1965-02-18

Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to make a statement which might be of interest to all members of the house, especially my colleagues of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and more particularly to the electors of my constituency of Berthier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere.
The moment I entered public life I stated that I wanted to be a member of the Conservative party as long as its policy was in keeping with the interests of my electors and likely to promote the development of the Canadian nation in the complete respect of the aspirations of one and all, even and especially if those aspirations concerned my French speaking compatriots, so that Canadians could live in that essential national unity which all men in public life must strive to establish and maintain.
In the past two months I have received quite clear and precise directives, with but a few exceptions, from many electors in my riding whom I met while the house was in recess, to the effect that I should dissociate myself from the present policy of the Conservative party.
I have every confidence in the Conservative party, one of the two great political parties which have left their mark on the life of the Canadian nation, and I refrain to enumerate all the achievements of this great political party which, at various times, legislated in the interest of the whole Canadian people.

Unfortunately that party is now controlled and directed by a single man. I therefore regret that I must leave the ranks, not of the Conservative party but of the Diefen-baker party. As of this day I shall sit in this house as an independent member, and shall continue to do so until the problem of the
leadership of the Conservative party has been solved satisfactorily. The solution of this problem will of necessity bring about a new trend in the policy of this party, which will be called upon to again play a leading role in Canadian history.
I want to be absolutely clear and well understood when I publicly state that I understand and approve the stand taken by the energetic leader of the Quebec wing of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) and all my colleagues from Quebec. By different means I wish to continue to work with them and with the many other Conservative members and friends toward a renovation of the structure of the party so as to give it a new life and to create again public confidence in the party by the choice of a new platform acceptable to all classes and consistent with the needs of the day and the aspirations of the people of Canada and of the province of Quebec.

I am sorry to leave my friends in the Conservative party but I feel that I am being faithful to my mandate and to the wishes of the electors of the great riding of Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.
I sincerely hope that this separation will be a short one because I remain a strong supporter of the great Conservative party, although strongly against the Diefenbaker party, and I am hoping to become once again an active member of the Conservative party in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore request the privilege to sit elsewhere in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere informed me of his decision before the start of this sitting and, at his request, I assigned him another seat which he may now occupy.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have deposited with the Clerk

Introduction of Bills
oi the house for tabling today copies in English and in French of volume 2 of the royal commission on health services. Copies of the press release in English and in French are also being tabled.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-144, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1960 (provincial marriage and divorce laws).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, the parliament of Canada has the exclusive power to legislate divorce reform, yet no government of Canada has brought the subject into the house for a free debate; no government has ever permitted a private member's public bill on the subject to come to a vote; no government has ever referred the subject to a select committee of parliament or to a royal commission for study and report. Politically, the attitude of Canadian governments is to ignore the existence of a grievance and to refuse to exercise the monopoly jurisdiction the federal authority possesses.
The purpose of this bill, therefore, is to give to the provinces original concurrent jurisdiction with Canada in the same way as the provinces and Canada share jurisdiction with respect to agriculture and immigration. The federal government thus retains legislative power to protect the rights of minorities in any province or to supersede provincial legislation by multiprovincial legislation. On the other hand, this bill will enable a province to opt out of a continuing federal legislative refusal to initiate divorce reform.
I feel that this bill is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, at a time when we are discussing opting out, and it ought to commend itself to all supporters of co-operative federalism.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENITENTIARY ACT


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-145, to amend the Penitentiary Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to clarify the Penitentiary Act so as to provide that anyone who has been condemned to serve a prison term of two years or more will, if he appeals the sentence, be kept in a local or provincial jail pending the hearing of the appeal.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INCOME TAX


