believe in the commonwealth-I admire its concept and respect its functions; as a Canadian I am proud of it-any of us who have been concerned with its growth could hardly feel otherwise. The commonwealth began here when three colonies in British North America were federally united in 1867. A few years before Sir John Macdonald, the principal architect of what became Canada, said:
"We are fast ceasing to be a dependency, and are assuming the position of an ally of Great Britain. England will be the centre, surrounded and sustained by an alliance not only of Canada, but Australia, and all her other possessions; and there will be thus formed an immense confederation of freemen, the greatest confederacy of civilized and intelligent men that has ever had an existence on the face of the globe."
From these origins we have passed through four identifiable stages. First, from the British North America Act of 1867 to the statute of Westminster of 1931-the so-called "old commonwealth", about which Sir Wilfrid Laurier observed in 1907, "The proper basis of the British empire was that it was to be composed of a galaxy of nations under the British crown."
Second, from the statute of Westminster to the independence of India and Pakistan, involving the beginnings of the "new" commonwealth with its republican members. Mr. Nehru, so sorely missed by all of us, said in 1950:
"We are members of the commonwealth- that rather strange and odd collection of nations which seems to prosper most in adversity-it does teach us many lessons, and in the sense that we get on best together when we meet in complete freedom and comradeship and we know that there is going to be no pressure or compulsion exercised upon us."
Third, from the independence of India to the establishment of Malaysia, the widening of the "new" commonwealth.
Fourth, there remains a period of adjustment in many places. In this last stage, the great decolonizing function of the commonwealth is being concluded. Its shape and boundaries have now been more or less defined. There only remains a time of mutation or consolidation.
Realizing what we have to work with, we must decide what we wish to do with it. Now is the moment of our greatest opportunity. To know what we should do, it is

worth considering what we are and where we are going.
In the last 17 years the commonwealth has grown from five independent countries to nearly 20. The 70 million people in this group of nations have increased to 700 million-a quarter of the world's population.
Many attempts have been made to define this association of countries. Mr. John Holmes, the head of our institute of international affairs, has spoken of it as:
"an association among countries of various races and continents which, in spite of wide differences of political practice and international orientation, share, as a result of a common historical experience, certain constitutional and legal attitudes, governmental and business practices and habits of working together. It is a matter of faith and will."
Many adjectives have been applied to the commonwealth. It has been called "shapeless, unorganized, unstructured, anomalous, illogical". Some of our more advanced theologians have even suggested that we accept the inevitable, dismantle the traditional apparatus, abolish the nomenclature, and suppress the ritual in the hope that the essential faith will survive in hibernation to re-emerge in its own time, transformed and revitalized. Others say that there is no chance of survival at all, that the commonwealth is fit for nothing but the reminiscences of aging statesmen. An anonymous writer, not very long ago, delivered himself of an utterance, rather less than statesman-like, when he said "The commonwealth has really become a gigantic farce."
Of course it is not only in Great Britain that some politicians would seek to blame the commonwealth connection for one or other or indeed all of their domestic ills. There will always be those who dream of solving their problems by denying their duties and historical or sentimental attachments, to seek the illusory freedom of total irresponsibility, predicated upon no principle higher than a policy of pure self interest. That is not our way. Because there is implicit in the concept of the commonwealth, values of duty and honour and service, no definition of it can be wholly satisfactory. It is much easier to say what it is not than to say what it is. It has been described as a club, but a club has certain set rules and obligations which the commonwealth does not possess, at least so far. It is not a power bloc. It is not a diplomatic unit. It is not an economic force. It is not even a group of like minded people or of like minded nations, and yet in a sense
it can sometimes be those things, although it is none of them. It does confer certain economic advantages on its members. In fact, the commonwealth is often justified in some countries by the expectation of more favourable economic terms. It has also political advantages. Canada uses it as a counterbalance to the United States. Perhaps for this reason, Canadians may have been guilty of underestimating the economic factor and stressing the political. Certainly the commercial and financial advantages of membership have, for many years, been of rather less importance to Canada than to other members. The commonwealth has also certain military advantages. A number of recent incidents have shown the readiness of members to help one another, even in the absence of formal treaty commitments.
Besides these non-sentimental realities, we are also a network of personal relationships. A recently published handbook named 85 organizations and societies in Britain alone concerned with various aspects of commonwealth relations and the list is certainly far from exhaustive. These organizations, ranging from the commonwealth collection of microorganisms, to the consultative space research committee, reach their apex at the prime ministerial level. Regular meetings and constant interchanges of information are as valuable as their results are immeasurable. After all, we have in this room today a vivid example of how the commonwealth can be put to work.
