1964-10-19

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I rise on a question of privilege affecting all members of this house. When a member takes a seat in this chamber at the beginning of a new parliament he must first swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. The oath in question is to be found on page 406 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms and reads as follows:
I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
The words in the oath which I think are most significant are the words "faithful" and "allegiance". The most obvious definition of "faithful" is "loyal" and of "allegiance" either "loyalty" or "devotion". On Friday every member present in this house, with the exception of the member for Quebec West, stood and sang the prayer and anthem "God Save the Queen". We were displaying by our action our continued adherence to the oath we took on assuming our seats in this house; we were indicating our faithfulness and our true allegiance as members of parliament.
The member for Quebec West by his action indicated his unwillingness to stand by the oath to which he swore when he took his seat in this house and it is my belief that you, Mr. Speaker, or the committee on privileges and elections should determine whether he has any right to continue sitting in this chamber. This is not the first example of words or actions incompatible with the oath of allegiance, but it is certainly the most glaring and repulsive example to date in this twenty sixth parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Carman Coates: -and other members are entitled to know the true significance of the oath of allegiance and the action which will be forthcoming when it is broken.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, due to the fact that the hon. member for Quebec West, (Mr. Plourde) is absent,
I wish to point out that the stand taken by our party in this matter was formulated by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) the other day, and all parties in the Commons agreed that it was reasonable.
The members spontaneously decided to sing "God Save the Queen". The hon. member for Quebec West stated that he did not know this English hymn and that he could not sing it. Therefore, he remained seated. That was not an official act from a member of the government, and in no means does it violate the oath he took upon entering this house.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact that there is no motion before the house, I propose to proceed.



PROCEDURE


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat) moved:: That the eleventh report of the special committee on procedure and organization, presented to the house on October 7. 1964, be now concurred In.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving concurrence in the eleventh report on behalf of the committee on procedure and organization, I would like to make a few brief remarks respecting the four recommendations that are contained in it. If hon. members will refer to Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, October 7, they will find the complete report. I might say that in that complete report there is a summary of some of the work that has been done by the committee in attempting to examine and make recommendations respecting the whole committee structure of the House of Commons. The committee on procedure and organization in fact appointed a subcommittee to address itself specifically to this problem, and to study and make recommendations respecting the committee structure of this house. I have before me several copies

Procedure Committee
of the summary that was prepared and the recommendations that are in the report. For the interest of the various parties perhaps they would like to have copies of this summary.
Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, the subcommittee held a number of meetings to try to find ways and means of strengthening the committee structure of the House of Commons. One of the most important matters considered-and it is the main substance of this eleventh report-was that of giving committees the power to perhaps sit beyond prorogation, or at least to sit during an adjournment of the house. We looked into this matter in some detail with regard to the propriety of standing and special committees sitting after prorogation, and your subcommittee came to the conclusion that it was not competent to make recommendations with regard to sessions of standing or special committees after prorogation. If hon. members would refer to paragraph 14 of this report they will note that it says:
Your committee is of the opinion that the house should not empower a committee to sit beyond the prorogation of a session by simple resolution, or even by means of an amendment to standing order 65, since either course would infringe the royal prerogative. It appears to your committee that this reform could properly be implemented only by means of legislation. Ample precedent exists whereby the royal prerogative has been limited by means of an act of parliament, such legislation requiring the signification of the Queen's consent (not to be confused with the royal assent) prior to its final passage by the house. Since the practical exercise of the royal prerogative is today vested in Her Majesty's ministers, with whom the reality of power resides, your committee therefore recommends that the government give serious consideration to the introduction of such legislation at an early date.
The recommendation, therefore, is that the government should give consideration to this matter and introduce such legislation if they see fit. We believe it would be well for the government to consider this kind of action.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we draw to the attention of the government and the house that there are two ways of dealing with this matter in the interim. One is that prorogation of a session could be delayed as long as possible to enable committees to meet while the house stood adjourned; and (b), where necessary a committee of the house could be constituted as a commission under the terms of the Inquiries Act, chapter 154 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, to enable it to continue its work beyond the prorogation of a session. Of these two alternatives your committee feels that the first sugges-

tion-that is, to delay prorogation-would be the most desirable.
I think it would be well for hon. members to consider the problems this house encountered last year when a number of committees were sitting and we were working toward a prorogation date of, I think it was, December 21. Many of those committees had insufficient time to complete their work, to report to the house and to move concurrence therein before prorogation. It is well known to all hon. members that all the work of a committee dies on prorogation unless a report is made to the house which is considered, adopted or concurred in by the house.
This session we see the possibility of two of our standing committees of this house requiring time beyond what may be considered an appropriate date for prorogation. One of those committees is the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines which is considering Bill No. C-120; the other is the standing committee on agriculture and colonization which is considering the matter of feed grains for eastern Canada. Perhaps both these committees would need to sit beyond the date when most of the other business of the house has been completed.
We do not believe it ought to be automatic that these standing or special committees sit when the house is not in session, but we do think that by adjourning rather than proroguing and passing a simple resolution or motion in the house, certain of these committees could sit beyond the adjournment date.
The third recommendation, Mr. Speaker, deals with the matter of continuing the membership of committees from one session to another. We think standing order No. 65 should be amended by the substitution in line 2 of the words "the first session of each parliament" for the words "each session". That would enable the membership of committees to be named for the duration of a parliament instead of for the duration of a session.
This becomes important, Mr. Speaker, because if we look back in the records of this session of the twenty sixth parliament we find that while the striking committee was set up on the first day of the session, as required under our standing orders, it was not until March 11, as reported at page 777 of Hansard, that the Prime Minister moved the motion that would set up the standing committees of this house. We believe the reason this action was taken even as early as March 11, which was nearly 30 days after the house

was in session, was that it was necessary to get the external affairs committee functioning to deal with a specific matter.
We also note, Mr. Speaker, that only one standing committee was set up on that date, and that it was not until April 10, as recorded at page 1989 of Hansard, that the chief government whip was in a position to make the motion naming the membership of all of the standing committees of the House of Commons. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that nearly two months had gone by after the commencement of the session before these committees were actually in existence; for certainly it cannot be argued that they were in existence before names of members were attached to them.
We believe that if this recommendation to amend standing order 65 were accepted by the house and by the government, and the motion was moved to set up these committees at the beginning of a parliament rather than at the beginning of each session, then the first day of each session when parliament gets under way the committees would be in existence and the membership would be named. In this event there would be no waiting for the various parties to supply names each session for the different committees.
The fourth recommendation, Mr. Speaker, deals with the terms of reference. We believe that a committee's terms of reference, particularly a standing committee, should automatically include the power to appoint subcommittees. The motion relating to the powers of standing committees should in the future be moved, we think, in the following terms. First of all, this was the motion moved by the Prime Minister, as appears at page 777 of Hansard:
That the standing committees of this house be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house; and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.
Our recommendation is that these words be included:
-and to delegate to subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report direct to the house.
It appeared that even during this session it would have been expedient for at least one or two committees to have the power to set up subcommittees, and I refer specifically again to Bill C-120, which deals with three separate areas of railway transport matters in Canada. It seems to me that it would be well for the house to delegate this power
Procedure Committee
to that committee so that three separate studies could be carried on at the same time.
It will be recognized that these recommendations being made today by your committee must be the subject of action on the part of the government so that effect can be given to them. While concurrence today would not necessarily mean that these recommendations would automatically be put into effect, it would give to the government an indication that we believe the things we suggest should be done. Therefore, on behalf of the committee, I recommend to hon. members of this house that this report be concurred in, giving an indication that they think these recommendations are desirable.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in so far as a complete study of recommendations respecting the committee structure of the house is concerned, this eleventh report must be considered as an interim report. Your committee is continuing to study this matter and will be coming forward at a later date with other recommendations as to committee size, function and vested authority. It is the opinion of the committee on procedure and organization that these matters we are now recommending for consideration today require immediate attention for the business of this particular session.


Miss Pauline Jewell (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, as seconder of this motion I am pleased to join with the hon. member for Medicine Hat in asking for the concurrence of the house in the eleventh report of the special committee on procedure and organization. I hope all hon. members have read this report which can be found in Votes and Proceedings of October 7 last; because it outlines not only the three immediate proposals we are recommending to the government, but also some of the problem areas in this whole field of committees which the committee on procedure and organization, through its subcommittee on committees, is planning to undertake and study.
I think it is accurate to say that all hon. members of that committee, and I hope all hon. members of this house, feel there is a great deal to be done to both rationalize and strengthen the committee system of this house, not only to make the committees themselves more effective but also indeed to make the house itself more effective. It seems to me that if we have a stronger, more rational and more effective committee system we will be able to cover a great deal more ground in our committees and accomplish much more by

Procedure Committee
way of tightening debate in this chamber. The two seem to me to go hand in hand.
For all these reasons I hope all hon. mem-bets will again read this whole report, since it does outline some of the areas we plan to study. I know the members of the committee will be grateful for suggestions from hon. members as to what other areas they think we might look into.
Our immediate request is for concurrence in essentially three recommendations. One is that the government give consideration at some time to introducing legislation which will make it possible permanently for committees to continue from one session to another within a parliament. As has already been said, this will involve some limitation on the royal prerogative; therefore the Queen's consent will have to be secured before this legislation is introduced. The committee felt, however, that this was the appropriate way of going about it, and we hope that at some time the government will make it possible for committees to sit between sessions within a parliament, as a routine or automatic thing. In the meantime, until that is done, we suggest either of two courses of action, and particularly favour the course of action which would allow committees to continue sitting by, in effect, postponing prorogation as was done during the war, I believe, until the day before a new session begins.
As the hon. member for Medicine Hat has said, our second proposal is to make it possible for the membership of committees to be named for an entire parliament. I am sure there should not be any disagreement with that.
The next proposal is to allow committees to appoint subcommittees. This latter recommendation will be particularly important if in the reorganization of the committee structure of this house we should decide that it would be preferable to have fairly large committees covering broad fields of action, functional areas as they are called, rather than a large number of very small committees. If we have fairly large ones it will be absolutely essential that they be enabled to appoint subcommittees.
Beyond this immediate report we hope to go into the whole question of what powers committees should have. For example, should committees have the power to initiate? Should committees discuss estimates as well as legislation in their appropriate fields? Should there be new committees to which we have not given any thought at all in this house, as for instance a committee on statutory in-

struments or delegated legislation such as they have in the United Kingdom? Should there be only standing committees and should all the work be done by these, through subcommittees, or will we still require the occasional special committee? How many members should be on each committee or on each subcommittee? Most important, what powers should committees have? It seems to me this will be by far the most crucial problem we will be discussing. No doubt there will be further reports brought to this house.
I think we are all aware of the fact that we do operate under a system of responsible cabinet government. We have not thought of creating a series of small cabinets within the House of Commons in rivalry to the cabinet itself. There could be no thought, therefore, of copying the United States system, as has been suggested, ynless we change our whole system of government, which we are not thinking of doing, at any rate in this committee. However, within the confines of the system of responsible cabinet government surely it is possible to give larger functions and stronger and clearer powers-I would hope even the power of initiation-to our standing committees of this house. As I say, this will come up in the future. It is not something for which we are asking concurrence today; it is something for the future. It is something that, if the recommendations we are making today are concurred in, will be easier for the committee to discuss.
Nor is there any reason why we should limit our discussion to these problem areas mentioned in this report. There are other suggestions that might be made, and I hope that in the course of the next few months as this committee continues its work, hon. members will be bringing forward other suggestions as to ways in which the committee system, and parliament itself through its committee system, can be strengthened.
For example, I have always felt that there are some bills which could be referred to committees after first reading. This is quite contrary to the general practice under our parliamentary system where the principle is always decided upon before the bill goes to committee. There are occasions, particularly when our parliamentary timetable is so crowded, upon which we could send non-controversial, non-partisan bills to a committee after first reading, provided the committees themselves were representative and that there would be a full discussion there of this type

of bill. There are bills right now on the order paper which I believe could be referred to a committee.
This is one kind of suggestion which is not made here and to which I think we could give some serious consideration. I urge all hon. members to try to stretch their imaginations a little on the use of the committee system of this house to see if they cannot come up with something that will be compatible with the system we have of responsible cabinet government, and at the same time compatible with the needs of the kind of complex system in which we live today.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words with respect to the motion for concurrence in this eleventh report. I do so both as a member of the committee and on behalf of this party.
The adoption of this motion, Mr. Speaker, does not have the precise effect that the adoption of some other motions for concurrence in reports of Your Honour's committee have had. The adoption does not actually effect any change. Nevertheless, we as members of the committee feel that this is a very important report we are presenting to the house, and that the heart of it is something very significant. The heart of it, as we see it, is that the house should give consideration to the greater use of committees.
I agree with the position just stated both by the hon. member for Medicine Hat and the hon. member for Northumberland. We are not trying to change our system of government, but we do feel the house could benefit from a strengthening of its committees and from a greater use of them. As we see it, there are two things that are necessary if this is going to be done and in this instance both these things fall on the shoulders of the government.
In the first place, we have to do something about the royal prerogative that makes it necessary for us to re-establish committees at every session, and consequently prevents committees meeting between sessions. By the terms of the royal prerogative a session of parliament starts when we are called into session by the crown, and it ends with prorogation. Between prorogation and the next summoning of a session of parliament, there is nothing that parliament or its committees can do. This can be resolved by legislation affecting the royal prerogative and, as a committee, we are asking the house to ask the government to give serious study to this
Questions
matter and take action upon it at an early date.
Another step that will be necessary if we are going to strengthen committees and use them more will be for the government to take a positive position and ask the house to refer more matters to committees so they can be studied thoroughly, and so that good use of the committees and of the members of those committees can be made. All of us feel, and I think the feeling is generally shared by the members of our committee on committees, that there should be certain times of the year when the house itself need not be in session but when the committees might be able to meet and deal on a full time basis with matters referred to them.
Without going into detail, which certainly is not necessary at this time, I join with the other two members who have spoken in saying that our studies have convinced us that a very much greater use can be made of committees. In this report all we are saying is that we hope the government will take the necessary steps to see that what is requested in this report is implemented at an early date.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: As a member of the committee, all I want to say is that I believe the committee made some very good suggestions, and I support the adoption of the report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date did Bernard Alasdair Graham's appointment become effective as a special assistant to the Minister of Labour?
2.	How many days since Mr. Graham's appointment has he spent away from Ottawa on government business and into what provinces did this government business take him?
3.	What is the total amount of Mr. Graham's expenses to date in relation to time spent away from Ottawa and what is the total amount of his expenses since the date of his employment if it varies from the aforementioned amount?
4.	What is the breakdown of his total expenses?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1.	July 20, 1964.
2.	Twelve days. Nova Scotia.
3 and 4. No expenses submitted.


RESEARCH GRANTS TO DENTAL SCHOOLS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):

Questions
1.	In each of the last five years, what has been the total of dental research grants by the government to each Canadian dental school?
2.	What has been the specific purpose of each such grant given in the last year?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: 1. Under the national health grants, for the fiscal years 1959-64, the following grants were made available to the provinces on behalf of the faculty of dentistry of the Canadian universities listed hereunder:
1959-	60: University of Toronto, $169,304; University of Alberta, $960.
1960-	61: University of Toronto, $31,373; University of Alberta, $4,490.
1961-	62: University of Toronto, $34,936; University of Manitoba, $18,558; University of Alberta, $4,266.
1962-	63: University of Toronto; $34,497; University of Alberta, $337.
1963-	64: University of Toronto, $31,025; University of Alberta, $6,647.
2.	At the request of the provinces, two projects related to dental research were approved in 1963-64, namely: (a) Evaluation of a program of interceptive orthodontics (faculty of dentistry, University of Toronto), and (b) A study of the eruption of teeth and growth of jaws in normal children from birth to three years of age and a survey of dental health in chronically ill Canadian children (faculty 9t.dentistry, University of Alberta).


EXCHANGE OP STUDENTS AND PROFESSORS WITH RUSSIA
Mr. More: 1.	How many Canadian students have gone to work In or visit institutions in the U.S.S.R. in the past year or so?
2.	What U.S.S.R. universities have they worked in or visited and what has been the length of their stay?
3.	How many Canadian professors have been invited to go to the U.S.S.R. for a visiting professorship at a U.S.S.R. university during the last year or so?
4.	(a) What are their names and qualifications (b) what U.S.S.R. institutions have offered these visiting professorships (c) what has been the length of each visiting professorship?
5.	How many U.S.S.R. students have come to Canada to work in or visit our universities during the past year or so?
6.	What universities have they worked in or visited and what has been their length of stay?
7.	How many U.S.S.R. professors have come to Canada to fill invitations for a visiting professorship in the past year or so?
8.	(a) What are their names and qualifications (b) at what Canadian universities have they filled these assignments (c) what has been the length of their assignment in each case?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: 1. 4, 1963-64; 6, 1964-65.

2.	Moscow University, one year.
3.	Visiting professorships, six.
4.	(a) Dr. W. W. Moorhouse, professor of geology, University of Toronto; (b) Academy of Sciences; (c) exact length of assignment not available.
Dr. S. G. Mason, head, physical chemistry division, Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada, Montreal; (b) institutes in Leningrad and Moscow; (c) three weeks.
Dr. H. E. Welch, research institute, Department of Agriculture, research branch, Belleville, Ontario; (b) Academy of Sciences; (c) exact length of assignment not available.
Dr. P. A. Kondra, associate professor of poultry science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg; (b) Academy of Sciences; (c) six weeks.
Dr. J. D. Keys, physics and radiotracer subdivision, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Ottawa; (b) Academy of Sciences; (c) five months.
Professor L. G. Berry, Department of Geological Science, Queen's University; (b) Academy of Sciences (Geology); (c) two weeks.
5.	3, 1963-64; 6, 1964-65.
6.	University of Toronto, Ontario Agricultural College in Guelph, University of British Columbia. One year.
7.	6 in 1963-64.
8.	(1963-64).
(a)	Dr. L. N. Andreev, Main Botanical Garden, Academy of Sciences; (b) University of Saskatchewan and Research Institute; (c) six months.
Academician L. I. Sedov; (b) Institute of Aeorospace Studies, Toronto University; (c) one month.
Dr. S. I. Berezin; (b) National Research Council and visits in Kingston; (c) eight months.
Mr. O. A. Kossov, Institute of Automation and Telemechanics, Academy of Sciences; (b) National Research Council (and visits); (c) ten weeks.
Dr. E. L. Franksvich, Academy of Sciences (chemistry); (b) University of Alberta, University of British Columbia, University of Manitoba; (c) one and a half months.
Dr. D. S. Korzinsky, geochemist; (b) Mc-Master University, Hamilton; (c) one week.


TENDERS FOR REFITS, FRIGATES AND DESTROYER ESCORTS
Mr. Bell: Have tenders or bids been called with respect to the program of refitting and conversion of frigates and destroyer escorts and, if so, what were

the original amounts, final costs, and the number of days for completion of each in both east and west coast yards?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Yes, for destroyer escorts H.M.C.S. Skeena and Margaree. Contract values were: $2884,519.75 and $3,218,352 respectively.
Contract prices were the result of competitive tenders. They cover the total conversion work including helicopter platform and facilities, variable depth sonar and improved communications facilities. The contract prices also include all repair and refit requirements known at the time tenders were invited. However in any refit of a ship there is additional work which cannot be defined at the time of the contract award since its extent is known only after the opening up of machinery spaces and equipment. Such work will be extra to the contract but will be priced on the basis of firm labour overhead and profit rates quoted in the initial tenders, and will be relatively small in relation to the total contracts.
Work on H.M.C.S. Skeena commenced at an eastern yard on July 15, 1964, with completion scheduled 13 months later. Work on H.M.C.S. Margaree commenced at a west coast yard on September 15, 1964, with completion scheduled 13 months later.


ATOMIC ENERGY LTD.-PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, CARLETON COUNTY, ONT.
Mr. Nugeni: 1.	Has Atomic Energy of Canada Limited acquired a site in the township of March in the county of Carleton and, if so (a) from whom was it acquired (b) how many acres (c) what was the price per acre (d) what, in detail, were the arrangements made for sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water connections (e) what amount of the cost of such services is to be contributed by (i) Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (ii) the land developer who sold it (iii) the township of March (iv) any other municipality or person (f) at what date will each of such services be available to the land purchased (g) for what purpose will the land be used?
2.	Did Atomic Energy of Canada Limited negotiate with any other property owners in the township of March or the township of Nepean for a site and, if so (a) with whom (b) at what price per acre did each such person offer to sell (c) what arrangements were proposed by such persons for services (d) why was each such offer rejected in favour of the site acquired?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited advises as follows: 1. Yes. (a) March Ridge Development Ltd., original owners, deeded from Fairfield Investments Ltd., (b) 44, (c) $3,000, (d>
Sanitary sewer and water connections to be provided by Wm. Teron Ltd., from neighborhood No. 3, community No. 1, March ridge, to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited site and
Questions
plant. No storm sewer, (e) (i) Nil (ii) 100 per cent (iii) Nil (iv) Nil, (f) April 30, 1965, (g) site for office and manufacturing building for commercial operations.
2.	Yes. (a) Township of Nepean (1) national capital commission, two sites (2) Con-arm Developments Limited, (b) (1) national capital commission, lease basis, (2) Conarm Developments Limited, $2,700 per acre, (c) (1) national capital commission, services available to property line (site 1) and by arrangement with defence research board at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited expense (site 2), (2) Con-arm Developments Limited, a well on site. Sanitary sewer available on site property line, (d>
the property acquired was the most desirable in terms of use and the evaluated cost per acre was lower than the two other sites referred to.


LANGUAGE USED IN UN SPEECHES
Mr. Fisher: In speeches made by members of Canada's permanent delegation to the last two United Nations assembly sessions, how many were given (a) in English (b) in French?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: According to the records of the permanent mission of Canada in New York, members of the Canadian delegation gave 19 speeches in English and four in French during the 1962 assembly; during the 1963 assembly, 18 statements were made in English and 10 in French. Those figures embrace all statements of substance made in plenary or in committees, but exclude minor and ad hoc intervention not based on a prepared text.
During the same period, the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave two speeches, one in English, one in French.
The normal practice for the Canadian representatives is to speak in their mother tongue.


CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN DESALINATION SYMPOSIUM
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Has the government now replied to the invitation of the United States to participate in the first international symposium on water desalination and, if so, what has been the reply?
2.	Have delegates to the symposium been chosen and, if so, who are they?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. Yes, the invitation has been accepted.

Questions
2. The delegates have as yet not been chosen. The conference takes place in October 1965.


FORT SMITH. N.W.T., AIRPORT FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	Has the Department of Transport purchased the additional firefighting equipment required to meet minimum standards of safety for the airport at Fort Smith, N.W.T., and, if so, is this equipment on site?
2.	If this equipment has not yet been acquired, when will this be done and on what date will this equipment be installed on site?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minisier of Transport):: 1. No additional firefighting equipment has been purchased to augment the crash rescue vehicle presently at Fort Smith airport.
2. Specifications for the additional firefighting equipment for Fort Smith and other airports are being developed. It is now expected that a new aircraft crash firefighting vehicle will be delivered to Fort Smith airport during the late summer or early fall of 1965.


SHORE PROTECTION AND ROAD REPAIRS, CARIBOU ISLAND, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Were public tenders called for new shore protection work and repairs to Lightstation road at Caribou island, N.S., and, if not, what individuals and firms were asked to tender on this work?
2.	What were the names of the tenderers and the amount of the various tenders?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Tenders by invitation to the following were requested: R. C. Goodall and A. E. McMaster R.R. No. 3, Pictou, Nova Scotia; Ernest A. Falconer, R.R. No. 3, Pictou, Nova Scotia, Joseph Almon, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia.
2.	Tenders received were from: Ernest A. Falconer, $3,929; Goodall and McMaster, $6,968.
3.	The contract was awarded to Ernest A. Falconer.


REPORT ON UNEMPLOYMENT IN PICTOU COUNTY, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: Has the Minister of Labour received a report from the Atlantic development board regarding unemployment in Pictou county, as a result of the reference to the board of this matter on the recommendation of the New Glasgow district labour council?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Atlantic development board, in acknowledging the request submitted by the New Glasgow district labour council, advised that the board would examine, in co-operation with other departments, the feasibility of carrying out the investigation requested. It is understood that under ARDA a detailed research program has been initiated of an area which includes the county of Pictou and the Atlantic development board is being kept informed of progress made on these studies. Three years ago the Department of Labour in co-operation with the government of Nova Scotia undertook a study of the manpower resources of the New Glasgow labour market area which includes the county of Pictou.


DISPOSITION OF AIR OBSERVER SCHOOL, CRUMLIN, ONT.
Mr. Irvine: Have the properties formerly known as No. 4 air observer school, Crumlin, Ontario, been turned over to war assets disposal corporation for disposition and, if so (a) what offers, if any, to purchase buildings and/or property have been received (b) what is the anticipated finalization date of disposition of these properties?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned, the answer is as follows:
1. Nine buildings of the former No. 4 air observer school at Crumlin, Ontario were declared surplus and offers thereon were invited by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for September 23, 1964. Twelve offers were received but after the buildings were advertised and prior to the closing date, the Department of Transport requested two of the buildings, which were allocated to them. In view of the reduced quantity of buildings bidders were subsequently given an opportunity to revise their bids and the highest bidder on this second round has now been requested to forward the balance of his purchase price and performance deposit. Removal of the buildings and the restoration of the site is to be completed by May 1, 1965.


TENDERS FOR DRYDOCK CONSTRUCTION, CLARENVILLE, NFLD.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Have tenders been called for the construction of a drydock at Clarenville, Newfoundland?
2.	For what purpose will the drydock be used and who will use it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Contract for the issue of the main haulout section of the drydock facilities at

Clarenville was awarded to Avalon Construction Company of St. John's, Newfoundland, in June 1963 and this portion of the drydock is now 98 per cent complete. Tenders for the transfer system and fitting out wharf have been called.
2. The purpose of the drydock is to inspect ships out of the water in compliance with the requirements of the Canada Shipping Act. The drydock will be operated by Newfoundland Ship Yards Limited of Clarenville, Newfoundland.


AREA SERVED BY NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT OFFICE, PEMBROKE, ONT.
Mr. Martineau: 1.	What area is included in the area served by the national employment service office located in the town of Pembroke in the province of Ontario?
2.	Has this area been designated as a surplus labour area by the federal government?
3.	Does this area include any portion of the county of Pontiac, province of Quebec?
4.	What criteria were employed to designate the town of Pembroke and the area served by the national employment office in that town as a surplus labour area?
5.	Were the number of claimants for unemployment benefits or the number registered at the national employment service office, at Pembroke, used as one of the criteria?
6.	Did such statistics include claimants for unemployment benefits or applicants for positions who live in the county of Pontiac and, if so, how many such claimants and applicants were there from the county of Pontiac and what proportion of the total number of claimants and applicants of the Pembroke area did such claimants and applicants constitute?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The Pembroke national employment service area comprises some 2,700 square miles of territory, located in eastern Ontario and extending some 130 miles along the Ottawa river. The area takes in the following townships in Renfrew county: Alice, Brudenell, Buchanan, Burns, Clara, Fraser, Hagarty, Head, Jones, Lyndoch, Maria, McKay, North Algona, Pembroke, Petawawa, Radcliffe, Raglan, Richards, Rolph, Sebastopol, Sherwood, South Algona, Stafford, Westmeath, Wilberforce, Wylie and part of Bromley; and the following townships in Nipissing district: Airy, Dickens, Lyell, Murchison and Sabine.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	The Pembroke national employment service area qualified for designation under the following set of conditions of the established criteria. It was classified by the Department
Questions
of Labour as a labour surplus area for one half or more of the summer months, May to October, during the three years prior to designation and it experienced an employment decrease in each of these years.
5.	The classification of national employment service areas by the Department of Labour is based on the number of persons registered in a given area expressed as a percentage of the number of wage and salary workers in that area. The N.E.S. registrations are taken into account in the unemployment criterion for designating areas. This criterion is based on the classification of the area over the years.
6.	The statistics that have been used in this regard refer to the total number registered at the N.E.S. office. There is no information on the number of applicants that were from the county of Pontiac.


ESKASONI INDIAN RESERVE MEDICAL ADVISERS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	What are the names and addresses of the medical advisers or advisers who provide service to the Indians at the Eskasoni reserve?
2.	On what date were they appointed and what is their remuneration?
3.	Up to the present date, what remuneration have they received since they were appointed?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Medical officer in charge, Sydney clinic, medical services, Department of National Health and Welfare, 63 Charlotte street, Sydney, Nova Scotia. The staff of this clinic varies from time to time as it is rotated but all are full time employees of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The clinic includes on its staff public health nurses, a sanitary inspector and other health workers.
The public health services of the Nova Scotia department of health are available when these are required to supplement the federal department's program. The provincial department of health carries out the tuberculosis control program in this area on behalf of the federal department.
An occasional patient is referred to a privately practising specialist, chosen in accordance with the requirements of the case rather than according to any fixed rule. Except when referred by the department, In-

Questions
dians who consult privately practising physicians in the Sydney area do so at their own expense on a private patient basis.
2	and 3. See 1 above.


OLDER WORKERS INCENTIVE PLAN
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon: North and Victoria):
1.	How much money was spent in advertising the older workers incentive plan?
2.	How many were placed in employment as a result of this plan?
3.	Does the government consider this a successful plan?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to propose alterations to the plan and, if so, what are they?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. $184,800, advertising and publicity.
2. 1,948.
3	and 4. The plan was introduced on an experimental one year basis and is currently being evaluated. Government policy with respect to the continuation of the plan will be announced when the evaluation study has been completed.


EXPORT CREDIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	What is the total amount of operating capital of the Export Credit Insurance Corporation which comes from the consolidated revenue fund made up of public taxes or from the national treasury?
2.	What is at present the total amount of current loans of the Export Finance Corporation Ltd. (a company belonging to the chartered banks) which are guaranteed by the Export Credit Insurance Corporation?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: 1. The authorized and subcribed capital of the corporation is $15 million of which $5 million has been paid in by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has also paid in capital surplus of $5 million. The total amount thus paid in by the Minister of Finance is $10 million which is held in an interest free account of the consolidated revenue fund in accordance with the Financial Administration Act.
2. Export Credits Insurance Corporation has no knowledge of the loans of the Export Finance Corporation of Canada, Limited. Such loans are not guaranteed by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation.


STATUS OF QUEBEC DELEGATION IN PARIS
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	Has the Canadian government officially asked France to award diplomatic status to the general delegation from the province of Quebec in Paris and, if so (a) when did the government of Canada make such a request (b) what reasons were given in support (c) was a reply received and what did it contain?
2.	If no request was made does the government of Canada intend to make such a request to France and when?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, the Canadian government has not asked the government of France to grant diplomatic status to the Quebec delegation in Paris. For that matter, the government of Quebec has never at any time asked that its delegation in Paris be given diplomatic status. The government of Canada has therefore asked on several occasions, and in complete agreement with the government of Quebec, privileges and immunities for the Quebec delegation in Paris comparable to those which have been accorded for a long time by the British government to the agent general of Quebec and to other provincial representatives in London. Our discussions with the authorities of the government of France on this subject continue, especially through the intervention of our ambassador in Paris. I hope that the government of France will soon be in a position to grant to the Quebec delegation, and in due course to any other delegation of a province of Canada which might be established in Paris, appropriate privileges and immunities which would facilitate the effective accomplishment of their tasks.


STILLBIRTHS AND CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
In each province, in each of the last ten years, what has been the rate per 1,000 births of (a) stillbirths, and (b) congenital abnormalities (all types) ?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) Rate, per 1,000 births, of stillbirths (28+ weeks gestation) Canada and provinces, 1954-63:

Orders jor Returns
Year	Canada	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Yukon	N.W.T.1954.	.. 16.3	17.4	21.2	16.9	18.5	20.6	14.7	14.3	12.9	12.3	11.2	11.6	20.21955.	.. 15.4	16.1	15.6	17.2	15.6	18.8	14.4	13.6	12.0	12.4	11.0	11.3	13.51956.	.. 15.2	17.6	18.8	17.3	19.6	18.7	13.5	14.2	12.0	11.6	11.3	8.2	13.81957.	.. 14.4	16.6	16.9	16.5	14.6	17.7	13.1	13.3	11.6	10.7	10.8	10.0	12.11958.	.. 14.1	17.7	16.0	10.6	15.2	16.9	13.0	14.0	11.2	10.6	10.4	10.5	10.51959.	.. 13.5	20.3	19.5	13.5	15.1	16.1	12.7	12.9	10.1	9.8	10.0	11.0	13.91960.	.. 13.3	17.8	13.0	14.4	14.8	16.7	12.2	11.9	9.1	9.5	10.8	12.8	10.81961.	.. 12.5	17.7	16.0	15.2	13.2	13.9	11.7	12.8	11.0	9.5	10.6	7.1	14.11962.	.. 12.4	16.3	20.3	14.1	14.2	13.3	12.2	11.9	10.5	9.9	9.8	5.5	16.51963.	.. 12.2	16.9	17.3	12.5	14.7	13.3	11.9	11.7	10.2	9.5	9.6	9.9	14.4
(b) No information available in the dominion bureau of statistics.


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS ADVERTISING COSTS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
What is the cost to the government of advertising the current issue of Canada savings bonds?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: It is expected that the cost of advertising for the 1964 Canada savings bonds campaign will be $972,000.


NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. Mather: What was the amount in dollars of the federal debt in 1940, 1950, 1960 and 1963?


Mitchell William Sharp: Unmatured funded debt and treasury bills as of March 31: 1940, $3,695,685,192; 1950, $15,188,138,961 (including $115,651,082 refundable portion of excess profits tax); 1960, $15,890,151,803; 1963, $17,961,836,331.


INMATES OF MENTAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Mather: 1.	How many persons were in Canadian mental institutions at the end of the calendar years 1961, 1962 and 1963?
2.	What percentage, or ratio, of the population did they represent in the years indicated?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 and 2. Persons in Canadian mental institutions at the end of calendar year:
1961: (117 institutions reporting out of 146 in operation, representing 98.4 per cent of the operating rated bed capacity.) Patients
on books* 1, 75,372 or 413 per 100,000 population2; patients in institutions, 65,312 or 358 per 100,000 population2.
1962: (137 institutions reporting out of 150 in operation, representing 97.9 per cent of the operating rated bed capacity.) Patients on books1, 76,140 or 410 per 100,000 population2; patients in institutions, 66,096 or 356 per 100,000 population2.
1963: Data not yet available.
1	Includes on probation, boarding out or otherwise absent.
2	June 1 population figures as enumerated in census years or estimated for inter-censal years.


STUDENT LOANS GRANTED
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	As of September 20, 1963, how many students in each province and territory, have been granted Canada student loans?
2.	In each province and territory what was the total of loans granted as of September 30, 1964?


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



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Latulippe: 1. On what international commissions, committees or other agencies is Canada represented within
9174	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the framework of the United Nations organization or otherwise?
2.	What is the nature and purpose of each such commission, committee or agency; what is Canada's role in each; and what countries are members?
3.	Who are the Canadian personnel on each such commission, committee or agency; who directs each; and what proportion do they represent in comparison with other countries?
4.	What were Canada's yearly expenditures in connection with each such commission, committee or agency since its creation?
5.	What were the increases or decreases in personnel and appropriations of each such commission, committee or agency since its inception, and in each case, for what reasons were those increases or decreases made?
6.	During the past ten years, did Canada withdraw from any such commission, committee or agency and, if so, from which body and for what reason?
7.	What conditions are generally required before Canada participates as a member of an international commission of the United Nations?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	How many people by provinces, receive medical care paid in full by the federal government?
2.	How many people, by provinces, receive medical care paid in part by the federal government?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL GOVERNMENT USE OF COMPUTERS

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,854

Mr. Howe (Hamilton
South):
1.	How many computers, of all types, are now being used by the federal government?
2.	How many civil service positions have been pre-empted by computers in each of the last five years?
3.	What has been the total operating cost to the government of computers in each of the last five years?
Return tabled.

Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	In each of the last five years, what has been the total of medical research grants by the government to each Canadian medical school?
2.	What has been the specific purpose of each such grant given in the last year?
Return tabled.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question
[Mr. Latulippe.l

to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether the government of Canada has any information on whether the detonation of the nuclear device by communist China was done in the air. If so, has the government given consideration to the request of the Voice of Women, calling on the government to step up and expand immediately all existing monitoring procedures for the detection of radioactive fall-out, in particular iodine 131, which is expected to fall on Canada as a result of this test?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as I understand that the measurement of this type of radioactive fall-out cannot be undertaken for an indefinite period, perhaps I had better take my right hon. friend's question as notice, and give him a detailed answer tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Could the minister say whether the government of Canada has any knowledge as to whether this explosion was in the air, in the atmosphere or underground?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, to the best of our knowledge it was in the atmosphere.


DISCUSSIONS WITH LEADERS OF NEW U.K. GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the new foreign secretary for Great Britain, Patrick Walker, has announced that arrangements for a visit and consultation with U.S. secretary of state Dean Rusk within the next few days, could the minister say whether he has had any communication with the new foreign secretary, and will Mr. Walker be including Canada in his itinerary?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, in the event that the arrangements made with the U.S. secretary of state are firm, and notwithstanding the fact that I shall shortly have an opportunity at the United Nations to meet Mr Walker in his new capacity, I have indicated that we would be very happy if he would come here, and in fact that we believe we would find such a meeting useful.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: As
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, ir view of the announcement of the pending visit of Right Hon, Harold Wilson, Prime Minister of Great Britain, to Washington, would the government give consideration to extending

an invitation to him to visit Ottawa while he is on this continent?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have already sent a message to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom expressing hope for an early exchange of views, and I have had a telephone conversation with him as well. His reaction to this idea was a very positive one, and I think he will visit Ottawa on his next crossing of the Atlantic.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: As a supplementary question, in view of-


Mr. Fisher:: Socialists all.


Mr. Gordon:: Listen to who is talking, of all people.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -in view of the interest expressed by the government of the United Kingdom in extending commonwealth trade, are any plans being made for discussion of this subject with the United Kingdom government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly one of the matters we would wish to discuss most with the Prime Minister and foreign secretary of the United Kingdom.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I am pleased to note that the yield on 90 day treasury bills has been reduced to some 3.68 per cent as a means of discouraging the inflow of foreign, short term capital, and I wish to ask the minister whether he is planning to take any similar steps with respect to long term borrowings in the Canadian market?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the weekly treasury bill rate fluctuates from time to time. Among other things it is influenced by short term rates in the United States. Dealing with the second part of the question, I think it is fair to say that the spread between Canadian and U.S. rates both long and short term, have been narrower in the past year than they were prior to that period, and this has a tendency to influence the inflow of capital in the way my hon. friend suggested.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether he is planning to introduce at this session any measures to deal with the deficit in our balance of payments with the United States, which in the first half of this year was approximately $1,070 million?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I shall be surprised if the current account deficit in total reaches anything like that figure this year. The imbalance on a bilateral basis with the United States has been of this order for some time, and this is one of the things of which the government is very conscious. I may add that the government's policies are directed over the long term toward correcting this imbalance, but I do not think it is something which should be done in a precipitate manner. I believe we should work at it carefully. One of the most important things is to encourage greater exports to the United States, in particular greater exports of Canadian manufactured goods, and this is something to which the government is giving its close attention.


BANK OF CANADA COMMITMENT UNDER AGREEMENT WITH U.K. GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell us whether he has yet had an opportunity to consult with the new chancellor of the exchequer of Great Britain; and if so, is he now in a position to tell the house the extent to which the Bank of Canada is committed under the recent stand-by agreement with the British government?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question I would say that I had the pleasure of a long conversation with the new chancellor of the exchequer when I was in London last June, and I have written to him subsequently to congratulate him on his appointment and also to say that, while the newspapers are commenting a great deal upon the fact that the government of which he is a member has a majority of only four seats, these things are relative and from this distance that does not look so bad.
With regard to the last part of the question, I do not think my opinion has changed. With great respect, I do not think there would be any advantage in disclosing details at this stage.

Inquiries of the Ministry


REPORTED INTENTION TO APPLY TIGHT MONEY POLICY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It concerns a report issued by the Canadian stock exchange this morning to the effect that the government is fearing inflation and is now applying a tight money policy. Is that so?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report, which sounds to me as if it were highly exaggerated.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a related one. Is the government considering action to prevent the creeping inflation which is destroying the value of the consumer's dollar?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   STUDY OF PROVINCIAL ALLOCATIONS OF FEDERAL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance?
Could the minister tell us whether he has now obtained the report he asked his department to prepare concerning federal expenditures in every Canadian province? [Text]


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, some three months ago I asked for a study to be made in order that I might be able to answer some questions that in the interim have been made orders for returns. Those studies have taken a great deal of time. They have taken up the work of several members of my department over several months. They are extremely difficult and complex studies. I have not received them as yet, but I hope to have them in the not too distant future.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Minister of Finance intend to table the report in the house as soon as he receives it?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I intend to answer the questions that have now been

made orders for returns, and I shall do that at the earliest possible date.


Gilles Grégoire: A further question, Mr. Speaker.
Will the minister table only parts of the report so as to answer questions on the order paper or does he intend to table the whole report of the investigation made by his officials?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not know what is meant by a report, Mr. Speaker. Certain studies are being made with a view to answering the questions that were placed on the order paper, and those questions will be answered as fully and completely as it is possible to do.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice, which question is pressing and is of capital as well as national importance with regard to the safety of the members of parliament.
Over the week end we learned that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) as well as the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) had been threatened by the F.L.Q. (Front de Liberation du Quebec).
Has the Minister of Justice investigated this matter, with a view to establishing whether, since the member for Three Rivers was concerned, the F.L.Q. had indeed made such threats, or whether they were made instead by the Quebec Liberal federation?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first incident mentioned by the hon. member for Megantic, I must say that I have had, personally, no information on the matter.
Still, I have been much concerned by yesterday's news relating what had occurred in the case of the hon. member for Three Rivers. As he is obviously one of the most likeable and popular members of this house, I hastened, upon arriving at the office, and without interfering in provincial "jurisdiction" with regard to the administration of justice, to request a full report or at least full information on this matter.



POSSIBLE ACTION RESPECTING ONTARIO SUPREME COURT JUDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. Is he in a position to answer the question put to him on October 13 by my colleague the hon. member for Yukon, which was as follows:
-I should like to ask the Minister of Justice . . . whether the federal government is considering taking any action under the Judges Act with respect to Mr. Justice Landreville.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the charge which had been laid against Mr. Justice Landreville was dismissed at the preliminary hearing stage; that is to say, the judge decided there was insufficient evidence for the case to go to trial. Of course there is nothing that ought to be done or can be done under the Judges Act except to take into account the normal course of judicial process.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the minister entirely correct in that? Even though there was insufficient evidence to establish a criminal charge and send this matter for trial, is it not proper that a judge, under the circumstances, should have his conduct examined by way of a commission, in order to ascertain whether the action taken was such that it constituted on his part such a dereliction of duty as not to be in keeping with the position of a high court justice?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Like Courtemanche.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I would much rather take that question as notice.