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-146, to implement a convention between Canada and Japan for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax and to amend the existing agreement and conventions between Canada and Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands, with respect to income tax.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of fhe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the second report of the Hall commission is now before the government, and that the first one consisted of many recommendations and suggestions respecting the establishment of medicare, is the Prime Minister now in a position to indicate whether a study of that first report has been made and, as has been suggested by certain reports, does the government intend to bring medicare legislation before the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the second report which has just been tabled is also a very important and interesting document in respect of this subject, and it will have to be carefully considered before any decisions can be reached. Consideration is now being given to that report. Consideration has been given and is still being given to the first volume, and before any decision or action can be taken in respect of these recommendations discussions will have to be held with the provincial governments.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, has there been any discussion as yet with the government of the province of Saskatchewan in this connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no special discussions have been held with any province.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask a question of either the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It will be recalled that volume 1 of the Hall commission report on health services recommended that a federal-provincial conference be convened within six months of the tabling of that volume. I wonder whether either the Prime Minister or the minister could report to the house on the progress of this recommendation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give my hon. friend any definite information as to when the conference will be held. He mentioned that a time of six months was recommended in volume 1 of the health services commission report. We have only just received volume 2 and would want to consider that before any conference with the provinces is held.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell me whether he or the government has received a preliminary or manuscript copy of the report of the royal commission on biculturalism and bilingualism?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, an interim report in English and in French has been received and is now in the hands of the queen's printer. I hope it will be possible to table it and make copies available for every member within a few days.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister ascertain whether any copies have been made available to unauthorized persons within the last 24 hours?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that situation, but at this time I have no knowledge of that.
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



WHEAT-REQUESTS FOR INCOME PROTECTION FOR FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he has received representations in recent weeks from the wheat pools in western Canada and from the national farmers union requesting income protection, and pointing out that farmers now stand to lose somewhere between $50 million and $75 million this year. I should also like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to announce the steps he proposes to take, if this estimate of the loss in farm income is accurate, in order to satisfy the representations made by these farm organizations.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, one of the rather strange anomalies of this situation is that because of the exceptional and most gratifying results obtained in the last crop year, this crop year is being compared to it. Actually prices are just about where they were when the previous government left office before the great Russian sale.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: What about $2 wheat?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can say to my hon. friend that I have received many representations from various organizations, including the wheat pools and the farmers union, asking for assistance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if it is correct that the present price in constant dollars compared with the 1951-60 period is now actually about $1.53, basis Fort William?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that comparison. The hon. gentleman may be quite right. In comparison with the prices that prevailed in 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961 there is a very great improvement.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a supplementary question. In view of the price reduction of approximately 20 cents a bushel on top grades, would the minister now reconsider his previously stated opinion and re-establish the liaison with the United States that was established in 1958?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. gentleman was not in his place when I answered a similar question right at the beginning of this resumed session. At that time I placed on record the views on this question not of myself but of the international wheat council and of the secretary of agriculture of the United States, both of whom considered that this was a necessary and orderly adjustment that had taken place. I can assure the hon. member that throughout the whole of the period there has been consultation between the governments of Canada and the United States far closer than existed when he was responsible.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is because of the answer of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day that I posed my supplementary question. I should now like to put the question to him specifically. Will the quarterly meetings between the two countries be reestablished?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we now have much better forms of consultation than existed before.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce specifically whether before, during or immediately after the series of reductions he personally had any consultations with any United States authorities.


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer is yes, with the secretary of agriculture and the under secretary of agriculture on several occasions.


Stanley James Korchinski: Before, during or after?


Mitchell William Sharp: Before, during and after.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday that there was unity within the cabinet with regard to agricultural policy, does the minister support the promise of $2 wheat made by the Liberal government or has he abrogated that promise?


Mitchell William Sharp: I support the present Prime Minister to the full.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it then the intention of the government to implement the policy of $2 wheat, in view of the fact that today the price is $1.53?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the best prices that have prevailed for Canadian wheat have prevailed since this government has been in office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Mandziuk:: Answer the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Answer the question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Any questions about the government's intentions are, as you know, Mr. Speaker, improper at this time. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the policies of the government, just as they have been in the past, will continue to be very favourable to the farmers of western Canada.



REPORTED STEPS BY MINISTER RESPECTING BEEF AND LAMB IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: The Minister of Agriculture made a trip to Australia and New Zealand, and it is rumoured that during his stay in those two countries he made certain arrangements for further importations of beef and lamb. Is that statement correct or false?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: I think the hon. member for Macleod had better put that question on the order paper. I made no such arrangements.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock).


Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me. I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister inform this house what in fact he did say during his visit to New Zealand and Australia in regard to the export to Canada of frozen mutton, beef and other meat products? He said earlier that the question should be put on the order paper, but this is a very serious and pertinent question; it is also a very important question that should not be relegated to the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I did not discuss frozen lamb or frozen meat at all with the New Zealanders or Australians, but I did indicate to them that they could use both our pure bred Holsteins and Jerseys, and they concurred.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister in fact indicate that increased exports to Canada would be welcomed?


Harry William Hays: No, I did not say this. What I did say was that we had many breeds of cattle that I thought would improve their position in Australia and New Zealand.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister this. What "udder" things did he say?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture a question related not to the statements he made in New Zealand, but to the recent statement he made in the province of Quebec.
Could he explain how a Quebec farmer could, with six cows and two pigs, earn a net income of $2,400 per annum, as he stated at a press conference?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to have an opportunity to answer this question, because this was something which I think was misinterpreted at a press conference which I held in my office. I hope the hon. gentleman will put this question on the order paper so I can give him a detailed report of what I said.



QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture?
Could the minister tell us whether since last fall he has received a request from the Quebec minister of agriculture to provide for assistance to farmers of the Abitibi and Temiscamingue areas, who were seriously affected by crop failures last year?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Harry William Hays: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and it is under consideration.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Is it the intention of the government and the Minister of Labour to introduce amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act based on the recommendations of the Gill commission, and when will these amendments be introduced in the house?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: It is not intended to propose any amendments during the remainder of this session. The policy of the government on this point will be declared at the beginning of the new session.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: May I ask a supplementary question, sir. Are we then to conclude that the government is not interested in improving the situation of the unemployed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That would be an unwarranted conclusion.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Has he consulted experts in constitutional matters to ascertain whether the proposed amendments to the Bank Act which he introduced recently, particularly as regards the purchase of shares by provincial governments, are consistent with the Canadian constitution or with the areas of jurisdiction of our various governments?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reassure my hon. friend on that point and suggest to him that if he has any concern about the matter, early in the next session when I hope

Inquiries of the Ministry the revision of the Bank Act will be before parliament he will have ample opportunity to discuss it.



REPORT BY O.E.C.D. ON FEDERAL CONTROL OF ECONOMY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to pose a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the report by the organization for economic co-operation and development in which it is stated that as a result of growing provincial taxing powers and opting out provisions Canada's federal government may be losing its ability to control the ups and downs of the nation's economy, may I ask if this report was approved by Canadian officials, and what comment the minister has to make regarding this report?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There seems to be a series of questions here, and since I have not the report before me perhaps I may answer the question tomorrow.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister considered making a statement to the house with regard to the report of the O.E.C.D. on Canada's economic situation as published this week?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think the hon. gentleman must have been away-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, that is another point.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -when I was asked a question by the hon. member for Ontario, and I said I would reply tomorrow.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister been made aware of moneys received by the Minister of Veterans Affairs for the promotion of hairdressing salons? Has the Prime Minister written a letter to the minister in this regard, and particularly did he include a copy of his code of ethics? Has the Minister of Veterans Affairs communicated with the Prime Minister on this matter in any way?


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to study that question, but my first reaction is that it seems to me if there is a charge it should be made in the proper way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure that was not a ruling on your part, Mr. Speaker. It is a quite legitimate question, I submit, to ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who has admitted receiving money from some operator of a beauty shop in order to exercise influence which he said was not actually exercised, had communicated with him. The suggestion in the question relating to the code of ethics might well be applied to the hon. gentleman, and is certainly justified on the basis of the admissions made by the minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is suggesting that a minister of the crown has received money for the purpose of exercising his influence. Is he making a charge to that effect?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not to be brushed aside by that kind of nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Make it; make a charge.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the Prime Minister talk to the minister regarding the admissions made by the minister? Did he talk to him or did he say to him, as he said to other ministers, "Boys will be boys"?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minisier of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman waited until I left the house momentarily to bring up this matter. I have denied categorically the assertion of the gentleman, who was very seriously ill in the hospital at the time the story appeared. There was never any suggestion at any time of political peddling, and his accusation was that I did not do that. I certainly did not make any undertaking, and I can supply evidence of this at any time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would withdraw his suggestion now that the minister has spoken.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the minister to file the explanation he made in which he said, according to the press, that he had re-