Such relationships and advantages are not in themselves the commonwealth. They are components but they give us only glimpses of the whole. It remains an almost completely informal association and this, in many ways, is perhaps its greatest merit. Lacking rigidity, it cannot be shattered by a blow in any one place. The commander in chief of Hitler's navy reported in September, 1940, "The British empire is not expected to collapse owing to the peculiar innate force of the political objectives embodied in the commonwealth of nations".
Through its development since the war, the commonwealth has shown striking adaptability. Indeed, to quote a recent comment, " ... one of the most persistent of illusions is that it is essentially a conservative and stable institution. In fact, it is a supreme triumph in wild, zestful, fantastic innovation." Making a virtue of necessity in accordance with its genius, the commonwealth today glorifies its diversity and freedom from commitment. It possesses what has been called
[Stage Direction]
"invertebrate informality". It finds its virtue not in unity of policy but in a search for understanding, for the sharing of views and constant consultation among its members.
It is often asked what is the value of these functions; has the commonwealth any future? It is important to remember that it does exist, and that it influences the international relationships of each of its members. Those who have experienced it believe in it, and their attitude must be recognized as partially a matter of faith. The fact that the mystique is difficult to define and unacceptable to some critics, does not mean that it can be discarded.
The United Kingdom's negotiations with the common market tore the last shred of illusion away from the commonwealth. It was a moment of truth when the full extent of the post-war revolution had to be recognized and accepted. Many are now realizing that what then seemed a death rattle was, in fact, a birth pang of a new stage in our development.
The shape of the commonwealth and the full contrast of its diverse interests, have been borne in upon us. Aware of our differences, and of the realities of our situation, we can see that we none the less form the only grouping of nations which bridges the many divisions of a much divided world. The rich and the poor, the east and the west, the tropical and temperate, the developing and the developed-all these are contained in our family grouping. We have on hand a supreme opportunity to help one another and to set an example for other countries in the mending of these differences that threaten our existence.
For the commonwealth to meet the challenge of mutual assistance, it must be recognized that each country has a responsibility in leadership. Although to do this we must abandon the idea of the commonwealth as an English institution, no one will ever forget the greatness of the British legacies. The railways, harbours and industries which Britain built are far less important than the institutions of government, above all the values which she brought to our peoples, and left with them. These have made the deepest impact. Today the greatest testimony to British genius can be seen in the civil service, the judiciary, the armed forces and even the playing fields, which stand for the finest in British traditions. It is a record that history is unlikely to ignore. It will be remembered with the contributions of Greece and Rome to world civilization. But the past must not be allowed to dominate the present. As Professor Silcock of the University of Malaya said not long ago;
"The commonwealth is no longer a wheel with only one centre of force and drive. If it is to survive at all, it will be as a lattice of increasing intercommunications and interaction. No monopoly of initiative and concern should be expected of the government, the people or the press of the 'mother country'."
To draw people together is, of course, the function of the United Nations and it has sometimes been said that its existence makes the commonwealth unnecessary. The answer is that the ties which hold the races and continents in contract are frail and tenuous enough; every reinforcement is worth while and among other contemporary international organizations with which it can and should be compared, the commonwealth has shown more internal consistency than any other. As Mr. Nehru pointed out at the time, India did not leave the commonwealth over the Suez incident because, in his view, it would have been a retrograde step to sever any link that exists between nations.
Though there may be impatience and trespasses upon civil liberties among member states, one can ask how much worse things might be without the commonwealth influence. In all our countries there is a substantial body of opinion-conscious of the sins we have committed in the name of effective government, of the mixed history of colonial rule, of racial intolerance-which insists that we must not expect all the traditions of Westminster in countries where unity is frail, illiteracy is high, and the economy a baffling puzzle. There should be patience and good intention in watching and helping others to solve the paradoxes that beset the final stages of colonialism in various comers of the world. If our multiracial fraternal society has any reason for existence, the most immediate is to resolve these problems.
Our way is to take a pragmatic route to the realization of higher ideals. We cannot all have the same constitutional mechanisms. But, equally, we must not expect too much of the commonwealth's now respectably established tradition of limitless elasticity. Though all nations must work out their own salvation, there are certain values-civil rights as much as racial equality-that we must preserve at all costs. Up to a point it may be claimed that variations on the democratic theme to suit local conditions are permissible. It may even be argued that, as regards patently deplorable manifestations, the wisest course is to maintain contact in order to exercise such restraining influence as is possible and to encourage the democratic forces that must ultimately prevail. But﻿AUGUST 21, 1964
certainly there is a line beyond which we cannot go in tolerating the membership of governments which deny the few but fundamental principles which have distinguished the commonwealth. These are values of individual liberty and human respect, and how fully we are committed to them is, I think, exemplified by the recent declaration of racial equality made at the prime ministers' meeting in London. Here we see the unique and constructive leadership which the commonwealth can exercise in securing the application under difficult circumstances of democratic principles.