DORCHESTER PENITENTIARY-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON STABBING OF GUARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Is the minister now in a position to report to the house on the investigation carried out by Mr. D. M. McLean into the murder of Edwin James Masterton while he carried out his duties as a guard at Dorchester penitentiary, which report the minister informed me on September 29 would be ready within 10 days?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am not, but I will inquire about the state of the report.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's recent statement to the house that the fatal stabbing of a guard at Dorchester was not connected with the serious overcrowding at that institution, and in view of the fact that this opinion has now been publicly seconded by the commissioner of penitentiaries, will the minister enlighten the house as to what purpose will be served by the appointment of a commission of inquiry into the incident when both the minister and the commissioner of penitentiaries have already drawn and published their own conclusions?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the reason for appointing a board of inquiry or a commission of inquiry is obvious, and I think it is only fair that I be allowed to look into the report when I receive it.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor I should like to reply to a question directed to me by the right hon. leader of the official opposition last Friday, which appears at the bottom of page 9116 of the English version of Hansard of October 16, 1964. I shall quote the exact text in the language in which it was asked as this is always the best way to proceed. I quote:

I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether in the course of an interview on the C.B.C. yesterday, dealing in particular with the formula for the amendment of the constitution, he was asked a question to this effect: "Does this formula mean that the door is now open for an associate state?" And did he reply thereto in approximately these words: "You might put it that way"?


Guy Favreau: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have now obtained a transscript of the question as put to me and the answer I gave, and I wish now to read it into the record as being my answer to the question.

Q.-If, for instance, it should happen at a given moment that four provinces, if not more, decide to delegate important powers to the federal government in years to come and that the province of Quebec, for reasons of her own which we can all

Inquiries of the Ministry understand, should decide to keep such jurisdictional powers would it not be possible to arrive at some sort of associate state status for the two ethnic groups, the two nations?

Up to a point, it would be possible. The reason is that in at least four important sectors-for instance, the one dealing with civil rights and property, which the province of Quebec looks upon as something sacred-well, we could have a delegation of authority to the Canadian parliament by seven, eight or nine provinces and then, of course, for that purpose, well, there could exist between Quebec and the other provinces, let us say a difference, if not in actual status-for the constitution would remain the same-at least a difference in fact.

Those are the tacts, and this is the record.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question. In view of the minister's qualifying remarks preceding his statement, would the same consideration be given to any member of the house who is not a nice man?



CONSIDERATION BY HOUSE COMMITTEE OF AMENDMENT FORMULA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is for the Minister of Justice. Last Thursday the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked the minister whether he would consider having the house set up a special committee to consider the problem of an amending formula for the Canadian constitution, in view of its transcendent importance. The minister said he would take the question as notice and answer it later. I wonder if he is now in a position to answer that question.


Guy Favreau: am not yet in a position to answer that question either in the negative or in the affirmative, but the matter will be taken up with my colleagues.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Is the minister in a position to tell the house whether before introducing any resolution in parliament requesting the imperial parliament to enact an amending formula, he would first ascertain that the legislatures of all the provinces have agreed to the proposed amending formula?


Guy Favreau: I thought I had answered that question. But I will add that this is a matter on which I shall be making a statement very shortly.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. On October 13 I asked the hon. gentleman a question regarding a production in the C.B.C. program "Festival". What justification was there for the second program in the series last Wednesday, which has been widely criticized because of its demoralizing influence?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will be very glad to ask the C.B.C. for that information.



REQUEST FOR SETTING UP OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In view of the eulogies which have been paid to committees this afternoon by several speakers, and in view of the motion which was concurred in, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether, because of widespread criticism of some of the C.B.C. programs, he would have a committee set up so the house might have the officers of the C.B.C. before it and so that matters such as, for instance, the Kitsilano reserve property in British Columbia could be considered. These are matters which parliament has a right to know about. Will the hon. gentleman have the committee set up, now that he and his associates have given such support to the further extension of committee work in parliament?


Maurice Lamontagne: As the right hon. gentleman knows, all these matters are now before a special advisory committee which is preparing a report for the government. As I have said several times in this house, when this report has been received the government will consider its recommendations and prepare new legislation. Then the house will be asked to form a committee to consider the legislation and to study the new set-up.


John George Diefenbaker: With great respect, it is not a question of studying the legislation but of examining what is being done by the C.B.C. in the expenditure of $86 million a year. We want to know about that, and the house has the right to this information without having

to wait until some committee set up by the government makes some report, some time, somewhere.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO REPORT BY ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the evident need for action to bring about greater unity in Canada, can the Prime Minister advise the house when the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism is expected to render a report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already indicated to the house that we hope to have an interim report from the commission in the matter of a few weeks.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: I had a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources but I see the hon. gentleman is absent, undoubtedly due to illness or official business. May I direct it to the acting minister or to the Prime Minister, in view of the urgency of the matter. In the light of the statement by the minister of northern affairs as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on Saturday, that he is prepared to meet at any time with representatives of striking workers on the Louisburg restoration program, will the acting minister or the Prime Minister say whether any steps have been taken to arrange a meeting with the workers' representatives?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper. I do not see how the minister could be expected to answer.


Robert Muir: With all due deference, I can understand that Your Honour is probably not aware that these workers are on strike. It started on Thursday or Friday, of last week and it is an urgent matter.


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: My colleague communicated with me earlier today, and I hoped to have some information on hand. However, it has not yet been received. I understand the minister coninquiries of the Ministry cerned will be back, and I gather there will be a report tomorrow.


Robert Muir: Would the hon. gentleman prevail on the minister of northern affairs to keep in close touch with the situation so the matter does not get out of hand, as have his dealings with the advisory board in Banff?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. 1 wonder whether the Minister of Labour could tell the house the reasons for the strike at the Fort Louisburg restoration project, and whether his department is attempting to reconcile the differences that caused the strike.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am attempting to reconcile the differences, Mr. Speaker, because the project is located in my constituency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But I am not acting in that way as Minister of Labour, because this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. I think the dispute arises over travel allowances that have been assimilated as part of the wage rates, and with respect to a new flexibility employment plan instituted at the Louisburg project. I have been in touch with the office of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and I understand today that there are in motion procedures that will lead to an early solution of this problem.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the remarks by President Johnson last night respecting communist China's changed status in the world, and the remarks of the minister last week, I think it was, when he said words to the effect that we must face up to the recognition of communist China very soon, is Canada going to initiate or support some action to admit communist China to the United Nations, or is Canada now contemplating recognition of red China?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to what I stated as government policy on May 22.

Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE EGGS-REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN DEFICIENCY PAYMENT METHOD
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforl-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the 2 cents deficiency payment in regard to eggs. Since these payments are really small and are unfair to the western egg producers, would the minister give serious consideration to providing deficiency payments on a cumulative regional price basis, instead of the basis used at the present time? Would the minister give serious consideration to this matter, in view of the shortcomings of the method used at the present time by the agricultural stabilization board?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, these matters are under consideration and study at all times, and at this particular time they have not been resolved.


Reynold Rapp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I cannot accept that as an answer, and I would like to debate this issue at ten o'clock this evening.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister consider allowing the stabilization board officials to come before the agricultural committee to study the situation with regard to eggs and the price of eggs which was recently announced?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take this question under consideration.



STEPS TO IMPROVE POSITION OF EASTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder whether the minister has been considering the very serious position of eastern farmers in regard to the depressed income situation in which they find themselves. Has he any announcement to make with regard to the policy to be followed or the action it is intended to take in this regard?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, we have had four bills before the house since June 16. I believe these measures will give them some help in


so far as credit is concerned. Also, at the first of next year we expect to introduce some more bills that we think will also help.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister whether he does not really believe that the farmers are in a position where they need income, not credit.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Megantic.


Raymond Langlois: It is all
right, Mr. Speaker; the hon. member just asked the question for me.



RAPESEED-REQUEST FOR ADVANCE OF QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister ask the Canadian wheat board to consider the urgency of an early advance of the quotas for rapeseed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to quotas of the Canadian wheat board which falls under my jurisdiction, I will take the question as notice.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government has now had the Hall commission report for a full four months, is the Prime Minister now in a position to announce a date for the federal-provincial conference within the six months recommended by that report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. A good deal of time will still be required, and that was made clear at the federal-provincial conference last week.



SUGGESTED MONITORING OF DAIRY PRODUCTS FOR RADIOACTIVITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Dean Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the recent Chinese atomic explosion and

in view of week end reports that many dairy herds are still grazing outside, will the minister reconsider her decision not to monitor dairy products for radioactive elements?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As of this date, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to ascertain what has happened as a result of this single explosion. As my hon. friend knows, we receive daily reports with respect to air samples, and none of them has yet shown any significant change.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. It concerns a question that has been asked in this house a great many times and is of the utmost importance, particularly at this time of year. Is the minister willing to consider as soon as possible the formation of a committee to study the Gill committee report with regard to the lamentable, abnormal situation that exists at the moment with regard to the administration and functioning of the unemployment insurance commission?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. The unemployment insurance fund is in a solvent condition at the moment, reflecting the improved employment situation. This is the best answer I can give to the hon. member's question.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister did not quite get the point of my question. It referred to the formation of a committee to study the Gill committee report, and was not so much concerned about the financial situation of the unemployment insurance fund as with the administration of the commission. I refer to the administration itself and the effect of applying the law as it exists, which is causing hardship across this country at the moment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is not the intention of the government to send the Gill committee report to a committee of the house. When legislation is put forward based on the Gill committee report, or arising out of that report, that will perhaps be the time to send this matter to a committee for study.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider forming a committee so some
Inquiries of the Ministry of the government representatives in this administration can come before the committee and answer questions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. That would not be in accord with the statement I have already made as to the policy to be followed.



FAILURE TO INCLUDE FISHERIES REPRESENTATIVE IN MISSION TO CARIBBEAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question directed to me last Friday by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, in which he asked why it was that a representative of the fresh and salt fishing industry was not included in the trade mission which is going to the West Indies, sponsored by my department.
The reason we did not include a fisheries representative in the Caribbean food products trade mission was that we had sent a specialized Canadian products trade mission to the Caribbean and to Latin America in 1962. Last year, in 1963, we sent a fisheries specialist to the Caribbean to reassess and report on this market, and the information was provided to the industry. In planning its trade promotion program the department has always treated fish and fish products as a special subject, not part of any generalized trade mission with respect to market development projects. We are keeping this whole matter under continual review, and intend sending a fisheries mission for reconnaissance purposes to a number of key markets. This year we have already sent some to Japan and Scandinavia.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether, as a result of a public statement made by him over the week end in the city of Windsor, Canadians must now expect a general increase in postal rates.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, certainly not as the result of any statement I made there.
9182	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce. Does the Postmaster General intend to raise the local postal rate from 4 cents to 5 cents, and would this apply to smaller communities?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question I have nothing to add to the statement that I made earlier this year when I introduced the bill which I hope will eventually lead to an amendment to the Post Office Act, and to the further statement I made when the estimates of the Post Office Department were before the house. I think the time has come when we will have to abolish the local delivery rate; I think such action is long overdue, but that is a matter for this house to decide.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. My question arises out of an answer given on his behalf on Friday by his parliamentary secretary to a question asked earlier by the hon. member for Danforth, and it relates to the six persons in Canada without status who are involved in the I.T.U. dispute in Toronto. Has the minister been able to resolve this issue or do anything about it since the answer was made on Friday?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker. I was informed of that supplementary question this morning. I shall inquire and I shall be very happy, within a few days, to supply the hon. member with information.



MARITIME FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the request made by Premier Stanfield last week of the maritime transportation commission concerning fears of further intrusion on the Maritime


Freight Rates Act, would the Prime Minister restate the guarantees which I believe he gave to Premier Stanfield, and more particularly would he announce that the special study as promised on this whole matter will be set up fairly soon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we had a very useful exchange of views on this matter. If my hon. friend would put his question on the order paper I would be able to give the details in my reply to that question. I have not all of them in my mind at the moment.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not think, in view of the railway legislation which is going to be considered very soon and the fact there may be exceptions to the Maritime Freight Rates Act provided therein, that this study should be announced before this hearing proceeds?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid any delay I will be glad to take my hon. friend's question as notice, and perhaps I can reply to it orally tomorrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-126, respecting hours of work, minimum wages, etc.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words with respect to clause 2. I propose to move an amendment to this clause, but let me say it is only the first of two or three amendments which we may wish to move to this clause. As you are aware, sir, we are now operating under a rule which gets us right down to business; therefore I shall come straight to the point concerning which I wish to move an amendment.
Clause 2 paragraph (f) lists a certain number of general holidays. Or, to put it another way, this paragraph defines a general holiday as meaning New Year's day, Good Friday, Victoria day, Dominion day, Labour day, Thanksgiving day and Christmas day, and includes any day substituted for any such holiday pursuant to section 28.

As the minister and hon. members of the committee will realize, we feel that providing for only seven general holidays, which those individuals who come under the provisions of this act will receive with pay, is not sufficient. We feel that the number should be either eight or nine.
I may say that we were not impressed by the arguments the minister advanced with respect to this point when he concluded the debate on second reading. As a matter of fact his submission at that stage of the debate suggested that all this bill is doing is simply making law of what now is the practice or fact, so far as most of the workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction are concerned. We feel that the number of holidays should be increased to nine, but we realize that we may run into difficulty in proposing an amendment increasing the number from seven to nine. Therefore, in the hope that by making our request a reasonable one it will be accepted, we propose that there be eight general holidays or in other words that to the list of holidays set out in this paragraph there be added one more, namely Remembrance day.
I point out, Mr. Chairman, that Remembrance day is included in the list of holidays in the Civil Service Act, and also in the list of days that we in this house have decided not to sit. There is a general feeling throughout Canada that this day ought to be recognized as a holiday. We feel very strongly that Remembrance day should be added to the list as set out in paargraph (f).
The arguments for such an addition are so obvious and clear it is hardly necessary to debate the proposal at any length; therefore I move:
That paragraph (f) of clause 2 be amended by inserting a comma immediately after the words "Thanksgiving day" and by inserting immediately after the said comma the words "Remembrance day".
If this amendment is accepted then paragraph (f) of clause 2 in its entirety would read as follows:
"general holiday" means New Year's day, Good Friday, Victoria day, Dominion day, Labour day, Thanksgiving day. Remembrance day and Christmas day and includes any day substituted for any such holiday pursuant to section 28.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the minister, having thought this matter over since the second reading stage of the debate, will see fit to agree to this amendment, and that he will appreciate our reasonableness in asking for an increase from seven to eight rather than to nine holidays, which we would like to 20220-582
Canada Labour Code
ask for; and that therefore the house will unanimously concur in this amendment providing for eight general holidays under this legislation.


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to say a few words about the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I feel that the reasons he put forward were perhaps sufficient when he said that those: holidays corresponded with those provided by the house under the report of the committee on procedure. I believe he is right and it is precisely for those reasons that I would ask the minister to consider at the same time adding St. John the Baptist day, which is the feast day of French Canadians observed throughout the province of Quebec, not only by private enterprise but also by government agencies.
If the minister will take it upon himself to introduce his own amendment, we would have nine statutory holidays instead of seven and he would then obtain the unanimous consent, just as he would in order to increase the number of holidays to eight, by including Remembrance day.
It is the only intervention I wanted to make and I hope the minister will take my recommendations into consideration and take upon himself to move an amendment so that from now on we will have nine statutory holidays instead of seven.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, we in the official opposition support the proposed amendment, and feel that Remembrance day is a worthy addition to the list of general holidays provided for in this bill.
I must say in respect to the words of the speaker who has just resumed his seat, without the significance of that day referred to by the member for Winnipeg North Centre in his amendment, there would be no need to celebrate any other holiday. I sometimes feel that Remembrance day is one of the more important holidays that should be observed. If there was no reason to celebrate that day I suggest there would be no need to celebrate days such as the Queen's birthday or Saint John the Baptist day.
There is one other important aspect of this question which I think all hon. members should recognize. In some municipalities, where feeling is strong about Remembrance day, this day is set aside and dedicated to this purpose, where as in other

Canada Labour Code
communities it is not so recognized. By accepting this amendment we will eliminate any discriminatory attitude which exists between and among communities across this country.
The members of this party feel that the thought behind the amendment including Remembrance day in the list of general holidays under the provisions of this bill is an exceptionally good thought, and we therefore support the amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise to give my wholehearted support to the amendment as one who has for many years urged that Remembrance day be included as a national holiday. Many veterans and other organizations in all sections across Canada have requested that Remembrance day be set aside as a national holiday. By including this day in this list of holidays we will recognize, in a fitting and proper way, a day that means very much to many Canadians, a day that will never be forgotten by many Canadians, and at the same time provide an opportunity for regularizing its celebration across Canada. This day has been recognized in some sections of the country while not in others, in some municipalities and not in others. By accepting the proposed amendment we will give national recognition to this important day, and provide an opportunity for all those who wish to honour it from year to year.
With those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I will resume my seat, and I trust that the minister will respond favourably to this amendment which represents the views of a very wide section of the Canadian people.


Mr. Cantelon:: When I introduced this subject on Wednesday I was ruled out of order, and I believe quite properly. It was my thought at the time that of all the holidays Remembrance day was the one we could least afford to eliminate. I must confess I was not very much impressed by the minister's argument in which he suggested that seven holidays were sufficient. It seems to me that if seven holidays are enough this is one which should not have been eliminated. As a school teacher, I say that we have few enough days in this country which we can point out to the young children as being of national significance. This is one day that certainly does have national significance. If it is a holiday I am sure it will be brought very strongly to the attention of the young people. This, I feel, is a pre-eminent reason for its being included in the list of holidays.

In addition, I feel that it really should be a holiday, to remind us of all the sacrifices which the young men of this country made during two great wars. This again would be an example to the young people of this country.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Before the bill was introduced, Mr. Chairman, and since our discussion on second reading I have given consideration to the addition of a further holiday to the list set out in paragraph (f) of clause 2. I think one should start with the argument that, having decided upon seven statutory holidays, we are then obliged to examine which holidays are most generally observed in Canada, in all regions.


Mr. Orlikow:: I wonder if the minister could tell us what the magic is about seven? Why does it have to be seven?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I shall be glad to deal with that, because in establishing standards we are in a sense entering a field that is normally reserved to collective bargaining. It is certainly not the privilege of this House of Commons to legislate completely and fully the working conditions of the work force under our jurisdiction. If we established eight statutory holidays we would be legislating in this respect for 46 per cent of the work force under federal jurisdiction.
I believe, on balance, that having established seven statutory holidays it is desirable to leave the remainder for the field of collective bargaining. Bear in mind that on this continent the United States has never entered the field of establishing statutory holidays. The provinces have not entered this field, either, but we have entered it by establishing seven statutory holidays. We will affect directly at least 10 per cent of the work force under our jurisdiction, which I regard as a very substantial body of men. For example the running trades on the railways at present have no statutory holidays, and they have bargained for their working conditions. We are in that sense establishing seven statutory holidays when no holidays exist at the moment.
I would remind the committee, therefore, that we are taking a very big step in this direction. When you combine the action we are taking on holidays with minimum wages, with vacations with pay and hours of work, as a total package we are asking the employers under our jurisdiction to take, in my view it would be unreasonable to extend it at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit a question before he leaves this aspect of the question? Is he not defeating his own argument? He said at one moment that we must not make it eight because the non-operating railway employees, by and large, have won only seven through collective bargaining. He says we must not therefore interfere with that. On the other hand he says that by providing for seven statutory holidays he is doing something for the running trades employees on the railways because they have not established any statutory holidays through collective bargaining. One argument cancels the other. If we are entering the field at all, and if we are legislating standards in a field in which there is collective bargaining, have we not the right to decide ourselves what these minimum standards should be? Does the minister not realize that that is the basis upon which we feel that eight would be better than seven?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think that the apparent contradiction is really only apparent because in the running trades, to which I have referred, they have voluntarily decided to bargain and settle for other matters. In this process of bargaining, they have come down on some other working conditions which they have regarded as more important. Notwithstanding that, we say in this case that to meet the standards that have been established and to which I referred last week, seven statutory holidays should be established.
I do appreciate the views that have been expressed with regard to Remembrance day. There are other days that could be mentioned, but it is a fact that in Canada the most generally observed holidays are those that we have mentioned, namely New Year's day, Labour day, Christmas day, Dominion day, Good Friday, Thanksgiving and Victoria day. Should we then add a further holiday, Remembrance day, which is not fully observed in this way throughout Canada as the schedules of the industrial standards in various provinces will indicate? There is a provision in the bill that will permit employers or employees to substitute a holiday for any of the seven enumerated holidays. This is a clause in certain collective agreements now in the province of Quebec, for example, so that any particular area or industry which felt strongly about observing Remembrance day could do so, and could substitute it for one of the days enumerated.
We have attempted to meet this problem by making this provision. Bear in mind, that 20220-582i
Canada Labour Code
we are taking a very big step in this field. We are taking the lead on the continent. We are establishing a standard that has been established through collective bargaining by one of the strongest unions in Canada, namely seven statutory holidays. If we went to eight, we would be legislating for 46 per cent of the work force, which I think goes beyond the intent of a bill that establishes minimum standards. This is my argument, Mr. Chairman, and I regret that I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Eric Alfred Winkler: If I heard the minister properly, he mentioned that great strides forward are indicated in the legislation before us. He referred also to the fact that certain standards had been established by collective bargaining, so obviously he has consulted with one of the larger unions. He referred to this one extra holiday as being burdensome. If we are to take a step forward at all, surely the inclusion of this day, which is so important in comparison with some of those included in this package deal, will not be a burdensome thing. As I said before, it will eliminate a certain amount of intercommunity discrepancy which exists at the moment.
This is not something about which we will get involved in great argument, but I do not think the minister has advocated the proper view. Let us include this day in the package deal, even if it means one of the other days being eliminated. He will not gain anything by saying, "If you want to celebrate this day six months from now, O.K., but pick your own day." There is a lot of significance attached to this particular day and we shall stand firm with the mover of the amendment in support of it.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly prepared to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and though up to a point I can see the arguments presented by the minister, nevertheless Remembrance day is a day of great significance and importance to a large majority of people. I do not suggest for one minute that any other day be eliminated, but I think the minister would agree that Remembrance day has greater significance for most Canadians than, for instance, Thanksgiving day. I would like to see eight days stipulated; and to suggest that Remembrance day is of less importance than some of the other days included is something which I, and I am sure most Canadians, would find difficult to follow.