ceived the money in order to exercise influence but he had not done so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The government is very touchy on this question, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Scared stiff.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Slogan: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have recognized the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Joseph Slogan: I have a supplementary question to ask, and I will direct it to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I think my question is perfectly proper. I am not making any insinuations; all I am asking is whether the Minister of Veterans Affairs wrote a letter to or communicated in any way with the Prime Minister on the matter of the Gerrard affair as reported in the Winnipeg Tribune and, if such a letter was written, would he be prepared to table it.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: No, Mr. Speaker, I have written no such letter.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister anything to report to the house in view of the developments which have taken place within the United Nations during the past 24 hours?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: There is a discussion going on now at the United Nations. It has not been decided whether there will be a meeting this afternoon. The delegate from Albania insists in going on with his proposal, and consideration is now being given to the question of whether an adjournment will be sought.
Inquiries of the Ministry SEARCH AND RESCUE



BRITISH COLUMBIA-REPORTED DESTRUCTION OF MINING CAMP BY LANDSLIDE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. I do so because of the involvement of the R.C.A.F. search and rescue squadron in the question I am about to raise. I regret not having had an opportunity to send the minister notice, but this has just come to our attention.
I wonder whether the minister would look into the serious effects which may result from a landslide in northern British Columbia near the Granduc copper mine, where some 40 or 50 men are probably in danger of being engulfed.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I have heard rumours of such an occurrence this afternoon, though I am not yet aware of the actual facts. I am awaiting a report, and as soon as I have it it will be my pleasure to communicate with the hon. member.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Without trespassing in any way upon the duties of my colleague in the cabinet I should like to say in reply to the hon. member that this accident is of very recent occurrence. So far we have had a report that the information came largely from a plane which was traversing the area. This information was to the effect that the entire glacier had obliterated the camp with the result that 40 or 50 people could have been killed. The camp is some 30 miles north of Stewart, British Columbia. It has since been reported that the R.C.A.F. has been alerted and that the army has been advised of the situation. I am certain that every action which can be taken will be taken with all possible expedition.


Frank Howard: May I ask the minister of northern affairs, or any other minister who is involved, to give us an assurance that all the available facilities of the emergency measures organization of the Department of National Defence will be called into service in order to guarantee as far as possible the safety of the men involved? I may say that my question was predicated upon the information which the minister of northern affairs has just given us.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Arthur Laing: There are reports that all these agencies are already engaged in this task.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a further question for the Minister of Labour. I had intended to ask a supplementary question earlier but I was not recognized. However, I should like to ask him whether he considers it appropriate to make a statement today with regard to policy in connection with the unemployment situation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to make a statement at an early date, as I undertook to do two days ago, but I am not prepared to do it today.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I do not want the minister to treat this matter lightly. I quoted some statistics the other day showing that there are a substantial number of people unemployed, 39 per cent of whom are in the province of Quebec. We on this side consider this to be a very serious matter, as the hon. member used to consider it at another time when he was on this side of the house.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A further supplementary question. As long as three months ago I was asking the Minister of Labour to tell us what his projects were but I received the same answer that I received today. I should like him to tell the house when we can expect his projects to be made public.


An hon. Member:: July.



CAPE BRETON-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ALTERNATIVE WORK PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour dealing with the unemployment situation in Cape Breton. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman is now prepared to give the house a progress report on the alternative work program undertaken in Cape Breton because of the lay-offs at Point Edward naval base.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This question is too extensive to be dealt with on orders of the day. It would take a good deal of time to outline the measures which have been contributing and will con-

tribute to the improvement of the economy of Cape Breton island.