Of course, allowances must be made. It has been said that "people who live differently, think differently". Countries in diverse stages of development cannot possibly subscribe to identical political ideas, still less to identical practices. There are those who wish to see established one all-encompassing institution, covering the commonwealth like an umbrella. There are others who feel that structural formality can only assuage, not cure, internal weakness and dissension. Certainly the idea that disunity among governments can be avoided simply by the creation of international councils is an illusion. At the same time, however, and provided we have a constructive attitude of mind, the innumerable contracts nurtured between our member states over many years, which I have mentioned- governmental, professional, cultural, economic, educational and so on-offer an excellent mechanism for a real contribution to the world order. At their recent meeting, the commonwealth prime ministers conceived of a secretariat that I have no doubt will greatly encourage this function. To quote the communique:
"This secretariat, being recruited from member countries and financed by their contributions, would be at the service of all commonwealth governments and would be a visible symbol of the spirit of co-operation which animates the commonwealth."
Better than talking about the commonwealth is the willingness to use it. Here we have a great conference which exists within the pattern of our relationships, a gathering which reflects a common purpose. No better practical link can be found than in the sphere of education. It was H. G. Wells who said "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe". If we accept as an initial proposition that, next to peace, the world's greatest need today is a general lift in the standards of living of the poorer nations, then I think it is obvious that broad educational advance should be our
primary objective. Education must now be regarded as a human right. As such, it is an end in itself, without reference to costs and returns. Its chief purpose is to develop the human personality so that men may take advantage of their spiritual, intellectual and material gifts, to preserve and transmit a society's values and enable people to understand the world in which they live. Only an educational system based on such sound social purposes can develop human resources effectively. Without it, there can be no continuing economic growth, nor can political power be broadly distributed. Undoubtedly, education may cause social tensions since it creates new aspirations and new needs besides opening up fresh opportunities and widening horizons for individuals and nations. It can, however, be the force that also relieves tensions and creates understanding not only within a nation but on an international level as well.
Within the commonwealth, education has always been a common exchange. Even ten years ago more than 50,000 overseas students were receiving instruction in our various countries; the vast majority of them were from other members of our association of nations. Then, less than six years ago, I am happy to say, on Canadian initiative, the commonwealth trade and economic conference at Montreal decided to institute a scheme of scholarships and fellowships. Subsequently, at Oxford and later at New Delhi these plans for straight academic exchange were amplified to include the provision of teachers and teacher-trainers.
If I may inflict some figures upon you, beside the 250 scholars involved in the commonwealth scholarship program, there are some 800 students from the developing countries who are studying or training in Canada under Canadian aid programs and some 160 Canadian educators are serving abroad in commonwealth countries. Since 1950 more than 4,500 scholars and others from the developing countries have received training in Canadian institutions under various Canadian scholarship programs.
Whatever we may think about these programs, it must be admitted that much remains to be done. There are those who say that if we ordinary Canadians knew more about it, we would be inspired to greater efforts. It is true that as recently as 1962 our contributions to these programs of development amounted to only some $60 million per annum, less than 1 per cent of our federal
[Stage Direction]
budget. But about a year ago all this underwent a profound change. It now seems probable that in the fiscal year 1964-1965 upward of $230 million will be available for commitment by Canada to grants, development loans and special credits. Perhaps, as some of our own informed people have said, our attitude is still one of "how much can we spare" instead of "how much can we share", but at least it must be admitted that we are today sparing more freely.
Mr. Lewis Perinbam, until recently secretary general of the Canadian national commission for UNESCO, has pointed out that at present the only centre for commonwealth studies on this continent is to be found at Duke University in North Carolina. He has suggested that, as we approach Canada's centenary, it would be fitting to establish for the use of all our members a Commonwealth study centre in Canada, fully equipped and staffed to perform functions perhaps too obvious to list, and which would be under the aegis of the federal and provincial governments. Perhaps the world's fair building in Montreal might be used to house this Commonwealth study centre.