Canada Labour Code
Many persons in this chamber lost relatives or friends in one war or another. Canada has been engaged in a number of conflicts since the beginning of the century, and Remembrance day is the most significant in the year to our people. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, many of the other statutory holidays could not be celebrated if it were not for the reasons we celebrate Remembrance day.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment and I find the minister's arguments strange. His main reason for opposing the amendment is that the running trades in the railways have no statutory holidays and that the employees belonging to other railway unions have only seven statutory holidays by virtue of their collective bargaining agreement. To argue this is to ignore the whole history of the railway industry, which is about the only one in Canada that operates seven days a week, 24 hours a day, from one end of the country to the other.
It is one of the few industries I know in which workers do not get premium pay for working evenings or nights. It is one of the few industries in which organized workers do not get time and a half for working Saturdays, and double or triple time for working Sundays. This is no criticism of the unions concerned. To a large extent it is due to the nature of the industry which must operate all the time; but simply because railway workers have not been able to win this in their collective agreement, or because they take another day in lieu of Remembrance day, as the minister seemed to suggest, is no argument for saying they ought not have statutory holidays. One might as well argue that they are not entitled to any statutory holidays.
In my own province the provincial government has made Remembrance day a statutory holiday. In fact it has drawn up some pretty stiff regulations prohibiting work on that day without a special permit, and stipulating stiff penalties for anybody who violates them. I join with other members who have spoken on the importance of Remembrance day to people who fought in the forces and to people who lost relatives and friends during the world wars in which Canada has participated.
Now that we have adopted the principle of providing statutory holidays I think we ought not try to make them as few as possible. I am not being too critical of the minister, but having proposed seven statutory holidays I do not think he should refuse to

write in Remembrance day as the eighth, because it has great importance to many people in Canada.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, listening to the minister I thought his arguments were convincing in favour of the inclusion of Remembrance day rather than the conclusion he finally made. This is one of the few places where the government can show a little bit of leadership. It is important that we impress upon our younger people the price at which peace has been won, and it is important that we take advantage of Remembrance day to dwell on the nation's role and stake in international affairs. It is also important that we renew that spirit of sacrifice upon which our national purpose depends. For these reasons I hope the minister will reconsider the position he has taken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the minister's argument is rather weak when he suggests the purpose of this legislation is not to deal with matters which can properly be dealt with by collective bargaining. As I understand the whole purpose of this bill, it is to set fairly high, minimum labour standards. The minister is doing this in the matter of minimum wages, and in arguing as he has done it would be equally valid for him to argue that, because the minimum wage in one province is 50 cents or 75 cents an hour, by suggesting $1.25 an hour he is invading the field of collective bargaining.
When we suggest to him that he add another statutory holiday this is not raising the minimum labour standard for purposes beyond what already exist. Several provinces have provision for statutory holidays with pay. One province provides for eight statutory holidays with pay, and federal employees in it ought not to be treated differently from persons who come under provincial jurisdiction.
Federal civil servants, who unfortunately do not yet come under collective bargaining, are provided by statute with eight statutory holidays.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nine.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre corrects me-nine statutory holidays-and surely persons coming under federal jurisdiction ought not to get that much less under this labour legislation than the government is already providing for its own employees. I do not think the minister would invade the field of collective bargaining

Canada Labour Code
by agreeing to eight statutory holidays, a provision which already exists in at least one province, which other provinces come close to providing, and which is exceeded in the federal government's relations with its own employees.
After all, the minister with considerable fanfare advertised this bill as advanced labour legislation, as setting up a standard for the provinces to aim at a standard which would provide an incentive to any provinces which are laggard in this regard. Surely in these circumstances the minister does not intend to provide for a lower number of statutory holidays in this legislation than is provided in any provincial legislation.


Robert Muir: May I say to the minister, a fellow Cape Bretoner, that he is deserving of every commendation for bringing in this bill. He deserves full marks for it. May I say also that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre deserves full marks for bringing in the amendment. I agree with the comments which have been made from this side of the house, particularly in regard to Remembrance day. By putting this day in the bill we would not only be providing another holiday but we would be paying a debt to the veteran, a debt which we truly owe to the veterans; we would be expressing appreciation of all they have done for humanity. If these men who fought for us had not done what they did, I doubt very much whether we would have any House of Commons in which to speak today.
The minister may be thinking that if he were to accept such an amendment the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or the opposition generally might be given the credit for bringing in this extra holiday. I would ask him to put aside such thoughts. Someone said in years gone by: "Come, let us reason together". Why cannot we get together? I see the minister smiling, but I say this sincerely. Why do we not get together and agree on this amendment, and I am sure the minister would receive full marks for everything he has done so far in connection with this legislation.


Mr. Barnett:: If the Minister of Labour is beginning to feel a little badgered on this subject, all I can say is that he deserves to feel badgered.
I know from experience that the minister can from time to time advance arguments which are persuasive, arguments which I am willing to admit are sound and logical. But
though I listened to him as carefully as I could today I felt this was not one of the occasions on which he was being either persuasive or logical. He made great play with his assertion that this proposal for seven holidays was really going a great distance. Then he suggested that because in all areas of Canada collective bargaining had not resulted in the achievement of eight or more, we should stop at seven as far as this legislation is concerned. I cannot see the logic of this. As all members know, certain holidays are generally recognized as such in all parts of this country and Remembrance day is one of them. If the minister had brought a proposal before us in this legislation providing for, say, three statutory holidays, I might have seen some force in his argument that this was a minimum standard beyond which we should not proceed. But the hon. gentleman will recall that it was not too many years ago when it was considered an achievement in the process of collective bargaining to have provision for three holidays made in an agreement. The particular union with which I have been associated for a number of years did just that in its first breakthrough in the field of provision for paid statutory holidays in an agreement. Over the years the number has grown until today the collective agreement includes provision for nine; this is in a field which is not within federal jurisdiction.
The objective which the minister announced with respect to this proposed code was that we in this parliament should fix by law certain basic and reasonable standards. It seems to me that having gone as far as to set seven statutory holidays as being a suitable standard the minister should not quibble about adding a further day, a generally recognized holiday. Not to do so would be to defeat his own purpose. The minister appeared extremely uncomfortable as he sought to oppose the amendment which was put forward by hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. He surely will not argue that the addition of one holiday falling in a month distinct from those in which the other listed holidays occur would raise the minimum standards in this country so high that the balanced package, if that is what he considers this proposed code to be, would be seriously upset. I think it is foolish when we are considering an important piece of legislation such as the bill before us to create a situation which will result in arguments brought forward in the house from time to time in the years which lie ahead. Surely the minister, if he expects

Canada Labour Code
to remain in his present portfolio for any appreciable length of time, cannot relish the prospect of having to face, as undoubtedly he will have to do unless the amendment is adopted, the introduction of bills by private members of this house, probably by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, next year and the year after that and in all the years following seeking to incorporate into this labour code this one extra statutory holiday. Some of us hoped that with the introduction of a new labour code this long process of erosion over the years would not be necessary; that the putting forward of what often appear to be futile arguments session after session would no longer be required.
At any rate, along with other members of the committee I join in appealing to the minister to accept the proposal which has been made. Let us agree on this point and accept this relatively minor amendment. There may be more fundamental matters which we would like to see changed, and with regard to these the minister might well be unprepared to make concessions at this time. Perhaps we could understand this attitude. But the amendment before us now is not one of them.


Mr. Churchill:: I should like to speak in support of the proposed amendment. While I am speaking the Minister of Labour might take the opportunity of conferring on this particular point with his experienced colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs; he might tell the hon. gentleman what we are discussing and see what he has to say about it. I say this because the Secretary of State for External Affairs has had a good many years of experience in the House of Commons and realizes, as the present Minister of Labour does not realize, that there are occasions when a government should accept suggestions which come forward from the opposition benches, and yield without losing face.
The Minister of Labour is using the same method as was adopted by the Minister of Agriculture a few days ago-refusing to accept any suggestions from this side of the house, as a result of which a prolonged debate developed. Here you have a reasonable suggestion put forward from the opposition side to include one more holiday in the list of statutory holidays; and of all days that should be suggested, it is Remembrance day. A government that was not completely insensitive to the feelings of the people of this country would accept that amendment,

apologize for the error of omission, and we would get on with the rest of the bill.
Over the years the Royal Canadian Legion, army and navy veterans, and other veterans organizations, have suggested that Remembrance day should be observed as a holiday, and observed not simply for a day off from work or from the troubles that beset us month by month but a day of actual remembrance of the sacrifices made in warfare. I think it is high time that the parliament of Canada recognized this day for what it is, a day in which the people of this country and the leaders of the country as represented by the various governments, dominion and provincial, take note of the fact that our freedom has been preserved by the sacrifices of Canadians in the past. That is what Remembrance day is.
During the time that I had the privilege of serving as minister of veterans affairs I examined with the officials of that department this problem of the observance of Remembrance day, and I raised this point with them, pointing out that I had observed that there had been a tendency to let the importance of this day slip a little bit as the years go by. It happened between the two world wars. I know from my experience then, when I was engaged in the field of education, that the tendency in many areas was to let the school children and teachers observe Remembrance day, whereas the adults should have been the ones who were setting the example. In some areas that was changed. Then we had the second world war. Remembrance day means even more now than it did in between the two world wars. So I discussed this problem with the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs and said, "We must do something to assist the serious people in this country who want to properly observe Remembrance day". As a result of some of those discussions we had produced by the national film board the film "The Fields of Sacrifice", which was shown last year for the first time and is now available for all communities across Canada in the 16 millimetre version. This was a government response to the observance of Remembrance day. I had some other ideas with regard to that day, which I was not able to bring into effect due to various changes that took place.
However, here we have the opportunity now presented to us for government recognition, recognition by parliament, of the importance of Remembrance day by adding it to the list of statutory holidays. Amongst these other holidays it ranks very high in the list.

As has already been mentioned, Mr. Chairman, one or two of the days mentioned in this bill cannot conceivably be raised to the level of Remembrance day when it is properly considered. I suggest this government should really consider this matter seriously now, pause for reflection if you wish, and take this matter under consideration; but I would think even better still would be to accept immediately the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and supported by people on this side of the house. This is a day that should be recognized as a statutory holiday, and if it becomes a statutory holiday the adult population of this country can set the proper example to our young people as to what this day means. As it is now, it is a school holiday and school children will recognize it as they do any other holiday. But this should be a day of dedication on the part of the adult population of this country, which understands the sacrifices involved in warfare, on which to express our hope that we will not be involved in war again; that the younger generation will not in their turn have to go through the holocaust of a great war. This is the purpose, as I see it, of Remembrance day. We should make this day available to veterans and the friends and relatives of veterans so they may solemnly observe this day as it should be observed. Mr. Chairman, those are some of the reasons why we feel this amendment should be accepted immediately by the government.


The Chairman:: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) agreed to: Yeas, 49; nays, 44.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment carried. Shall the clause as amended carry?


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I want to move another amendment to clause 2. I would refer hon. members to the discussion we had last week when considering this bill, when the hon. member for Yukon, the hon. member for Northwest Territories and myself drew the attention of the house to the fact that clause 2(e) excludes from the provisions of this bill the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. It is not my intention this afternoon to go over in detail the arguments that were advanced at that time. However, I think it is worth putting on the record the fact that living in the Yukon and Northwest Territories we have in the neighbour-
Canada Labour Code
hood of 20,000 people of Indian origin, and according to statistics prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics after the 1961 census was taken, the average annual earnings of the Indian people of Canada was about half the average annual earnings of the people of Canada as a whole. The average annual earnings of the Canadian Indian was just $1,660, while the average annual earnings of Canadian workers as a whole was about $3,250.
In the light of that and also the fact that the Yukon and Northwest Territories have no governments to set minimum wages, as have the other 10 provinces, it seems strange to me that the government proposes in this bill that the Yukon and Northwest Territories be excluded. The minister pointed out when we raised the matter the other day that the Yukon and Northwest Territories are not excluded in terms of people who work in industries which come under federal jurisdiction, but I think this covers only 10 per cent of the people. Since these territories do not have their own provincial governments to pass minimum wage legislation it seems to me there is no reason to exclude the Yukon and Northwest Territories from the provisions of this bill.
I would further point out that we ought to keep in mind that the cost of living in these areas as a result of transportation costs and the fact that there is no basic industry there is very substantially greater than it is in the rest of Canada. Therefore we would only be helping to provide some kind of equality between these two areas and the rest of Canada if we provided as part of this legislation that all of the people in the Yukon and Northwest Territories who work for their living should be entitled to a minimum wage of $1.25 per hour. Therefore I move:
That paragraph (e) of clause 2 be amended bydeleting therefrom the words "other than a work, undertaking or business of a local or private nature in the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories".


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, before the committee goes any further in this matter may I ask whether the minister is in a position today to do what he promised the committee he would do-in fact, he said he would be delighted to do it-and that is to check into some of the objections which have been raised by my colleague the hon. member for Yukon and myself on the last occasion concerning the reasoning behind this bill. There is a certain element of confusion here and until such time as that is cleared up it is difficult to say whether an hon. member should or should not go along with this

Canada Labour Code
amendment. While supporting the principle and the objective which my hon. friend from Winnipeg North is trying to achieve, it may be that we would do precisely the opposite if we went along with the amendment, unless the minister explained his thinking behind the bill.
Perhaps when he rises to do this he would also answer some of the questions I asked him previously. I realize that at the time the minister was bombarded with questions and had only a few minutes to try to answer many of them, but the point I made at the time and which 1 will make again now to refresh the minister's mind is this: I want to know with whom his department consulted when they were preparing this legislation. I know they did not ask the hon. member for Yukon for advice, which I am sure he could have given them, and they did not ask me. I am not aware that they made any approach to the councils of the Yukon and Northwest Territories for any advice. The minister will recall, and I repeat, that I had asked him, before he held the federal-provincial conference, to be gracious enough to allow the councils of the Yukon and Northwest Territories to sit in and give him advice about this sort of thing, but as far as I know he did none of this.
Therefore the question I put to him now, and it relates to this amendment, is not only what was the thinking of the officials, but whom they consulted in relation to making these decisions concerning the Yukon and Northwest Territories? In the minister's explanation as recorded at page 9063 of Hansard he said he was not sure whether it was a good thing for the Yukon and Northwest Territories even if these provisions were maintained. But what I want to know is whether consultation was had with any of the elected officials of the councils of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, or even with the commissioners of either the Yukon or Northwest Territories, in relation to this specific bill.
I would point out to the minister that it was suggested that the Yukon and Northwest Territories in fact have labour legislation on these matters at this moment, and the minister indicated that yes, labour ordinances have been passed by the two territories. But in fact this is true in the Yukon Territory whereas it is not true in the Northwest Territories. At the present time there is no legislation anywhere in the Northwest Territories relating to minimum hours of work, minimum pay, annual paid vacations or overtime. It 
would certainly help me as a member of this committee of the whole if the minister would take time now to do what he said he would do and tell the committee in detail what was the purpose of excluding these two territories. He might also explain once more the technicalities of the matter, which I am sure all of us did not understand on Friday. At the same time will he tell me who advised his department before they decided to put this exclusion into clause 2.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, in clause 2 we exempt from the application of this bill works in the Yukon and Northwest Territories of a local and private nature. I think our thinking on this is understandable: This bill will cover in the Yukon and Northwest Territories industries under federal jurisdiction. In other words, we will claim our jurisdiction over federal industries in the Yukon and Northwest Territories in the same way as we do in the provinces.
I would draw to the attention of the committee the fact that in the past ten years this has been the consistent practice of both governments. For example in 1956 the Female Employees Equal Pay Act was passed from the application of which act works of a local and private nature were exempted.


John George Diefenbaker: What are works of a local or private nature, just for purposes of information?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Works which would normally fall under provincial jurisdiction, such as hotels, restaurants, stores and so on. In addition to the Female Employees Equal Pay Act of 1956, the Annual Vacations Act of 1958 which was proposed to the house by the former minister of labour and the safety in employment bill proposed two years ago but which did not receive second reading also made this exemption. I think the reason is simple, and it is because the councils in these territories are already in the field of making ordinances for works of a local or private nature. For example, the labour provisions ordinance of the Yukon prohibits work on six public holidays unless time and a half the regular rate is paid. So they are moving into this field, and in a sense doing that which the provinces are doing in areas under provincial jurisdiction.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the Northwest Territories?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand in the Northwest Territories there is a mining ordinance for an eight-hour day for workers below

ground in the mines. I understand there are presently under consideration, or will be, by the council of the Northwest Territories, other provisions in respect of the operation or extension of labour ordinances there. We have thought that the areas of jurisdiction which now fall to the provinces should be left to the councils of those territories, so that those councils may exercise the authority in their areas that is being exercised by provinces in provincial areas of jurisdiction.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister can tell us whether the Yukon or Northwest Territories councils have put through any ordinance setting a minimum hourly rate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Chairman, they have not.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, the minister has answered my question by saying that neither the Northwest Territories council nor the Yukon council have passed any ordinances setting a minimum hourly rate. Assuming we pass this bill as drafted by the government, no protection will be provided to 90 per cent of the people who work in those territories by virtue of either federal or territorial councils action.
Again I should like to say that under the present constitutional set-up, all the people who live and work in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon are the legal responsibility of the federal government. While it is true that in the ten provinces of Canada there is divided jurisdiction and all the provinces, as is their right, have passed legislation setting minimum hourly rates, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon are exclusively under federal jurisdiction and are not included in the provisions of this bill.
There may be some hon. members who think the government has gone too far in setting the rates too high. Every member of this group feels that not one province has set the minimum wage of the workers in that province high enough. That is however a responsibility of the provinces, and the people of those provinces, under our democratic system, have recourse at a future election if they see fit.
In respect of these two areas which come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, it is the responsibility of the federal parliament to legislate for those people. It seems to me we ought to exercise our legal authority, and fulfil our moral responsibilities by setting a standard for those
Canada Labour Code
areas, thus providing the people with a minimum decent standard of living.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, would the minister give an answer to the other part of my question, which I think is important both in terms of the legislation now before us and in terms of any future legislation? Who are the officials with whom his department consulted, as a result of which he refused to invite representatives of the councils of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon to the labour conferences?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, you will recall that when this question of inviting representatives of the Yukon and Northwest Territories to the conferences of labour ministers was asked, the matter was raised with the provincial premiers by the Prime Minister. It is a matter of policy established by the participants to the conferences that in such cases representatives of the councils are not invited. We did make an effort in respect of that particular conference to have representatives from the territories in attendance, and I have indicated the result of that effort.
In this bill I have followed a pattern set over a ten year period, that it is desirable to set up local governments within these areas, and to assign to those local governments responsibilities of the type normally discharged by provincial governments. If we accept this amendment we will be overriding declarations and acts already adopted by parliament, including the Yukon Act and Northwest Territories Act. Those acts would be superseded by the acceptance of this amendment in respect of that matter proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, there is one point that I should like to see cleared up with regard to this clause, as well as clause 3 which includes an exception for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
The minister said that in those cases it was the same legislation which was applied in other provinces and that, literally speaking, they were not federal workers. '
Therefore, I would ask the minister why are the Northwest Territories and the Yukon mentioned if it is merely a policy which applies to the ten provinces. Why have these two territories been specifically mentioned in the legislation while there is no reference at all to the other provinces?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, we are now entering a discussion on a point of law,

Canada Labour Code
but under the British North America Act provinces are now responsible for those labour areas which are left to the territories and assigned to them, as I understand it, under the Yukon Act and Northwest Territories Act. If parliament saw fit it could supersede these acts, but if it should do so it would be taking away what presumably it thought ought to be a matter for provincial or local determination.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister appreciates the fact that this house is faced with a problem, in that while it recognizes the jurisdiction of the provinces in dealing with things of this nature, there is a desire to encourage the territorial councils to act in this regard. The minister suggests we should not get into this field, but what assurance has he from his colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, that the two councils in question are going to take some action?
It is all very well to say that we would be impinging upon what really is a trend toward local government by accepting this amendment, but if the house passes the bill as proposed by the government it will be creating a vacuum. If I understand the purport of the amendment correctly, it is to make sure that there is no vacuum, because as far as we know there is no guarantee that the councils will act in this way within the next two or three years. If we now accept the amendment as proposed we will deal with this situation as far as the people working in the territories are concerned, and remedial action may be taken three or four years hence, should the councils then decide they want to move into this field. In the interval these workers will be protected. If the minister is as proud of this measure as he indicates, I am sure he will want to extend it as far as possible, rather than create a vacuum.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, by what strange thought process has the minister come to the conclusion that a law which is necessary and overdue to protect the workingman of southern Canada does not have the same virtue as far as the worker in the Northwest Territories is concerned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The territories, to which reference has been made, were excluded as far as this bill is concerned as a result of the same thought processes and reasons they were excluded from the provisions of the Annual Vacations Act by the former minister of labour.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I cannot accept the minister's statement that because the previous minister did this or because the practice has been followed for ten years, he is going to do it. As a new member of this house, I cannot take responsibility for what went on prior to my arrival. This statement has not changed my thinking. I want an answer to my question. If this labour code is so good, and we have heard paeans of praise for it, by what process of logic is it not made applicable to the 40,000 people who live north of the 60th parallel in this country, where protection is every bit as necessary as it is anywhere else in softer climates? I want to know the answer before we vote. I want an explanation. It is not good enough for the minister to say that ten years ago we did this, and it was pretty good so I think we will stick by it. What strange process of conversion has taken place if the minister suggests that the reason we are going to go ahead with it is that the previous minister did? Surely, we are entitled to a more intelligent explanation than that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me the minister's argument only holds up if these two territories in question were to become provinces, or if in the interim they were self-governing, governed by elected councils. What we have here, actually, are two territories whose councils, in very considerable part, are made up of appointees from the federal government. From the minister's own answer, it is apparent that the councils have taken no action to provide minimum labour protection for the workers in these two areas. It seems to me that the minister, as Minister of Labour for Canada, cannot slough off his responsibility by saying it is up to these two councils, the members of whom are appointed by his own government, to take action in these areas. If the councils themselves have not passed the necessary ordinances to provide adequate minimum wages, holidays with pay, and so on, then surely this parliament has no right to deprive the people of the benefits of this legislation. If and when the time comes that these two areas have provincial governments, then of course the parliament of Canada can always transfer to them the same jurisdiction in labour matters which the other provinces have.
I suggest to the minister that in the interim the parliament of Canada has a responsibility to legislate for these people, and the minister, as Minister of Labour, has responsibility for seeing that they are given protection which

Canada Labour Code
-this legislation is going to provide for other pay, statutory holidays, workmen's compen-persons coming under federal jurisdiction. sation and so on.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am as interested as any hon. member in having the standards apply everywhere, including the territories. We want to know whether standards, perhaps establishing wage rates and hours of work, would be immediately suitable to the small businesses, for example, such as retail stores in the territories. These would be affected if this particular amendment were accepted. These provisions would apply to such local businesses as of January 1. Now, our thinking was based on the area of jurisdiction that we have, namely in the high wage industries like railways and so on. This is one practical difficulty.
A second difficulty is that if we did accept the amendment we would be taking this vital area out of the jurisdiction of the councils, and the purpose apparently is to build up the strength of these councils. Finally I think I ought to tell the committee that the commissioner of the Northwest Territories, for example, has prepared a reference requesting the advice of his council on the introduction of labour legislation in the Northwest Territories. I understand that the principal proposals or recommendations of the reference were considered by the council in June of this year and they have not proceeded further with the preparation of the draft ordinance because the commissioner and the council have been waiting to see the Canada labour code. They are moving in this direction and taking into account, we hope, the effect of this bill. If I could ignore the considerations I have mentioned I would be quite prepared to accept the amendment. But bearing in mind the development of local government and bearing in mind that the councils are moving in this direction, I think it would be desirable for us to allow them to proceed to establish ordinances that are locally suitable.	[DOT]


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister, what are the terms contained in this recommendation which the council is considering? What, for instance, is provided as a minimum wage; what hours are provided? Are holidays with pay set forth and vacations with pay?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
have the reference here. I do not have any authority to release it, but I will talk to the commissioner and make it available to my hon. friend. This document covers quite a range of labour standards, vacations with


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Have you got the minimum wage?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not believe there was a minimum wage in this reference. I would be glad to let the hon. member have it.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: The minister has said they were not sure whether or not it would be a good thing to have some of these rates apply at this stage of development. What I want to know is, before the minister excluded the Yukon and Northwest Territories he must have had some advice telling him to exclude the area. It is not enough to say that this has been going on for ten years. The minister knows my explanation for that ten year period. I am convinced that somewhere in the civil service there is a minor and evil official whose sole job it is to exclude the north from all beneficial legislation that is passed.
The minister must have obtained advice from somewhere, and I want to know who the adviser was. Was it the minister of northern affairs? Was it the council of the Yukon or the Northwest Territories? I am not satisfied to have the minister say, by way of explanation, "Someone told us perhaps we should leave it out, since that had been done before". I want to tell the minister that it would be an easy, practical step if the federal government were to move into this vacuum. I think we have to get the details about that reference for advice. I have not knocked around the council of the Northwest Territories for quite a few years, but I know that a reference for advice is a document prepared by civil servants who work in the department of northern affairs. That document advises the minister on what the problems are, and it occasionally recommends specific solutions. It is a document prepared by federal officers hired by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has raised a very valid point.
Before the committee accepts the minister's statement that someone suggested it to him, it might not be a bad idea if we were given the terms of that reference for advice, because it is possible members of the committee would want to do something entirely different if they found the reference for advice unacceptable in terms, or unacceptable on the grounds of the pace at which such legislation will be introduced into these two northern

Canada Labour Code
territories. Can the minister give us the details?


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, while listening to the interesting observations of the hon. member for Northwest Territories it occurred to me that, in a way, his remarks reflect in what I consider a most unkind and unfair manner on the former minister of northern affairs and national resources, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. Though we may differ politically, I think I can suggest the hon. member for Brandon-Souris attempted to carry out his duties with the utmost diligence, and with due regard for the people of the Northwest Territories. Yet the hon. member for Northwest Territories suggested that some civil servant, hidden in a little room, whom he termed an evil spirit, was able to put something over on that diligent and capable member for Brandon-Souris.


Mr. Nugent:: And on the minister before him, and the minister before that.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That is a most unfair reflection. It would seem to me that if the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, having dealt with a similar problem, considered it in the interests of the people of the Northwest Territories to exclude strictly private undertakings from legislation designed to operate in a similar way, this helps confirm the soundness of the approach taken by the Minister of Labour with respect to this particular legislation.
I may have misread the bill, but I think the hon. member for Northwest Territories fell into some misconception when he suggested that the bill is applying to the working people of the southern part of Canada in a way that it does not apply to the people of the north of Canada. I hope the hon. member or the minister will correct me if I am wrong, because it seems to me from my reading of this bill-


Some hon. Members:: You are wrong.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, he is not.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -that it applies to exactly the same industries in the north as it does in the south. When I have completed my remarks I would be happy to have any hon. member get up to give me details and facts to show where I am wrong. As I understand this bill, the undertakings, businesses and industries not covered in the north are the very same ones not covered in the south, because in the south in the provinces they are deemed to come under provincial jurisdiction. But the industries, which in the south in the provinces are deemed to come
[Mr. Rheaume.l
under federal jurisdiction, and which are covered by this bill, will also be covered in the north, and therefore people in the north who may be employed by these so-called federal industries will also be covered by this bill.
The hon. member for Northwest Territories, while expressing a very commendable regard for the interests of the people of the north, is falling into a position which is somewhat contradictory. On one hand he is criticizing the Minister of Labour and the government for not permitting or enabling the Yukon and Northwest Territories to participate in federal-provincial conferences in a manner similar to the way in which the provinces participate, I suppose the basis being that the Yukon and Northwest Territories have already reached a high degree of self-government and should be moving swiftly to an even greater degree of self-government.
Now, however, the hon. member is coming to us and saying that, even though this parliament has delegated to the councils of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon the authority to act in certain spheres by legislating with respect to strictly private business, we should ignore this delegation, ignore this degree of self-government and make this bill apply to them. In this he seems to be contradicting the very sensible position he has taken in the past, of according an even greater degree of self-government to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon as the days go on.
I might add further that the argument made by one of the N.D.P. members, that the councils for the Yukon and Northwest Territories have not as yet acted fully, or even at all in this area, is not really an argument for having this bill apply to them, because I am sure there are many other areas in which power has been delegated by this parliament to the Yukon and Northwest Territories, but in which they have not fully exercised the authority given them. If this principle were sound we should be spending almost all our time dealing with a whole host of private matters such as sewerage, parking and so on, matters which are of importance but perhaps not as important as this question of labour standards, for which we have apparently delegated the power to the councils of these territories.


Mr. Clancy:: I would like to ask the minister one question. Is this bill designed to set a standard minimum wage across Canada of $1.25 an hour?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: For employees under federal jurisdiction.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Is it for all federal employees no matter where they live? Is this $1.25 an hour for casual labour? Is that the proposal you are putting forward? If so, what is this argument just put forward by the former speaker? What is wrong with having a basic wage across Canada? In my province the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was the man instrumental in giving us a basic wage which is a great deal higher. Where is your argument?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Just a minute, I have listened to you boys talking about two types of citizens. There are not any. The basic matter is $1.25 an hour. I say if you can get $3 an hour, take it.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, the name suggested for this bill is the Canada labour standards code, and the minister has told us that one of its purposes is to set an example which might be followed by provincial legislatures within their own jurisdictions. It is completely illogical to proceed to exclude areas which have no legislatures and in which the federal government has jurisdiction, because if that is done this parliament can hardly anticipate that the bill will have great effect upon other legislatures in setting standards. I believe the amendment should be passed.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Has the minister had a chance to skim through that reference for advice, and can he give us the details of what is proposed? What advice has the commissioner been given by the officials in the federal department of northern affairs who advise him on hours of work? How does the reference for advice stack up against the labour standards code which he is proposing in this bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I called attention to the reference merely to underline the fact that the councils, especially the Northwest Territories council, have the question of standards under consideration at the present time. I should like to talk with the commissioner from whom I received this reference to determine whether it is correct.


David Orlikow: I was a great deal surprised that the hon. member for Essex West, who comes from the city of Windsor, one of the most highly organized cities in Canada, should have expressed the views he did. Though he
Canada Labour Code
denied it, what he did in effect was to seek to divide the people who live in the far north from those who live in the rest of Canada. He wanted to make them legally, not just in actual fact, second class citizens.
In all the rest of Canada, if this bill is passed, the people who work for a living will have certain minimum rates of pay. Either they come under provincial jursdiction, in which case their minimum rates of pay will be set by the provincial minimum wage legislation, or they come under federal jurisdiction and their minimum rates will be set by this government. As hon. members know, the councils in the territories are not elected by the people. They are councillors who are appointed, but we do not need to go into that today. The fact is that the federal government still has jurisdiction over the people who live in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon, and the minister does not convince me when he suggests that because there is a council which may, some day, next week, next month, or five years, or ten years from now, take action in this field, the federal government should refrain from doing anything at the present time. The hon. gentleman does not know whether the councils, if they do act, will set a rate of $1.50 or $1 or 75 cents or 50 cents. He is content to give them full authority without knowing what they are likely to recommend. As I say, I find this position an amazing one to be taken by a member who represents a constituency of the kind from which the hon. member for Essex West comes.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The minister appears to hold the opinion that if this house were to take action along the lines suggested the power of the councils in the territories would be, in some way, usurped. It is true the councils have not legislated, and I do not imagine the minister can give us any assurance that they will in fact provide legislation of this type. It seems to me therefore that this parliament has the responsibility and the opportunity to make this protection available without delay. The minister feels he should drag his feet because this is a subject with which a provincial government should be able to deal. But as has been pointed out, the council is only partly elected; part of the voice of that council is a government voice and in this sense the minister seems to be saying: We do not want to grant this protection, now. There is an indication that if we do not give this protection, the council will not. There are only four on the council who are elected. Five of the members are appointed. I suggest that if the

Canada Labour Code
government does not take steps to provide this protection now its action will be a clear indication to the five appointed members on the council that they should not legislate in this field. In other words, instead of the minister telling this committee that we are considering action which he hopes the council will take, and that we should allow them to take it in order that they may grow in stature by exercising this greater responsibility, he is, in effect, directing the appointed members not to give any protection as to minimum hours, and so on.
I therefore suggest we should support the amendment as the only way in which we can effectively give protection to the people in the north in the same way as to people in the rest of the country. I hope the government will accept the amendment, or at least that the minister will indicate that any position he adopts should not be taken by members of the council as a direction that the council is to make sure that these provisions are not contained in any legislation it passes. When we consider the composition of these councils and the present need of this legislation as against the vague hope of action at some time in the future, I think we must conclude that it is the duty of this committee to act in such a way as to provide protection without delay.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I suppose that up to a point the Minister of Labour has an excuse for not being fully cognizant of every detail relating to labour conditions or working conditions in the Northwest Territories. I think it is unfortunate that the minister of northern affairs is not able to be with us this afternoon to give the committee some authoritative statement as to the situation in the north and the steps which are intended.
The Minister of Labour has told us that this amendment must be related to the provisions of clause 51 of the bill which makes provision for deferring the application of the legislation for a period of one and a half years. This transitional period would be as applicable to the corner grocery store in the Northwest Territories to which the hon. gentleman referred as to any segment of an industrial operation which normally comes under federal jurisdiction in any other part of Canada. It seems to me that if the minister intends to recommend the provisions of clause 51 he is thereby subtracting from the validity of the argument he attempted to advance, particularly in view of the fact

that he has informed the committee, first, that there is no protective legislation applicable at the present time in the territories and, second, that he understands the territorial council has some such legislation under consideration or study.
The proposal in clause 51 would nicely cover the transitional period. It would enable the provisions of the minimum standard wage to be applied immediately to people who live in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon. It would, also, through the proper use of the proposed transitional period, provide an opportunity for the territorial councils to take action which would make the present provisions of the proposed Canadian minimum standards code applicable in the territories under their jurisdiction. I wonder whether the minister in the reply he gave earlier had fully taken into consideration the impact of clause 51 which does provide for this transitional period of a year and a half and which would enable him if he so desired to prevent the small grocery store somewhere in the Northwest Territories from going out of business during the adjustment period until such time as the territorial councils had made their enactments in this field.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I feel I should say a brief word about the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. His assertion that I am in favour of some form of second class citizenship status for the people of the north is of course entirely incorrect. The purpose of my remarks a few moments earlier was simply to point out that we have a similar situation in the north to the one which would prevail in the southern provinces of Canada if this bill were passed, because the Yukon and the Northwest Territories have already gone a long way toward provincial status and are progressing further toward that end. It therefore seemed sensible to me to follow the same outlook that seemed sufficient to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris when he was minister, namely that of excluding strictly private and local undertakings, which would ordinarily be under provincial jurisdiction, from the immediate application of this legislation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, my name has been mentioned on two occasions by the hon. member for Essex West, so I think I should say a few words on the amendment that has been proposed in connection with clause 3. I appreciate the kind words of the hon. member for Essex West, but I think as I

examine them they might be regarded as a somewhat left-handed compliment.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am left-handed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think the hon. member is ambidextrous, having listened to his second presentation on this particular item. It is quite true that the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory have been progressing with reasonable speed toward a greater degree of local autonomy, with the eventual objective in mind of provincial status. This was one of the avowed intentions of the previous administration. Unfortunately, as I have viewed these developments from the ranks of Her Majesty's official opposition during the past two years, it seems to me that the sense of urgency that had been generated under the leadership of the former administration has been to a great extent lost. It is for this reason that I am going to support the amendment proposed.
Another point that has been ignored by the hon. member for Essex West is this. There is a slight difference in the degree of local autonomy between the Yukon government and the government of the Northwest Territories. The Yukon government is an entirely elected body and in many spheres of operation is completely autonomous. Unhappily, the government of the Northwest Territories has not proceeded nearly so far in the direction of self-government as has the government of the Yukon. At the time the previous administration left office we had launched a program that was designed to accelerate the movement of the government of the Northwest Territories toward a greater degree of decentralization. I was the responsible minister for some three years, and it did not require a very long period of time to realize that the Northwest Territories, and to a lesser extent the Yukon Territory, would never come into its own until it had a greater degree of local responsibility and initiative.
We were carrying on negotiations with the labour organizations that are active in these territories with a view to encouraging the governments of the respective territories to establish a labour code of their own. According to this legislation before us it would seem that no further progress has been made in these conversations and discussions. I was quite disappointed in this, along with the hon. member for Northwest Territories, who above all members of this house knows whereof he speaks because he was a part of the administration of the Northwest Terri-
Canada Labour Code
tories for a number of years and made an outstanding contribution in that regard before he became the elected representative of the people there.
I was surprised to see that the present government, when bringing this bill before the house, had decided it was going to continue the discriminatory approach to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories which has existed far too long for the good of the general development-the political development as well as the economic development- of these territories. I think that if the amendment is accepted by the committee it will serve as a catalytic agent, particularly in the Yukon where the government, I am sure, is ready to deal with the matter of establishing a labour code of its own. It will certainly act as a catalytic agent in getting moving once again the efforts that were under way to give a greater degree of self-government to the Northwest Territories. There has been a complete stalemate in this development. We had the matter before the committee on mines, forests and waters for several weeks, but the committee died a premature death. I think that here is an excellent opportunity for this committee, by expressing its opinion on this amendment, to give a prod to the powers that be to get in motion once again this movement toward self-government and local autonomy.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, when I first read the bill, I also was under the impression that the House of Commons should not agree to the exception provided for in clauses 2 and 3, concerning the Northwest and Yukon Territories.
However, after the explanations given by the minister, and particularly as a defender of the special interests of the provinces and the territories, I believe that I should object to this amendment for the following reason:	I cannot see how the
federal government could overstep the powers granted the council of the Northwest and Yukon Territories, and then allow it to pass the legislation it desires.
I know personally that in certain districts of the province of Quebec, should private enterprise be compelled to apply the minimum salaries mentioned in this bill, it would encounter major difficulties.
This small clause of the bill will specially protect private and local businesses.
In my opinion, the Yukon and Northwest Territories are already considerably handi-

Canada Labour Code
capped by their geographical position and their lack of means of transportation.
Should all private and local industries be tied down to this act, this would bring a surcharge to bear on private industries of those territories and would place them in an unfavourable competitive position not only internationally, but also nationally from the economical standpoint.
That is why we are opposed to the proposed amendment, even if we suggest that the council which has the jurisriction over the Northwest Territories and Yukon, acts as soon as possible but taking into consideration local requirements and not those of the federal government, as we do according to this act.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether, before the question is put, the minister could state to the committee his position on a matter that relates precisely to this kind of problem. I have asked him on repeated occasions whether there is any possibility of the staff of his department looking into this and related kinds of labour problems within the northern territories, with a view to assessing the present situation. I am not prepared to accept the statement of hon. members that this would work a hardship on someone in the Northwest Territories. I do not know out of which part of the atmosphere they draw this conclusion, or on what advice. The minister has not told me who advised him that this would work a hardship. Was it the officials of the department of northern affairs who said it would, or is it just because of some feeling that the territorial council would do something along this line?
The point I am making which has application to the amendment before the committee is this. Not nearly enough research and examination has gone into this kind of exclusion. I for one am not prepared to admit that it is in the best interests of the northern territories to make this exclusion or that it will afford some sort of protection which the business community in the Canadian north needs. That is always the argument which is used whenever an effort of social reform is brought down-that it is not in the best interests of those it will affect to have this sort of help. The minister has a division which does this sort of thing and I asked him about this the last time his estimates came up. I do not want the officials of the department of northern affairs brought in because already they have too much to do

in the Northwest Territories and have their fingers in too many pots in the Canadian north. But it is time this was curbed, and curbed smartly.
To get back to the purport of the clause, what guarantee has this committee that the minister and his officials will give the territorial council the sort of advice which is required? The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona pointed out that right now the council of the Northwest Territories is made up of nine people. Four of these people are elected from some part of the north and five are appointed. The five who are appointed live in southern Canada. They are appointed by the governor in council. In at least two cases they are also federal civil servants who give advice to the officials of the department of northern affairs. Here is the kind of inbred problem, if you will, that we face now.
I am not reassured when the minister says they have done nothing about this in all these years, but he thinks they are going to do something and because of that the government does not want to step on their toes. Surely the minister can say what studies were undertaken and on what basis he excluded the territories. It is not enough just to say that it seemed like a good idea at the time. I want to know who advised him in this regard; and second, can he tell the committee what sort of advice will be presented to the council? The minister said the council of the Northwest Territories will be considering a document which will offer advice about these matters and whether or not it will be hurtful to certain business enterprises in the territories to implement a standards code. I do not think we should have two labour standards codes in this country any more than I think we should have two flags. We are getting too many instances where there is one thing for one part of the country and another thing for another part of the country. I am still not convinced that northern workers need less protection than southern workers.
I am aware of the observations made by the hon. member for Essex West-and there was probably a moral in this, namely that people who live that far south should not advise people who live in the north, and vice versa. I have yet to make a speech on labour conditions in the city of Windsor, and I doubt that I will. None the less I wish the minister would give the committee some information as to the quality of the advice

Canada Labour Code
that is going to be given to the federal authority prior to the next meeting of the Northwest Territories council. That would not be betraying any secrets. I for one am not prepared to tell our northerners not to worry, that the department of northern affairs officials love them and will look after their best interests, and that they need no guarantees of any kind. That sort of nonsense has pervaded too much of our legislation. Surely the minister can tell the committee what advice is being given the council of the Northwest Territories, and who it was advised his department to exclude the Northwest Territories and the Yukon from the provisions of this bill.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is very worth while. I am wondering whether the minister will give some consideration to a charge which has been made this afternoon, namely that the former minister of northern affairs found himself in the same position as the present minister has now been advised to take. Does this not flow from the fact that the same advisers who made this decision before are making the decision now?
I have several persons from the Northwest Territories who live in my constituency who have had occasion to write to me concerning compensation, vacation pay, and so on. In two cases I went from the council to the Department of Labour, and then to the department of northern affairs and the Department of Public Works. In each case we came across a decision which had been made by the director of industrial relations in the department, which I think was wrong. I also think this official was wrong in advising the former minister of northern affairs, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, and is wrong today in advising the present minister.
Clause 3 (h) makes reference to any work which is before or after its execution declared by parliament to be to the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces. This is a highly technical clause which has disallowed the benefits of labour relations legislation to persons working in the Northwest Territories and, I presume, the Yukon. If we are to write into this bill an exclusion of the Yukon and Northwest Territories we will not be meeting the requirements which the Minister of Labour has declared must be met. Because of the direction being given and the vast amount of legalistic confusion which exists through the actions of five or six agencies having relatively equal responsibilities in the territories, we are not well advised here, and the minister is not well advised to put himself in the position of making an exception of a very large segment of the country in regard to industries in those areas over which he has jurisdiction.
I think the minister should think again about this matter because he is recommending an exclusion which must indicate that he had knowledge that such a thing has worked to the disadvantage of workers in that area. I thought some time ago that this bill should apply mainly to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon because this is one place in which the federal government can give leadership, and I congratulate the minister for this. However, I do not think this exemption should be left in the bill in the form it is, although he may be perfectly right that there are segments of the labour field in Northwest Territories and the Yukon in which it would be difficult to implement the terms of this bill. This means there is no difference between the application of this exemption in one part of Canada compared with the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
I think the minister is being unfair to himself and is not giving the leadership he wants to give by exempting for one reason or another a small segment of the country to which this measure would bring a great deal of benefit. I am sure other hon. members have also brought before the minister cases which would be effected by clause 3 (h) to which I have referred. Normally even work done by the federal government is not classified as being in the interest of Canada or Canadians, as it reads in this bill, which means that there must be a special declaration to this effect. If we allow this exception we will be providing a loophole in respect of this problem which has developed over the years, and which has been discussed and argued with the officials of the department on numerous occasions; and it will continue to exist. If the minister is not prepared to support the amendment now before us, I think he might find it to his advantage to reconsider it, in terms of those works being done by the federal government in the Northwest Territories which are not specifically declared by the governor in council, or by the parliament of Canada as being to the general advantage of Canada. If the minister is not prepared to support this amendment I hope that he will indicate he is prepared to propose an amendment which is perhaps not as all-embracing as the one now before us.