Of course, Canada's experience is only one example of what is being done about education in the commonwealth. Every country is involved and countless people are now familiar with the problems-the urgent question of the supply of textbooks, for example. But for the newly developing countries the need is frequently for people rather than equipment or money-people with knowledge and experience. We are all in need of more teachers today. Here in Canada we are acutely conscious of this, but our problem is subtly different from that of the less developed countries. We are concerned about automation; about a new way of life which provides all man's wants with little labour and, it seems, at the touch of a button or under the guidance of a computer. Compare this situation with that of some other lands where the most primitive of methods, requiring much labour and a great amount of time, do not produce enough for one man, let alone his family. The problem abroad is to build from the bottom. We are told that in Asia eight million primary school teachers will have to be trained by 1980; this would require
500.000	more teacher-trainers. In Africa, over the same period, the need will amount to
700.000	additional primary school teachers, and, on the educational top level, about
80.000	more members of university staffs.
This third commonwealth education conference is concerned with the vast difficulties involved and the complicated solutions required. We are presented with a frontier giving us abundant opportunities for thought and action. The great heritage of ideas and knowledge which the commonwealth countries offer, can broaden the framework of our co-operation and enrich each member. Aid for education is not really aid at all; it is a form of partnership. Education is a true meeting ground for donor and receiver.
In a sense all nations are "developing" countries. To be economically retarded does not mean culturally backward. If many commonwealth countries are for the moment less advanced than others in economic terms, this cannot dull their great history, rich in cultural and social achievement. We all have something to learn from one another. This is very true of those of us whose origin is European. One recalls the words of Mr. Nehru at the opening of the second conference in 1962;
"European civilization has a magnificent record and yet many people immersed in [it]
.. .had in the past, not so now perhaps, no knowledge of the rest of the world and of the great things the rest of the world has done in the past. It is not a good thing for any cultured and civilized man not to know what has happened elsewhere..."
Through education, reason and observation can be brought to bear on the everyday problems of man's relations with the world and the people about him. Education opens the door of understanding, and besides showing the way to prosperity, lets in the light of peace. These, one need hardly say, are goals worthy of our greatest efforts.
Statement of acceptance of the Chairmanship at the third commonwealth education conference by Honourable Paul Gdrin-Lajoie, Quebec minister of education, Friday August 21, 1964.
Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Minister for External Affairs, distinguished representatives,
I am deeply impressed by the honour which you have bestowed upon me, in asking me to preside over your work. I do not believe that this honour is offered to me so much in my personal capacity; above all, I see in it a homage to Canada, which I have the honour of representing here with my colleagues from the Canadian delegation, to Quebec, my home province, of which I am

minister of education, and to all my fellow
countrymen.
[Stage Direction]
I wish to see a special meaning in the fact that you chose a minister from a French speaking government to preside over a conference bringing together countries with different languages and cultures, that is true, but where English constitutes a historic bond. Quebec actually forms within the Canadian confederation an homogeneous but different element. Almost a century ago, the two founding races of Canada decided by common agreement to enter into a pact which would enable them to live together while respecting one another's characteristics, language, social and political institutions, and safeguarding also their own interests and aspirations.
English Canada and French Canada are therefore made up, within one country, of both distinctive elements and essential, even integral parts, the union of which has permitted to create, develop and maintain Canada.
[Stage Direction]
Our distinguished president, Right Hon. Vincent Massey, is one of those Canadians who has best understood the profound reality and fundamental importance of Canadian dualism. As an eminent member of the English speaking community, who has to his credit both a highly distinguished public career and many literary accomplishments,
he has acknowledged publicly and in numerous circumstances the essential contribution of his French speaking compatriots to the Canadian identity.
The selection by this conference of a chairman from Quebec also suggests to me a parallel between the commonwealth and Canada; for both today are in their own way primarily dedicated to fostering increased understanding and closer co-operation between partners, while respecting individual particularisms; indeed, it is from this very diversity that the commonwealth today derives its main strength and its purpose, and Canada, its unique personality and character.
I earnestly hope that our exchange of views and the sharing of our varied experiences will make possible a keener appreciation of our solidarity, and that our conference will facilitate an even more active participation of the commonwealth in those tasks for which it is particularly well suited. This accomplishment in turn, while strengthening the bonds which link our governments and peoples, cannot but contribute to greater cooperation and friendship within the whole community of nations.
Because of that sense of equality and of mutual respect inherent in the commonwealth, I know that I can rely on your fullest collaboration toward the success of this conference, particularly since we are all gathered here to seek answers suited to our multiple educational problems. In return, I assure you of my own keenest co-operation in the services of this third commonwealth education conference.
[Stage Direction]


*

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
[Stage Direction]
.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, August 24, 1964