Canada Labour Code [Translation]


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to say a few words, because according to the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) I might have suggested that the passage of this legislation with the amendment as proposed would result in an additional charge for the Northwest Territories.
If I said that, it is because in the province of Quebec, under orders and regulations, minimum wages are 64 cents per hour and in many parts of the province of Quebec, people are paid three or four times that amount. However, in certain depressed areas, where transportation costs are extremely high, some companies see fit to keep to this minimum wage of 64 cents per hour.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Guy Marcoux: Yes, it is a shame. But if the federal government were to compel these municipalities, these localities or regional contractors to pay the minimum salary we propose, that is $1.25 per hour, this would certainly constitute an overload. Even if the hon. member for the Northwest Territories does not think so, I believe that this exists in our area.
However, I wish to point out to him that in the Northwest Territories there is but one member, and if that member were of the Liberal party he would be of the same opinion as the government, but as he is in the opposition, it is clear that he must oppose even if in his heart-


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak to a question of privilege. I do not want the hon. member to say something he does not really mean, but the suggestion that my motives for voting may approximate his is surely an insult which I cannot accept.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, I see that the hon. member misunderstood me completely when I meant that there was not just one member from Quebec and that was why there could be some difference of opinion, whereas, as far as he is concerned, he is the only one and, in most cases, his opinion differs from that of the government.
The reason for my intervention, in a way, is that I am convinced that there will not be any more satisfaction in the Northwest Territories and all I did was to extrapolate in what I found to be the case back home, in many areas of my province.


Amendment (Mr. Orlikow) negatived: Yeas, 51; nays, 57.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. MacNaughi:: Mr. Chairman, before
clause 2 carries I have an amendment to propose which affects the French version of the bill. For example, on page 2 of the French version at the top of the page, the words "du gouvernement federal" should be "relevant de la juridiction federale". This appears in various clauses throughout the bill and I propose to move an amendment which will cover those various clauses, as follows:

That the words "works, undertakings and businesses coming under federal jurisdiction" and "work, undertaking or business coming under federal jurisdiction" be substituted for the words "federal works, undertakings or businesses" or "federal work, undertaking or business' wherever these words appear in the French version of Bill No. C-126.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
On clause 3-Application of act.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, clause 3, for the main part, is a standard kind of clause which tells us the categories of work that come under federal jurisdiction, and for the most part it simply carries out the terms and spirit of the constitution of Canada. It does of course have in it a reference to the question of work in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. We would have had to move a consequential amendment to that, had we been able to carry the amendment that we moved in that respect to clause 2.
However, I should like to direct the minister's attention in particular to subclause (3) of clause 3 which reads as follows:
This act does not apply to or in respect of employees who are
(a)	managers or superintendents or who exercise management functions, or
(b)	members of such professions as may be designated by the regulations as professions to which this act does not apply?

We have had a good deal of experience with wording such as that set out in subclause (3), paragraph (a). However, I wish the minister would tell us what the government has in mind under 3(b), where the wording is a bit new. What are the kinds of professions that it is proposed to exempt from the provisions of this legislation?
While the minister is answering that, I wonder if he could tell us if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation comes under the provisions of this bill? If so, will he relate in particular this question of professional work to the various kinds of work that are done by the employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It would seem to me that this is an entity in which there is room for argument as to which persons are professional and which persons are tradesmen or technicians. I wonder if the minister could deal with this general point at this time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand why a member would raise this particular point with regard to clause 3, paragraph (b). If he will observe the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, he will note there is an explicit provision with regard to the exclusion of the professions. The act excludes members of the medical, dental, architectural and engineering professions from the provisions of this act when employed in that capacity. When we considered this particular paragraph, we considered including the words of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Then, I considered it would be preferable to permit some flexibility in the way of including professions.
Now, there may be some professions to which, because of their method of operation and ethical practices, this act would not regularly apply. We would like first of all to have representations from employers or professional associations with regard to who were to be excluded from this act. What I really have in mind is the opportunity of including professions which would benefit from the application of this bill. Rather than apply the wording in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, I thought it would be better to leave it flexible so we would be absolutely certain there would be no advantage to a profession before it was excluded from the provisions of this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was quite aware of the wording in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and it was precisely because the wording in this bill differs from
Canada Labour Code
that wording that I put the question I did to the minister. I do not know whether my concern is relieved or not by the way in which the minister has put it. In the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, while members of the professions are excluded from the provisions of that act, at least we know what professions are excluded because they are spelled out in the legislation itself. In the case of this legislation, however, we do not know in advance because the decision is to be made by the government and implemented by regulations passed by order in council.
Now, it is good to have this word from the minister that it is his desire to have it this way, so that he can include as many professions as possible rather than excluding them; but I wonder if he could not give us examples of the kind of professions he has in mind, now classified as borderline cases but which he might be able to include.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: For example, the Annual Vacations Act excludes members of the medical, dental, architectural and engineering professions. Unless there were strong reasons or evidence why benefits would be available to these persons, or why their inclusion should be maintained, we would consider excluding them. But there are others, for example those in the nursing profession, whom we would like to consider carefully before we excluded them from the benefits of this bill which would assist them in certain instances. The motive is very clear. It is to extend, where advantageous, the application of this bill, and we would like to have some consultations with and hear from members of professional associations before we would exclude them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May we take it as a commitment on the part of the minister that no additions will be made to the exclusions that are listed in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and in the Annual Vacations Act? Is it clear that the purpose of this is to include more, not to exclude more?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the purpose, because as a matter of fact the original draft which I had before me automatically excluded certain professions, and I thought it would be better to have a look at these on their individual merits before we excluded them automatically from the wording of the bill. Certainly I have no proposal in mind that would enlarge the range already mentioned in the I.R.D.I. Act.

Canada Labour Code


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the minister answer my earlier question: Is the C.B.C. covered by this bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I understand it is covered by this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the government run into any difficulty in interpreting other legislation with regard to this word "profession", because it seems to me that among those working for the C.B.C., particularly with the wide range of duties they perform, the employers might well decide that certain employees are technicians and certain others are professional people? Can we be assured that, apart from lawyers, doctors and dentists, there will not be the exclusion of these other kinds of technicians who work-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: For a living.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -for the C.B.C.?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I accept the qualification of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I certainly can give a commitment to the extent that we do not have in mind exclusion of any profession, except the traditional professions that have already been excluded in other statutes; and before we exclude any, we would have to be satisfied that it was justified on the basis of professional practice. For example, one point that was very much in our minds was the encroachment by this legislation upon hours of work that might be professionally accepted among members of the medical profession which would not be appreciated by them as in any sense normal for the job. We would not do anything of that kind, and this is why we ask for some flexibility in the bill.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Clause 3(1) says:
This act applies to and in respect of employees who are employed upon or in connection with the operation of any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
And paragraph (a) says:
Any work, undertaking or business operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, including the operation of ships and transportation by ship anywhere in Canada...
This is an interesting clause, and due to the fact that these references are included in clause 1(a) it is evident that the government attaches considerable importance to wages and salaries earned by seamen on Canadian ships. Since the bill is to apply to any undertaking or business operating "within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada"
[Mr. MacEachen.)
could the minister inform the committee if it applies in any way to the fishing industry?
The federal government is today more concerned and involved with the fishing industry than ever before. Our fishermen register for unemployment insurance with the Department of Labour. Our draggers and trawlers are licensed by the departments of transport and fisheries and must undergo regular steamship inspection; but in view of the nature of the fishing industry, in view of the fact that fish must be caught and processed when they are available regardless of statutory holidays, I doubt whether it is possible to apply standard hours of work and overtime regulations to that industry. I hope the minister will clarify this point, especially for the men involved in the deep sea fishery.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This listing of the federal works and undertakings covered is the traditional listing found in all federal statutes such as the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the Annual Vacations Act and all other acts passed by parliament with respect to federal works and undertakings in the labour field.
It should be pointed out that, for example, fish plants are not covered by this bill because they are under provincial jurisdiction, but there is a nice question in my own mind as to whether trawlers operating out of a fish plant would be covered. However, work in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, would be covered.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I listened carefully to the minister's explanation, and if I heard him correctly he said there was a question in his own mind as to whether coverage by this bill could be extended to deep sea fishing trawlers. As I explained in my previous remarks, in view of the nature of this work, the nature of the industry and the manner in which the fishermen must operate, this point should be clarified before we proceed further.
It is simply impossible to adopt regular hours of employment on a fishing dragger. The men may well fish from eight to six o'clock, but during that period there may not be any fish to be caught. If a dragger is operating at night and is successful in securing a large catch, it is sometimes necessary, as the expression goes on board ship, to break watches, to bring out all the crew at three o'clock in the morning to dress all the fish caught. The catch cannot simply be left lying

Canada Labour Code
on deck, waiting until morning to be processed because it is very perishable. As a fellow Nova Scotian the minister is well aware of the many difficulties under which fishermen must operate, and I believe we should have a clear definition from him of the manner in which this bill is to apply to the fishing industry and the men in it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wonder if I may ask the minister whether this legislation covers a group which greatly needs the benefits it will confer? I am referring to the commissionaires, of whom there are about 5,000 in Canada. As the minister knows, these are veterans who are enrolled in the corps of commissionaires for the purpose of acting as watchmen, doorkeepers and in other functions. On a number of occasions I have taken up their problems and found they were not covered by provincial labour legislation. My information is that they have no statutory holidays and very little protection as far as labour legislation is concerned. I have been asked whether or not they will be covered by this legislation. I have not been able to ascertain from reading the bill whether or not they are included.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The class of employees referred to is not covered directly by this bill. It is a question of determining their status. I stated on second reading that it is the intention of the government to apply the standards of this bill to government employees generally. If the commissionaires are government employees, then the standards would apply. If on the other hand they operate in connection with contracts issued by the federal government, then the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act would apply. As I have already stated, we propose to bring in amendments to this act to apply these standards, especially with respect to wages and hours of work. In order to be absolutely certain as to the coverage of this particular bill and as to the coverage extended to government employees under the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act I would have to know the precise employment status of commissionaires.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister
whether he would look into this? I am told the Canadian corps of commissionaires often assigns people to work on airports and sometimes on government dock contracts-various jobs of that kind. One particular case which came to my attention was on Vancouver Island. It was ruled that they did not come under the provincial labour legislation. There was no federal legislation and these people were without any protection at all. I fear they may fall between two stools-that they do not come under the provincial legislation and that they will not be covered by the bill before us. Is it possible for the minister to look into this matter to see whether they can be included in any regulations made under this bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes. It is possible to say that commissionaires employed by any federal agency, such as a bank, would be covered. They would be covered if they were employed at a radio station, or presumably the Bank of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Airports and docks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Airports, yes. We expect they would be covered if they were working directly in a federal post or one under federal jurisdiction. Then we go on to consider the position of a commissionaire employed in connection with federal government contracts and we hope that ultimately these standards will apply when we have passed the necessary legislation. However, I would wish to look at this question further and see that this class is given the maximum protection possible.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I wish to ask a question supplementary to one I asked a minute ago. Am I to understand from the minister's answer that the legislation does not apply in any way to the fishing industry and to the men involved in it? Is that correct?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I suppose, ultimately, it would be a matter for the courts to determine. It would be my opinion however that the trawlers to which the hon. member referred, operating as part of a fish plant located on the shore, would normally be under provincial jurisdiction and we would not cover them. I know one fishermen's union which has been certified under the provincial labour legislation. The fishermen's union in British Columbia has been certified under provincial legislation. This gives us an indication or a guide as to the possible coverage of this measure.


Mr. Rock:: I should like to know whether the words "any aerodrome" mean "any airport". Do they apply to the land where any airport is situated? What I should really like to know is whether people working for concessionaires would be covered, for example

Canada Labour Code
employees of Murray Hill taxis who are underpaid and who work 75 hours a week or more.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the facts presented I am not absolutely sure whether these people would be covered in the bill or under the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. But they would be covered under one or other of these measures.


Eric Alfred Winkler: My question is in the same field. It refers, generally speaking, to the trucking industry. It seems to me that in clause 3 there is an area which is not entirely clear and which may lead to hardship in certain cases. I would ask the minister if the terms of this clause apply, generally speaking, or even specifically, to the trucking industry. Take as an example a firm working out of Toronto. If its operations are wholly within the province of Ontario would the terms of the act apply? Let us take another case. If the firm operated outside the boundaries of the province in which it was located, would the act then apply if it did not in the first instance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer to the first question is, no. It would not apply to a trucking operation within a single province. But it would apply as I understand it to a trucking operation extending into another province.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Does the minister not agree this will create an area of injustice because of the competition to which such a company would find itself exposed? Runs between one province and another must take place, and these affect the hours of work. I understand this is a most important factor in a company's operations. Would it involve the total operation of the company or would the minister divide the two questions with regard to its application to any one company so as to apply to just those operations outside the province concerned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Perhaps I may answer the hon. member by saying there was a case in the Ontario high court of justice in 1960 dealing with this question, and as I understand the decision it was that if any single employee or any number of employees are covered by the federal authority then all the employees automatically are covered.


Raymond Rock: I would still like to know whether the word "aerodrome" would include "airport".


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to refer again to the question which was raised by my hon. friend from Burnaby-Coquitlam in connection with the corps of commissionaires. I have been interested in their problems ever since I entered this house, particularly as a member of the veterans affairs committee, as have other members of that committee. Having discussed this question with officers and members of the corps in various places in Canada, may I say I do not think the minister's reply in this respect was altogether satisfactory. I know from experience you will find members of the corps employed for a few days on work which would come under this legislation, and then, perhaps two or three weeks later, they will be employed on something which is covered by the provincial legislation.
Would the minister look into this question very carefully and see what can be done, so that these persons who are members of the Canadian corps of commissionaires will know their rights and will know, when they are in a particular employment, whether they come under this bill or under provincial legislation. I think this should be clearly defined and the Canadian corps of commissionaires notified to this effect. Will the minister look into that question so these people will know their rights after this legislation is passed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it would be helpful for the department to investigate this matter a little more carefully with regard to the employment conditions of the commissionaires, so we may determine the extent of the application of this bill. We will be glad to look into this matter and notify the commissionaires as to their rights under this legislation.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, a few days ago I raised on the orders of the day, the question of postmasters in local post offices. At this time I would like to ask the minister two questions in that connection. The first question is: Will this bill affect postmasters who are operating small, local post offices? If I could have the reply to that question, I will then ask the second one.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I stated on second reading that the standards established in this bill will apply to government employees. I stated, further, that the President of the Privy Council would make a statement later giving the details in this regard. This is the intention. For example, employees of the post office would come under the minimum wage provisions of the bill. We are certain these standards will be applied to employees

of the post office, for example, or casual employees of the post office at Christmastime. The exact date of the application would depend upon the bringing into effect of this bill and a statement to be made by the President of the Privy Council.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Arising out of that answer I would like to point out what I consider to be an anomaly in the legislation. The postmasters in small offices earn anything from $500 a year upwards for operating their post offices, and this is sometimes not much more than $1.25 a day, let alone $1.25 an hour. The minister has just stated that the provisions of this legislation will apply to employees of the post office. I am thinking of clerks who are employed by a postmaster. Will they be eligible for the rate of $1.25 an hour?
It seems to me that a postmaster of a small post office will never be able to hire an assistant at $1.25 an hour if he is only getting $1.25 a day himself on a contract basis. Many of these smaller offices are operated in that fashion. In the average post office the postmaster has some other duties and receives a reasonable amount of income. There is for example a requirement that the office stay open a minimum of eight hours a day. This would result in the postmaster having to pay his helper up to $12 a day, when he himself was getting a good deal less than that on a contract basis.
Unless the bill operates to the benefit of the postmaster himself and permits him to draw this minimum wage so he can pay it without losing money, there is a very great anomaly in this bill. I have had the matter drawn to my attention by a number of postmasters who thought they were going to get $1.25 an hour as soon as this bill came into effect. However, it is quite obvious they are not, but their assistants are. How on earth they are going to manage, I do not know. If the minister can shed any light on this problem, I would like him to do so.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the light I can shed is that the policy has been laid down and it will be up to the Postmaster General to grapple with the application of these principles with regard to employees of the post office. I think it is a very good thing that we have established as a matter of policy that the standards within this bill will be applicable to federal government employees. It will be up to the head of each department to work out the details.
Canada Labour Code


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I assume from the minister's reply that I should go after the Postmaster General for an answer to this question, rather than himself. Does the minister agree with that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Employees of the post office will naturally get the standard rate. There are certain persons working for the post office on a contract basis, and this would be an entirely different aspect because they are contractors. The status that would be occupied by revenue postmasters under the provisions of this bill is something that I think would have to be determined by the Postmaster General.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to the question of commissionaires. First of all, I wonder if the minister could spell out whether under the provisions of this bill the take home pay of commissionaires will be at the rate of $1.25 an hour. I realize that the provisions of this bill only apply to work which comes under federal jurisdiction. As I understand the set-up now, the corps of commissionaires bids for certain work; for example, if the government or some industry that comes under federal jurisdiction hires the corps of commissionaires, the corps then supplies personnel. Under the provisions of this bill will the corps be required to bid at such rates that after the deductions are made by the corps the people working will get $1.25 an hour?
As I understand it now, if the corps bids, let us say, for the sake of argument, $1.25 an hour and gets the contract, the corps then deduct their commission, or whatever they call it, for handling the contract, and then they deduct "X" cents an hour as payment for the uniform. Then of course there is also the question of whether the corps will be required to put aside a percentage of this money for holiday pay. I think these are important matters. It seems to me the government is involved, because very often a government department decides to hire the corps rather than hiring government employees directly, who would get the rate established by the government. Therefore the government very often hires the corps in order to save money.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the illustration given by my hon. friend obviously refers to persons employed under a contract. A person contracts with the government to provide certain services and these services are provided by the corps of commissionaires; in this case the Fair Wages and Hours of

Canada Labour Code
Labour Act would apply in so far as contracts with the federal government are concerned. In that case we set the minimum rates of pay, and to my knowledge there is no rate at the present time that we have set for the corps of commissionaires that is less than $1.25 an hour.


David Orlikow: My information is-and I have taken it up with the appropriate person in the department-that these deductions are made, and for the person actually doing the work it really does not make any difference whether the government says, "We are paying $1.25 an hour", $1.50 an hour, or $2 an hour, because the deductions bring the rate of pay down below the $1.25.
I am trying to get the assurance that after the rates are set and the deductions have been made by the corps for handling, and so on, the person employed will receive the $1.25 an hour, and that with regard to work which comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government they will receive, for the days they work under a federal government contract, the equivalent of two weeks holidays with pay for a full year's work. That is what I am trying to get at, before it is too late.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I do not understand what deductions could be involved. If a federal contract comes, as it does, under the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, then the employees must receive a certain wage set by the department under that act. I do not understand what deductions could possibly take place which would supersede the rate approved by the department, unless it were a deduction freely given by the employee himself to his association.


David Orlikow: As I understand it, and I have discussed this with Mr. Wilson, it is a very simple matter. I have not got the file here but the corps charges, for getting the contract and handling it for a particular employee, 10 or 15 cents an hour for every hour the person works. In other words, if the corps get the contract at $1.25 an hour this person would get $1.25 less 10 or 15 cents service charge. The corps also charges for the uniform. I think the uniform costs $40 or $45, and when it is paid for deductions in that respect stop, but the 10 or 15 cents an hour continues the whole way through. What I am concerned with is that if the corps charges this kind of fee it might never get a government contract if the rate were not less than $1.40 an hour, giving the employee $1.25, plus a couple of cents holiday pay.
IMr. MacEachen.]


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The situation is that the employee receives the rate, and whatever fee is owing to the corps of commissionaires is paid over and above that rate. Because of the dispute over facts here I would be glad to check into this matter further with my hon. friend, because I think this is a point on which we should be clear.


David Orlikow: I will be glad to give the minister the facts. What I am concerned about is that no government department should accept a contract at less than an amount which would leave the commissionaire who is actually doing the job $1.25, plus whatever he is entitled to for holiday pay.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would agree with that.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether the bill applies to hotel employees in hotels which form part of a railway system. I am not quite clear whether this bill would be broad enough to cover all employees employed in connection with the operation of a railway. There may have been some decisions of the courts on this matter and I am wondering whether large hotels like, for example, the Royal York, which are owned by railways or which simply offer a service in connection with the railways are covered by the bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Certainly the hotels of the Canadian National Railways are covered by this bill. As I understand it, the hotels of the Canadian Pacific are not; they are under provincial jurisdiction. I think the reason is that the C.N.R. hotels have been declared to be to the general advantage of Canada.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I quite heard what the minister said. Did he say that hotels operated by the Canadian National Railways fall under this bill but that hotels operated by another railway, such as the Canadian Pacific, would not fall under the bill? If that is so-he said something about declaring them to be for the public benefit of Canada-would it not be reasonable that hotels under both systems should fall under the same administration and be subject to the same laws?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I had a meeting this morning with the vice presidents of the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. and this was a matter of discussion, that the bill was discriminatory in that it covered C.N.R. hotels and not C.P.R. hotels, presumably because the C.P.R. hotels

fall under provincial jurisdiction. The reason cited is the reason I have given, that these hotels were declared to be to the general advantage of Canada and therefore under federal jurisdiction. However, this is a legal point which, I must say, is rather baffling to me.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I suggest to the minister that there is no doubt, if there is a legal problem here, that it can be resolved by the government's declaring these hotels to be to the public advantage of Canada. Certainly it seems to me that a person working in a hotel owned by the C.P.R. is working in connection with a railway, just as much as an employee working for a C.N.R. hotel. I should have thought the federal government could bring this matter within its jurisdiction. If there is any doubt, I suggest that it do so by explicit language or by declaring such hotels to be for the general advantage of Canada.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I should like to follow up my previous point about a postmaster with an allied subject which I should think would cause just as much difficulty and which we should have out here and now, because if this principle is applied it will make quite a difference to highway mail services and rural routes operated for the carriage of mail.
Rural route contractors bid for contracts and receive so much money in accordance with their bid. Likewise the men who haul highway mail services from one point to another put in a bid for a given contract, which might perhaps be $1,000 or $1,100 or $1,200, and they are contractors. In the past the contract has stated that the contractor will pay the prevailing wage, and in some cases the prevailing wage for the driver of a truck operating on a rural route, who himself is not a contractor, has been put at a very low figure. In fact, since there was no real minimum wage no minimum was applied at all in most cases.
The position of these carriers is the same as that of a postmaster. They contract at a stated figure and are therefore contractors, and I presume they do not come under the provisions of clause 3. Yet their employees will be covered because they are engaged in carrying mail and are therefore federal employees. In this event a contractor who may be bound by his contract to carry mail for anything up to four years will suddenly find that he has to pay his drivers $1.25 an hour, with the average rural route run taking 20220-583
Canada Labour Code
three or four hours. That is $6 or more per day. I think this is another instance where the bill in respect of a minimum wage cannot be applied, and I point this out for this reason. The general impression is being given that this will be an across-the-board minimum wage for all employees in government works. I do not know how on earth a contractor who is bound by a contract of $1,000 is going to be able to pay $2,000 to a man he has hired to drive the vehicle.
Exactly this same situation will exist in regard to a postmaster of a small post office who has a contract for perhaps $500 or $600 but has to pay a clerk $1.25 per hour. I think this is one of the most difficult areas in which to apply this principle.
If the principles embodied in this bill are not applied to federal government employees on an across-the-board basis, and particularly to individuals carrying the royal mail, I think we must consider that it will be ineffective. I do not know how the government intends to work out these problems.
The minister has said in respect of postmasters and their problems in this regard, that the Postmaster General will take responsibility and provide some solution. Is the Postmaster General going to allow these contractors, who employ other individuals, to adjust their contracts so they can pay at least the minimum wage and not be out of pocket as a result of previous contracts? I should like the minister to give us some explanation in this regard.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, there is an answer to that question. The regulation in respect of federal government contracts is covered under the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. Only construction contracts are covered by the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, and the rates have been established under that act for those contracts. There is nothing in this bill in respect of such federal contracts, and there was no intention that this bill should cover those contracts, because they are covered, as I have said, by that act. As I have outlined, we intend to cover federal government contracts generally by amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. When these amendments are brought before the house we will all have an opportunity to discuss this important range of contracts entered into by the federal government.
Up until this time the Post Office Department has asked the Department of Labour to prescribe rates for persons employed by postal contractors on a voluntary basis. The

Canada Labour Code
contractor himself is self-employed and does not come under this voluntary edict, so to speak. We are providing for employees of the contractor by way of rates prescribed by the Post Office Department.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Just to clear up this point, do I understand that the class of people described as postal clerks, who are not civil servants, including drivers and others who are employed by postal contractors, are not included in the provisions of this bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is right.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Thank you.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister one more question in an attempt to nail down the status of the members of the royal Canadian corps of commissionaires, and I am thinking particularly of those who are employed directly by the government in my area as Department of National Defence security guards. Will they be covered by the provisions of this bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They will not come under the terms of this bill because they are not employees of federal industries. However, we have stated that the standards set by this bill will apply to government employees, and the standards and wage rates will apply to commissionaires as employees of the government. As I have stated, the timing of this legislation will depend on a statement to be made by the president of that body.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, we seem to have touched upon a wide variety of subjects during the course of our discussion on this clause. I was interested in the point raised earlier by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, and perhaps what I have to say should more properly be considered when we are dealing with clause 5. Perhaps for a moment, however, I may be permitted to go back to that question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at the beginning of our consideration of this clause. That hon. member made reference to clause 3, paragraph (3)(b) in respect of the application of this bill to members of the various professions. The question which arose in my mind as I read that part of this bill was whether it is worded so that it would be applied to all of the members of a profession, no matter what the circumstances of their employment, or whether it was worded so that it would apply to only certain members of a profession and not to others. What I have in mind is that in many professions certain persons are in private practice and in fact 
self-employed, whereas others who are members of the same profession may be salaried. As this clause is worded, does the minister feel that it will be applied to the whole membership of a profession, or does he think that under this part of the bill selfemployed persons or persons in private practice will be excluded? Will some members of a profession be excluded from the provisions of this bill while other members of the same profession, who are employed directly on salary, will enjoy the protection provided, such as the non-deductions from salary for statutory holidays? Can the minister give us his understanding in this connection?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, naturally all members of a profession covered by this bill would be those employed in connection with a federal works or undertaking. That would limit the area of coverage. We did discuss this matter during our consideration of clause 3, paragraph (b). We have provided for a certain amount of flexibility in the application of this act to members of the professions employed upon or in connection with federal works. We have done this for the purpose of examining each profession, so to speak, on its own merits to see whether there might be advantages to the professions or to the public interest by including members of the professions. It might well be that some traditional professions should be excluded, such as the medical profession, the dental profession and perhaps the engineering profession. There are others, however, we should examine very carefully before we exclude them, and possibly we will include them so that they will benefit from the provisions of this act.
The one profession I have very much in mind is that of nursing. It may be advantageous to that profession, particularly in respect of hours of work, which would induce us to include it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, just before we pass this clause I should like to return once again to a consideration of the point I raised earlier in connection with the trucking industry. I listened to the minister say that he wanted to be fair, that he wanted to see there was no discrimination as between areas. However, to get back to a specific item under which unfairness might arise, I should like to refer to a carrier who operates within the confines of a province. In each and every province, and certainly in the large provinces in the country, there could be a run that would take more than eight hours. I am

thinking of the answer the minister gave me before, in relation to an operation that is partly outside a province, and the fact that this bill will apply to the whole operation in the province.
I am sure the minister is well aware of the fact that carriers can operate out of the city of Toronto under provincial legislation and can have a tremendous advantage over a carrier who conducted a small part of his business outside of the province. He would come within the terms of this legislation. The point which I feel the minister should clarify is this: Is there any recourse for those operators or their associations, individually or collectively, at any time to correct an injustice this legislation might cause any one of these interprovincial operators? Can he give us any assurance that if the measure does operate to their disadvantage they will have an opportunity to change the application of the provisions of this bill which relates to their industry?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member has asked if there is any recourse to the application of the hours section. I agree that this is an important consideration, especially for the trucking industry. There is a transitional provision with regard to hours in clause 51. It may be that at that time it would be appropriate to discuss a little more fully the type of problem that is posed by the standard hours provision in relation to the trucking industry. I have some things to say about it, and I think they would best be said under clause 51 where the transitional provision is found.


Eric Alfred Winkler: While we are dealing with this bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There is one further question I should like to raise and perhaps the minister will answer it readily. Earlier this afternoon we disposed of an amendment to clause 2 in connection with the exclusion of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I do not intend to raise that question again now, but in this clause there is a suggestion that perhaps there is some discrimination involved in excluding those two territories. This brought me back to the bill of rights which was passed in 1960 which, under clause 3, paragraph 3, requires the Minister of Justice to examine every bill introduced in the House of Commons in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the bill of rights. I refer particularly to clause 1(b) 20220-583J
Canada Labour Code
which guarantees the right of the individual to equality before the law and to the protection fo the law. I should like to ask the minister if the Minister of Justice has examined this bill and has reported that it complies with the bill of rights?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the obligation mentioned is an obligation imposed upon the Minister of Justice. I think the hon. member would have to direct his question to the Minister of Justice.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I believe there would be an obligation on the Minister of Labour to see that there had been compliance with the provisions of this act before the bill was introduced.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, it is certainly not in any sense discriminatory. The exclusion has been made for the reasons stated. It is precisely the same coverage that is extended in all parts of Canada, exactly the same coverage in the Northwest Territories. In fact, if we took the alternative course we could then describe it as discriminatory because it would be discriminating with regard to the territories. It is not discriminatory in any sense. I do not want to go into an argument which has been decided by the house.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I had intended to ask this question of the minister earlier today when the Minister of Justice was sitting beside him and might have made it easier to answer. I still feel that, while the Minister of Labour has expressed the opinion the statutory obligation is on the Minister of Justice, he should be able to give the house the assurance that the provisions of the bill of rights have been complied with. I am raising the point because I have a feeling that this bill of rights was treated by the opposition of the day, and the government of this day, very lightly. These provisions are there. They were passed and are obligatory in connection with the legislation. While there are those who may say that this bill of rights was not as effective as it might have been because it did not include provincial legislation, nevertheless there is a requirement that the Minister of Justice examine each bill to ascertain whether any of the provisions are inconsistent with the purposes of the bill of rights. I should like to ask the minister if, before we pass the last clause, he will assure the house that this has been done.

Canada Labour Code


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will try to get this message to the Minister of Justice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we finish with clause 3, I should like to ask the minister another question or two. My questions relate in particular to the matter of contracting with other people or contracting out. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle, the member for Victoria, British Columbia, and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam have touched upon examples of what I have in mind. I remind the minister also of the very useful and constructive statement made on this point the other day by the hon. gentleman who is now sitting at his left, the hon. member for Hamilton East, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
When he was speaking on second reading of the bill, this hon. gentleman, as recorded on page 9045 of Hansard for October 14, did me the honour of reading the wording of one of the sections of my labour code bills that I have been bringing in for the past ten years. In particular he pointed out that the wording which I had in my various bills included very specifically contractors, representatives, managers and agents. The hon. member for Hamilton East expressed the hope that clause 3 of this bill would be wide enough to cover all such operations. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he has satisfied the hon. member for Hamilton East on this point?
May I bring up a particular case? The hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle raised the question in relation to the operations that take place at an airport. Is it possible for the Department of Transport, which is operating an airport, to contract out some of the work at that airport and for the contractor or subcontractor to say that the kind of work his employees are engaged in comes under provincial jurisdiction?
Similarly, may I ask a corresponding question with respect to the C.B.C. It is clear that the work of any radio broadcasting station is under federal jurisdiction, but could the C.B.C. contract out some of its camera work, or some of its technical work of one type or another, and could we then find ourselves in the position that the contractor or subcontractor could claim that the work he was doing was provincial in nature, and therefore that his employees were removed from the protection of this bill?
I am glad to have the interest not only of the minister but of the hon. member for

Hamilton East because the point he made the other day was a valid one. We should hear from the minister whether the bill is so worded that it does cover contractors and subcontractors who get work that is initially under federal jurisdiction? Are all the employees of such contractors and subcontractors covered by this bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, clause 3 says "This act applies to and in respect of employees who are employed upon...." and so on; and if my hon. friend will refer to line 27 he will see it says "to and in respect of the employers of such employees and to employment upon or in connection with the operation of any such work, undertaking or business." We are satisfied that the application of this part of the bill will include the instances mentioned by the hon. member for Hamilton East and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We are satisfied of that, both upon the wording and upon a supreme court case in 1955, the stevedoring case, which supports the view that any contracting activity, even though it is contracted out, if it is an integral part of federal work comes under federal jurisdiction.
I am satisfied, so far as one can be satisfied. We have covered this category. I may say it is a matter about which we were very conscious, because we thought this might have been an escape route if it could be successfully employed. We do not think it can be.


Mr. McIntosh:: I am interested in paragraph (h) which reads:
-any work or undertaking that, although wholly situated within a province, is before or after its execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces, and-
What is meant by the phrase "to be for the general advantage of Canada"?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is also a standard paragraph or section in all our labour statutes. The parliament of Canada is free to declare a work to be to the general advantage, and if such a work is done it comes within federal jurisdiction. For instance, uranium mining has been declared to be to the general advantage of Canada and is under federal jurisdiction. The wheat elevators, flour and cereal mills have also been declared by parliament to be to the general advantage of Canada, and for that reason come under federal jurisdiction.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I would refer the minister to section 174 of the Canada Grain Act which says:
All elevators in Canada heretofore or hereafter constructed are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
I am wondering how this clause would apply to the managers of these elevators in the fall, when the farmers are taking their crops off and when they get into the elevators at all times of night. Clause 3(3) of this bill says:
This act does not apply to or in respect of employees who are
(a) managers or superintendents or who exercise management functions,
Would this apply to all elevator operators on the prairies in the fall months when the crops are coming off? They certainly could not work a 40 hour week and take in all the crops.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate the point being made by my hon. friend because we have given consideration to the problem that has been posed by the representatives of the country elevators with respect to time, or the standard hours of work. In the operations of the country elevators there are peak periods, and these peak periods go beyond the standard hours of work for a day or a week, and this might be regarded as an excessive burden on the elevators with respect to overtime.
The officials of my department have had discussions with representatives of the elevators, and we expect that the application of another clause in the bill, providing for the averaging of the standard hours beyond a period of two weeks, would take into account the problems raised by country elevators with respect to the application of hours.


John (Jack) McIntosh: To what other clause is the minister referring?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Clause 5(2).


Mr. Watson (Assiniboia):: In the case of the country elevators I wonder if this should not be spelled out in definite terms so that it would not come up as a point of argument at a later date. I do not know whether the minister understands it, but I know the elevator agents could work a great number of hours a day during peak periods, and I am wondering whether these employees should be included as managers and operators.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it would be unfortunate to exclude the country elevators specifically from the total operations of the
Canada Labour Code
bill, because we want to apply its principles to the employees of federal undertakings, including country elevators. We think it is reasonable to provide for an averaging over a period greater than two weeks and, if need be, this could be extended over a period of a year, which would provide an opportunity to level off the seasonal peaks with the seasonal valleys. This is one protection in the bill that I think will go a long way to meet the difficulties.
When we come to the transitional provisions I shall have something to say in connection with the opportunities available for a deferment, where the application of the hours might be prejudicial to the employees or to the operation of an undertaking under this bill. There are two protections here that will look after the situation without spelling it out specifically, because I think it would be unfortunate to exclude these people.


John (Jack) McIntosh: If this is not spelled out, Is there not a conflict here between what the minister is trying to do and what it says in the Canada Grain Act, which provides that elevators will open and remain open for the convenience of the farmers? I think, in this case, if he would spell out, as the hon. member for Assiniboia suggested, an amendment substituting "elevator operator" for "manager" in the prairie wheat area some of the fears we have as to what could happen if this were carried in its present form might be eliminated.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: First of all, there is a feeling, presumably that these are managers, though they have entered into a collective agreement as employees of the wheat board in a Saskatchewan trade union


John (Jack) McIntosh: If I may interrupt; there are two definitions given in the Canada Grain Act. One applies to managers and the other to operators. I cannot remember what the definitions are, but there are two.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to support the minister by saying I certainly think all grain elevator operators should come under this legislation because they are in a group which is not covered by provincial labour legislation and they should have the benefit of this bill, particularly as far as statutory holidays, vacations with pay and so on are concerned-the minimum wage provision scarcely affects them because most of them are paid well in excess of it.
However, I am sure the minister is aware there are some problems. The key problem is

Canada Labour Code
that there are times of the year when the quotas are open and when farmers must be able to deliver their grain. At such times the elevator operators must be there. On the other hand there are long periods in the winter, and when quotas are not open, when the job is merely a caretaking proposition with occasional cleaning of grain and so on. I think the minister could work this problem out under subclause 2 of clause 5 and under the regulations which provide for averaging. We encountered the same difficulty with respect to oil drillers under provincial legislation, but in the end agreement was reached between the employers and the employees under which for certain months in the year the employees worked on the basis of a 30 hour week while in another season of the year they worked on a 48 hour basis. It averaged out. If extra hours had to be worked, then of course overtime was paid.
I think a solution could be worked out in this case. I should like to ask the minister whether he is satisfied that he has the necessary powers under the regulatory provisions to enable him to deal with the situation in this way. I agree it is essential that the elevators should be kept open and that someone should be there whenever grain is delivered. This particularly applies during the fall when grain is wet and has to be delivered to the elevator and dried. This might mean working 12 to 16 hours a day. It would, of course, be unfortunate if we tried to impose an eight hour day at that time of the year and then stuck to an eight hour day in the winter when there is less work to be done. I hope the minister is satisfied he has the necessary powers, after consultation with the grain operators, because I believe that by making the necessary adjustments in the regulations he could solve this problem. The operators must be covered by the legislation, yet the legislation must at the same time provide sufficient flexibility to enable farmers to deliver their grain to the elevators at any reasonable time.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I suggest that this clause stand until we have an opportunity to ascertain what subclause (5) means? It would give us an opportunity to look up the grain act and make sure that the western producers are protected.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am content that it be allowed to stand and I am satisfied we can meet this problem.
Clause stands.
[Mr. Douglas.!
On clause 4-Saving more favourable benefits.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have one question to ask on this clause. It concerns subclause (2) which reads:
Nothing in this act authorizes the doing of any work on Sunday that is prohibited by law.
I can understand those words, but I should like to know the reason for including them in this clause. Can the minister tell the committee how they apply in all the circumstances?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This subclause makes it clear that the bill is not to be taken as interfering with any law prohibiting work on Sunday. It is necessary because of the provisions of clause 7 which require one day's rest in seven, wherever practicable on a Sunday.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5

Standard hours of work.
David Orlikow: I think this is the proper place to ask the minister whether he can now give an explanation of the problems I raised when we were discussing this question last week in connection with groups of workers such as railway workers and others. The illustration I used last week was the case of sleeping car, dining car and parlour car employees who are now working substantially more than a 48 hour week. If they were included in the provisions of this measure and if the railway company reduced their hours of work to 48 while holding them to the hourly rate established by the contract, they would suffer a very severe reduction in pay.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the place to deal with this is under clause 51. Presumably we are already agreed on the principle of the eight hour day and the 40 hour week, and clause 51 gives us an opportunity, as it were, to time the application of this principle, taking into account considerations of the kind mentioned by the hon. member. I think if we could defer consideration of this matter and others like it

there are a number of them -until we come to clause 51 we would have a better discussion. Presumably we would do nothing at this point to upset the acceptance of the principle on second reading.


David Orlikow: Except that as I understand clause 51 the transitional period only applies for a maximum of 18 months. I suppose that in 18 months the unions concerned could

negotiate a new contract, but those negotiations could conceivably lead to a substantial reduction in take home pay at the end of the month.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the problem we are attempting to deal with in the clause I have just mentioned. I think it would make for a better discussion if we were to postpone this issue unil we reach that particular clause. It would give us a chance, too, to deal with some other aspects. The case of the country elevators is really the same type of problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure that my hon. friend, along with the rest of us, will not mind having the discussion on clause 51 rather than on clause 5, provided we are not precluded from putting forward the proper amendment necessary to the appropriate clause. Things are going fairly well today so we thought this might be the proper time to move another amendment.
Clause 51 as we understand it merely provides for the 18 months transitional period. But we had some discussion the other night as to whether a time limit is the best way to deal with this, or whether it is necessary to have legislation saying that the total take home pay shall not be reduced because of the effect of this legislation.
The minister has not yet accepted the idea of writing such a provision into the legislation. But if he were to accept it as the result of discussion in this chamber, to which clause would these words be added; would they be added to clause 5, or to clause 51?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I would not raise a point of order if my hon. friend proposed an amendment to clause 51 to cover that point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All I can say to the minister is, many thanks for the invitation. We do not need it, but we will accept it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister at this point a question regarding the matter raised by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and the hon. member for Assiniboia. Looking at clause 5 (2), the last few words are:
-in such manner and in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations, as an average for a period of two or more weeks.
If that is the case, I am wondering whether this gives the minister sufficient flexibility to deal with the problem raised by hon. members regarding grain elevators on the prairies.
Canada Labour Code


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This would permit us to arrive at an average for a period of two or more weeks. We would have the authority to average over a full year, if that were necessary. Presumably the premium paid would apply only beyond 2,000 hours, because on a yearly average the total hours permissible within the 40 hour week would be 2,000 and beyond that overtime would apply. Presumably this would meet the seasonal character and would also preserve the principle of the 40 hour week. This certainly goes a long way in levelling off, I would think.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then the minister is satisfied that this is flexible enough to meet the problem outlined?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am satisfied that it is sufficiently flexible, based on the conversations we have had. But it may be that clause 51 is another place where this situation could also be helped.


Lawrence E. Watson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister is correct with regard to clause 5(2), but one of the points that I think could be raised as an eventual argument is that the elevator operator might possibly go to the elevator at eight o'clock in the morning and be there until six o'clock at night. So far as he is concerned, he can say he is on duty full time, and I do not think the two weeks would be enough extra time to cover the extra hours he would be there for that period of time. This is the part I am concerned about. Possibly the elevator operator is not buying grain for a good deal of the time; he may even be over in the town drinking coffee. This is a possibility. But at the same time he is on the job working for the elevator company that has hired him and most farmers would know where to find him. He is going to say that he was on duty for eight or nine hours a day.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would allow me to read section 109 of the Canada Grain Act. I think this is why there is a conflict here. It is not spelled out by the minister, and if he will spell it out we will accept what he says. Section 109 says:
Except as provided in section 108, the operator or manager-
It uses both terms:
-of every licensed public country elevator shall, at all reasonable hours on each day upon which the elevator is open, receive all grain offered thereat for storage without discrimination and in the order in which it is offered, provided that there



S214 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Canada Labour Code
is in the elevator available storage accommodation for grain of the variety and grade of such grain and of the character desired by the person by whom the grain is offered.
I think if this is spelled out, we would have no further argument.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: It seems to me that there is no necessary contradiction between "reasonable hours" and the system provided in this clause, because presumably the grain act obligates the operator and manager to be available for reasonable hours. If the reasonable hours at a peak period are 12, we would make provision to take that into account in the average for the year. Surely in a slack period he is not obligated to be there for 12 hours; perhaps he is obligated to be there for eight hours, or perhaps only three hours. So you could average this out, and we believe it is a reasonable provision. We certainly would not think this would contradict the "reasonable hours" mentioned in the grain act. I think we are safe enough here.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I know that in the past elevator agents have been on duty in their elevators for 18 hours a day during certain periods, and others may not have to be there more than one or two hours on other days, but you cannot average it for a period of two or more weeks.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We can average up to 50 weeks in a year, if we need to. We can prescribe an average for two or more weeks in a year so that we have it-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: So that you have it for the whole year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, so that we have it for the whole year, if need be.


Lawrence E. Watson: In coming to an average would you expect the elevator operator to be there from, say, eight o'clock in the morning until noon and to be away for the rest of the afternoon? Is this what the minister means by averaging, that he can close up the elevator for half a day periodically to offset the hours he has worked for a longer period?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Presumably it is up to the management to decide the hours men shall work. From the facts the hon. member has mentioned, working four hours or three hours a day, we would average those days of few hours with the days having 10 or 12 hours of work over a period as long as is required to meet the needs of the par-

ticular operation. If the facts are as we have had them discussed, this looks after the situation.


John (Jack) McIntosh: This situation is going to be further agitated when rail line abandonment takes place-and I believe it is going to take place in certain areas-and farmers come in from many miles away with their grain and find the elevator closed. This is a situation against which we as legislators must guard, and protect our constituents. Although we are dealing with clause 5(2) here, it refers to clause 3(3), and I think before we conclude this matter we must have a definite statement from the minister that elevator operators or managers are not included. If my colleague is satisfied that it will be averaged over the year and he thinks this will look after the situation, or other members representing farm areas are satisfied this will be taken in the way the minister means it, and when the regulations come out they will not change the minister's meaning-which I have seen happen in other cases, where the regulations have been more powerful than the act itself-this would be sufficient; but I believe the minister should spell it out right now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have spelled it out as far as I can. I gather my explanation met with the approval of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Assiniboia; I thought they agreed with what I said in regard to the facts as we know them concerning variable hours. We certainly will utilize the provision to the limit, to meet the problem of the country elevators. I believe in this way we are going very far in that direction, and I do not believe hon. members would want us to go to the extent where the principles of the bill would be overcome.


Lawrence E. Watson: Mr. Chairman, I merely want to get it completely clear in my mind. Supposing a farmer delivers a load of grain to the elevator and the elevator operator has been working really long hours for two or three weeks? A period of adjustment is provided to cut down the hours; if I understood the minister correctly he mentioned a figure of 2,000 hours. The elevator operator goes to his elevator at about eight o'clock in the morning-some go before that -and stays until six. In that case he will say he was on duty, and because of the fact he has worked there long hours he will say he is going to work just in the mornings for

two or three weeks and will close in the afternoons. That is not going to satisfy the farmer who comes in with a load of grain at four in the afternoon, only to find the elevator operator away, and rightly so because he has been averaging out his hours. I think this has to be spelled out in black and white so that everyone can understand it in no uncertain terms.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This legislation does not provide any authority for an employee to advance that argument. This is a matter he has to work out with his employer.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I do not want to get mixed up in the problems of country elevators but I would say that in the part of the country I come from, if that situation arose and an operation was required to be open 18 hours a day over a period of time, they would put on a second shift. That is one method of settling that kind of problem, it seems to me.
I rose, Mr. Chairman, because I am a little puzzled about what appears to me to be some conflict between clause 5, which is now under consideration, and clause 6. I want to know which one of these clauses is to be the operative clause as far as the bill is concerned when it becomes law. Clause 5 refers to standard hours of work and clause 6 refers to maximum hours of work. Clause 5 says that the hours of work shall not be longer than eight hours per day or 40 hours per week. In clause 6 it turns right around and says that an employer can require an employee to work 48 hours per week. Why is clause 6 there at all, particularly if one considers it in relation to the provisions of clause 9 which we will be coming to a little later on. The thing which concerns me is that some of the people who read this act when it becomes law are likely to decide that the present clause 6 is really the operative clause, and it may very well tend to become the standard provision rather than the exception. I think we should have some information on why clause 6 is there at all before we pass clause 5.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Clause 5, of course, establishes the standard day of eight hours and the standard week of 40 hours. The clause now mentioned allows for the working of 48 hours in a week, but the additional eight hours beyond the standard 40 must be at premium pay; in other words, at time and a half. That is set out in clause 8.
The hon. member referred to clauses 9 and 10 which provide for two instances where an employee may be required to work beyond 20220-584
Canada Labour Code
48 hours per week on the issuance of a permit by the minister. Second, there is a possibility that in the event of emergency conditions-for example, the breakdown of machinery or an accident occurring-work beyond the 48 hours may be required, in which case a report is subsequently made to the minister. So that actually a 40 hour work week is prescribed. Then there is the possibility of a 48 hour week at premium pay, and then work beyond a 48 hour week as a result of emergency conditions with a report made to the minister. That is the sequence.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If I might pursue the particular questioning I had in mind, the other matter which puzzles me is the relationship between subclause (2) of clause 5 and clause
7.	As I understand it, clause 7 imposes a limitation on the operation of subclause (2) of clause 5. I am not certain I am opposed to clause 7, but I am wondering how this averaging out principle will work under certain circumstances if it is limited by clause 7.
I have particularly in mind the kind of situation referred to earlier by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg in respect of employees in marine transportation and that sort of thing who may be out working for a period of time extending beyond seven days. I know there are some procedures which allow for people to be on duty for longer than seven days, with compensation provided under some union agreements for extra days off. I have in mind here ships returning to shore. But I am wondering whether the minister could explain what he understands to be the implications of clause 5(2) and its relationship to the operation of clause 7.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I draw the hon. member's attention to the phrase "wherever practicable" in clause 7. Where it is impracticable of course to have a full day of rest on a Sunday, provision is made for one day of rest in the week. But it is to be on a Sunday wherever practicable. If work had to be done on a Sunday, presumably averaging would apply on that day as on any other.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Then may I ask the minister who decides when it is practicable? There are some areas in the bill where such matters may be defined by the regulations, but I have not noticed anywhere where this particular matter is set out in such a manner as to give the minister or the governor in council authority to make regulations defining what constitutes what is practicable or

Canada Labour Code
impracticable regarding Sunday as a normal day of rest.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot tell my hon. friend at the moment who decides when it is practicable, but there is now an established law providing for this day of rest. Or, at least, it has a persuasive character and it is carried forward in this bill that Sunday shall be the normal day of rest in the week wherever practicable. If it is not practicable, then presumably another day of the week will be provided. The sanctions of the bill will presumably apply to this clause as to all others.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I think this is rather an important question because, if I may say so, sometimes this develops into a situation where the employer decides what is practicable. I can quote an example of this, which I admit falls outside the minister's jurisdiction.
Apparently the management of the British Columbia ferry authority has decided that their employees are going to work ten days on, straight through, and then so many days off. This has become quite a bone of contention and up until this time the employer, the B.C. ferry authority, has decided that the ten day period is to be worked by the employees. I would hate to see that kind of situation remain in respect of the operation of our national minimum standards, so that a group of employees is entirely at the mercy of an employer as far as the decision as to what is practicable is concerned. That is why I wonder whether the subject matter of clause 9 could more effectively be covered in some way by incorporating it in the provisions of subclause (2) of clause 5.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I think it is agreed that there shall be provided one day a week off on a mandatory basis as a day of rest. That is an obligatory provision of this bill. Sunday is the normally accepted day of rest. There is no absolute assurance or sanction that Sunday will be the day off, but wherever practicable it shall be. It is presumably suggested that whenever Sunday is impracticable as the day of rest, clause 5 (2) shall apply. Certainly one could argue that this involves an irregular distribution of the man's hours of work when it is impracticable to have Sunday off.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, just before we pass clause 5, I should like to state that I have listened with interest to the discussion carried on by the hon. members for Swift Current and Assiniboia in

relation to grain elevators employees. It may be true that the hours worked by those employees can be averaged out for a period longer than two weeks, but I still envisage some complications in this regard.
In the event that an elevator operator operates his elevator on the prairies on an average of 12 hours a day in the fall for several months, then he would have to declare a similar period of months during the summer as a short work period-perhaps four hours per day-in order to strike an average. If I understand the wording of this bill correctly, this could greatly injure the grain handling trade, and I am thinking particularly of a year like last year when the grain handling companies did a tremendous job in respect of moving a large quantity of wheat for export.
I think the minister should make this averaging out principle a little more clear, because clause 3, as I read it, definitely includes the grain handling trade-the wheat board and grain elevator companies. The provision contained in clause 5 (2), embodying the averaging out technique for more than a two week period, does not really solve the problem to which I have referred. I think the provisions of this clause would eventually have the effect of increasing the cost of grain handling and make much more uneconomical the operation of some country elevators. Perhaps these provisions would bring about the abandonment of some country elevators, as well as some railway branch line abandonments. These abandonments would greatly contribute to the cost of grain handling, and I am sure no one in this house desires to see that happen in any of the grain producing areas of western Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I think this aspect of this bill should be given some further consideration. If the grain trade falls within the provisions of this act, there should be some further provision made, clearly setting out this averaging clause, so that an elevator may remain open only half a day during the wintertime in order to average out the working hours. It may be that that practice could only be followed by a certain portion of the total grain trading area, and I think a great deal of difficulty will be created by this provision for the Alberta wheat pool, the united grain growers and many other grain handling companies in western Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I should also like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that in many cases the farmers find themselves only able to deliver their quotas of grain to the

grain elevators in the last weeks of July, as a result of which further difficulty will be created in respect of the averaging out technique. I think there is a great deal of room for improvement in this portion of the bill. Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce would give some consideration to this part of the bill, and perhaps between the two ministers a clear explanation can be worked out which would answer some of the questions asked in relation to the obvious complications which appear to exist. I should like the Minister of Labour to again clarify what is involved in this bill in relation to the grain trade.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, of course the principle of this bill is to provide for a 40 hour week. That principle was accepted on second reading. All employees under federal jurisdiction are to come within this provision. It has been argued and suggested that in the case of grain elevator companies, they would be obliged to pay an excessive amount of overtime during peak periods because of the nature of their operations. Clause 5(2) will permit these companies to average out the hours worked, even to the extent of a period of a full year, so that if an employee works on the average of 2,000 hours for 50 weeks, the employer would not be obliged to pay overtime until that employee had worked more than 2,000 hours. At that time, of course, he would be obliged to pay overtime, and that is the purpose of this bill. I think the provisions of this bill do clear up any difficulty which arises as a result of a seasonal operation. It may be that the elevator companies will occasionally have to pay overtime, and I am sure they do so now. It may well be that they will reorganize their operation, putting on an extra shift, or something of that nature. There are alternative ways of dealing with this seasonal type of operation. We think that in this bill we have met, to the maximum, any difficulty that arises from the seasonal nature of an operation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask about the business for tomorrow and Wednesday, if we could have it.


John Watson MacNaught: Tomorrow we will resume the committee stage of the electoral bound-20220-584J
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion aries commission act. This will be followed by the committee stage of the Canada labour standards code. Then, we will take up second reading of an act to provide for the establishment of harbour commissioners.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, the question I raised the other day and that I want to raise again tonight relates to the urgent need for the government to make some kind of statement on the negotiations that are going on between Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines, particularly inasmuch as until some sort of conclusion has been reached the minister has told us he will not be in a position to even consider regional air carrier policy.
This question is not a new one. It is not even new to this session. If you look at the record of the first session of the twenty sixth parliament, you will see numerous occasions upon which members directed questions to the then minister of transport. From press reports we were led to believe that the former minister of transport, who is now the President of the Privy Council, was just on the verge of exploding with some kind of policy statement, when internal difficulties about regional carrier problems within the cabinet forced a change of duties. Consequently this matter was not raised again until February 26 of this year. The question is to be found on page 256 of Hansard, when the hon. member for Three Rivers asked the Minister of Transport when we could expect a statement. The last sentence of the minister's reply reads as follows:
I hope this will be before too long.
We all remember what happened on April 30, the night the minister attempted to make a policy statement over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the resulting furore in the house. I do not intend to rehash that debacle. I should like to quote from the minister's statement the following day, which is found on page 2808 of Hansard:
I considered very carefully last Friday morning whether the very tentative decision which was taken by the government to carry on another stage in the formulation of air policy, which has not yet been formulated-

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
These are the pertinent words.
-and which I am sure will not be formulated for at least another month-
When the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines was examining the officials of Air Canada on June 22, the minister told us then, those of us who were on that committee, that he expected to make a statement around September 1. He asked us to forbear asking any further questions because this would only complicate negotiations that were then proceeding between Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines. Well if you look at the record of this session, you will find members did refrain from asking any questions. Indeed the next time a question was asked on this subject was on September 3, two days after the time the minister thought he would be in a position to make a statement, at which time I asked a question. The minister's reply can be found on page 7613 of Hansard, as follows:
I can report that very active discussions have been going on between the two air lines since discussions commenced some months ago. I get progress reports from time to time, but X doubt that a statement at this stage would add very much to the prospects of success in these negotiations.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we were told not to ask questions because it could hamper prospects for success. Six weeks later, on October 13, I raised the question once more, and it was at that point Your Honour ruled the question was not one of urgency.
If you read the press you will have noticed that last Saturday the Ottawa Citizen carried a feature by Norman Campbell headed, "Parliament", in which he stated:
Meanwhile, parliament awaits the promised statement of government policy on Canadian air lines and the international routes...
More than six months ago, transport minister Pickersgill told the Commons the whole question of future air policy was under "very active consideration." He hoped it would not be too long until conclusions were reached and could be announced to the house.
Many Canadians see in this kind of hedging, this referral of a government decision basically to two air lines, Air Canada and C.P.A., a calculated manoeuvre not to get on with the problem of announcing a regional air carrier policy for the country. If he cannot make any statement tonight, may I appeal to the acting minister to try another television performance so that we may find out something about what is happening.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, following the meeting which the Minister of Transport (Mr. 
Pickersgill) held with the presidents of the major railways and the presidents of Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines to outline the basic principles which should apply in the development of Canadian aviation policy, a number of meetings have been held between working teams of the two air lines and between the two presidents of the air lines to discuss possible avenues of co-operation.
These discussions have not yet been completed and it would therefore be premature at this stage to attempt to make any detailed statement on the various items on which progress has been made. However, I am very happy to be able to state that the two air lines have jointly requested the following information to be made public, and I quote:
Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Air lines have agreed to co-operate in presenting a united Canadian effort in the highly competitive world of international air transportation.
The agreement follows a government request for greater co-operation between the two Canadian carriers.
Both carriers have agreed to "sell Canada first" by ensuring each adopts the other's service as first alternate to its own, consistent with customer requirements.
That is, if one carrier cannot accommodate a customer due to inconvenient routing or lack of space, it will book him on the other Canadian carrier before any foreign operator, providing it is not to the passenger's disadvantage.
Air Canada has also agreed to appoint C.P.A. as its general sales agent in many areas of the Orient, the South Pacific and South America, while C.P.A. will name Air Canada as its general sales agent in Bermuda, the Bahamas and the islands of the Caribbean.
Additional general sales agency appointments are under review.
The new policy is expected to improve service to passengers and shippers by providing greater Canadian representation in the areas concerned, while aiding both carriers in obtaining additional revenues on international services.



TRANSPORTATION-PROPOSED REDUCTION IN C.P.R. SERVICE IN WESTERN CANADA

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I raised the question of further curtailments in passenger train service between Calgary and Lethbridge, and between Lethbridge and Medicine Hat. Effective October 26 C.P.R. trains 307 and 308, now operating daily between Medicine Hat and Lethbridge, will be reduced to Monday, Wednesday and Friday from Lethbridge to Medicine Hat, and Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday from Medicine Hat to Lethbridge.
Trains 309 and 310 now operating Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday between Calgary and Lethbridge via Macleod subdivision will operate only on Wednesdays and Satur-

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
days. Trains 311 and 312 now operating Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday between Calgary and Lethbridge via Alder-syde subdivision will operate only on Thursdays and Sundays.
The Railway Act does not require that a railway make application to the board of transport commissioners for authority to reduce passenger service. Such prior authorization by the board is required only where a passenger service is being completely discontinued. Accordingly, none of these reductions I have mentioned requires the board's approval. Under the Railway Act, however, the railways are obliged to maintain adequate service and facilities, and the board has full authority to require that reductions in passenger service, for example, be not proceeded with if in the board's opinion the reductions would reduce the service below what the board would consider adequate in the public interest. Furthermore, after the reduction has gone into effect, the board can order the restoration of the service for the same reasons.
The only notice given with respect to this reduction in rail service has been that posted in all the small railway stations between the points mentioned that service would be reduced within 30 days. Representations have been made to the Department of Transport, and I believe to the board of transport commissioners, that the service which would be left would not be adequate to meet the needs of the area I have mentioned. I think that in all fairness to the city of Lethbridge and the city of Medicine Hat, to the chambers of commerce in those cities and to other interested parties, there ought to be a longer period between the date when notice is given and the date when the reduction takes effect. My appeal to the minister tonight is that he request the board of transport commissioners to see that this period is extended by 60 days at least in order that the interested parties may have an opportunity to appear before the board and present their case. Then, if in the opinion of the commissioners the reduction is not likely to inflict an undue inconvenience on the communities concerned, the railways could proceed with the reduction in service which is contemplated. But up to the present time there has not been sufficient opportunity given.
I should like to say also that in my opinion during the last two months there has been a terrific upswing in demand for rail passenger service. I should like to quote from
an editorial which appeared in the Medicine
Hat News of September 26. It says this:
The entire railway situation is under review at the present. This would be a good time for the government, its board of transport commissioners and others concerned to probe the passenger service provided by the railways in this country.
Is the C.P.R., for example, deliberately attempting to discourage the public from travelling by rail?
Is the C.P.R., through this "policy" trying to steer would be train passengers to its air line?
The public has a right to know the answers to these and other questions inasmuch as public money subsidizes the railways.
Lastly, the politicians should ponder well the fact that there is a demand for rail service. Is it not to be met?
This involves much larger considerations than the local services I am talking about now, but I ask the minister tonight to take this into consideration, to get in touch with the board of transport commissioners and at least give the people concerned the opportunity to make representations.


George James McIlraith: I should like first of all to express my appreciation to the hon. member for the accuracy of his statement of the facts involved in his question, and for the accuracy of his statement of the law applicable. I might also add that he did me the courtesy of making his request in a wholly objective way.
The situation is that the board of transport commissioners has received complaints with respect to these changes and they are at present being considered. Since the changes in both of these services do not involve discontinuance of specific trains, but a reduction in the frequency of their operations, the board has taken no action to intervene on the strength of the representations which have been received from parties objecting to the changes.
In view of the volume of complaints received by the board, however, it has directed the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to file its submissions with respect to the specific points raised, and also to furnish the board with the particulars of the patronage of the existing services. It will be seen from what I have said that this matter is receiving the careful attention of the board.



AGRICULTURE-EGGS-REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN DEFICIENCY PAYMENT METHOD

Reynold Rapp: I welcome this opportunity to debate a matter pertaining to the 2 cents deficiency payment to egg producers.
9220	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
As the house knows, these deficiency payments are based on the national weighted average price which farmers receive during a 12 months period. In my opinion this should have been on a regional, cumulative price basis. To justify my argument I should like to give hon. members this information. During the month of May on the prairies the price received for grade A large eggs was 17 cents. This included the cities of Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon, Swift Current, Regina, Melville, Brandon and Winnipeg. The price range was from 17 cents to 19 cents, while at the same time other places in the east received 35 cents. Victoria 32 cents, Vancouver and Kelowna 31 cents, Fort William, Toronto and other cities received 32 cents to 35 cents.
When the stabilization board establish the average price they take the low that the prairies received, normally 17 cents, and the high received by the egg producers in the east and on that basis they calculate what should be made as a deficiency payment. This year it is 2 cents. My argument is this. Instead of taking the national weighted average it should be done on the regional basis. The difference in price ranges from 17 cents to 35 cents. We on the prairies just help to get a higher price for these people who receive 35 cents and 37 cents; we lower the average. They will again receive 2 cents per dozen, while our fellows on the prairies who received 17 cents will also only receive 2 cents per dozen. My argument is that the price should be established on the regional basis instead of on the national basis.

Last year I had a resolution on the order paper to provide deficiency payments for eggs-and the same applies to hogs-on a cumulative regional price basis, rather than on a national weighted basis. Until this is done the egg producers in the west will never receive justice.


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his question and for the opportunity of commenting on it briefly. I think the hon. member would agree that the purpose of deficiency payments under the price stabilization board is first of all to provide stability to the egg market, and second to provide a measure of guarantee to the small producer who may receive a deficiency payment on the first 4,000 dozen eggs that he produces.
I think the hon. member would also recognize that in view of the fact that this is a matter which might normally be regarded as government policy, he could not expect me to elaborate in too great detail. I do, however, wish to avail myself of the opportunity to comment briefly on this matter and say that the ideal situation of course would be where the production is nearly equal to the demand. Because production is difficult to regulate precisely, so may we expect price fluctuations. These fluctuations in production usually follow a pattern affected by the seasons of the year. To make deficiency payments on a quarterly basis, or even on a regional basis, would be to aggravate the situation and would tend to defeat the principle of price stabilization on a year round basis.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.21 p.m.

Tuesday, October 20, 1964