Malcolm MacInnis: Does the minister not consider that the unemployment situation is so serious that it should be dealt with each and every day?


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether it will be necessary to take steps to supplement the unemployment insurance fund?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It may be. That will be known when the supplementary estimates are tabled.


Robert Muir: Is the minister able to suggest by how much?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Much less than in any period-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are getting far afield on this subject.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
I should like to know why the flag which was proclaimed last Monday is not exactly the same as the one which was recommended by the flag committee and adopted here by parliament.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It was made in Japan.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I feel the question would be more appropriately put to the Secretary of State, but may I suggest that it is the kind of question which should be put on the order paper.


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



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the present

114S5
Inquiries of the Ministry
grave concern about the maintenance and am asking the Minister of Transport, is it the continuance of air services between Regina, intention of the minister to institute such a Saskatoon and Prince Albert, has the min- free port organization in connection with the ister any immediate plans to ensure that this airports of Canada? service is continued and improved?
.	.	. _	Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think that


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Trans- would be quite beyond the powers given to port):: Mr. Speaker, I think that is the kind this parliament by the minister, of question which, if it were put on the
order paper, would be susceptible of a de- Mr. Diefenbaker: By the minister? tailed answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Following the unanimous decision of the Quebec government to set up an immigration service for the province of Quebec, can the minister assure us that this agency will get the full co-operation of his department, so as to ensure the success of this new undertaking?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I will have to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me after all the efforts I had to make to catch your attention.
I would like to ask the Minister of Transport if he intends to authorize free ports in Canadian airports in the near future. If so, could he make a statement to that effect?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. gentleman, who is an old and experienced member of the house, knows that this is a question of policy.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne cites that any intention of the government can be ascertained by questions put to the ministers concerned. I


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the truth will out. What powers does the minister give to parliament?


Mr. Nowlan:: Res ipsa loquitur.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Apparently, sir, I have by a slip of the tongue given the Leader of the Opposition his first pleasant moment since this session resumed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it was
simply the voice, not of repentance but of admission on the part of the hon. gentleman.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Could the Minister of Transport inform us whether representations were made to him to the effect of establishing free ports in the airports of Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been many representations to that effect, as the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) could tell the hon. gentleman.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Can he inform us whether he or someone on his behalf has yet signed the agreement with the joint consultative committee of the B.C. towing industry with regard to the establishment of a research committee into manning and safety in the towboat industry, to which I understand the government of Canada is contributing 50 per cent of the cost?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take this question as notice and answer my hon. friend tomorrow.

Inquiries of the Ministry



REPORT OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON SHIP CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the house whether he has set a time limit within which a report must be made by the interdepartmental committee which he set up to review ship construction assistance, as announced on February 2? If so, can he advise us as to that time limit or give us some estimate of when this committee may report on this subject of such importance to the country?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the committee was asked to proceed with as much speed as is consistent with carrying out a good job, but I think it would be foolish of me to mention any date, because if that date was not met the hon. gentleman would castigate me later on in the session.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saini John-Alberi):: In that same connection, Mr. Speaker, will the minister find out the whereabouts of the study that was carried out in respect of a merchant marine service? It is probably lying around the department somewhere. Perhaps the minister could report in that regard in conjunction with this ship construction study, or even separately.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, as that would open up a much larger subject, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, where there is an important shipyard, would not want the one matter to hold up the other.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the minister not aware that we are interested in both subjects in Saint John?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member never leaves me in any doubt about that.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Would he say what reply he has made and what action he has taken in regard to the striking workers of Chrysler Canada Limited, who claim that the company are importing cars from the United States duty


free under the new Canada-United States tariff agreement, while their employees are on strike?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have received some communications on this question and I have discussed it with my colleague the Minister of Industry. We are looking into it.



AUTOMOBILES-CONCURRENCE OF PARLIAMENT IN AGREEMENT WITH U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question which relates to a question asked earlier by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr). Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether the recent automotive agreement has gone into effect in the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. It has to be approved by congress, but as yet it has not been considered by congress.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a supplementary question. Do I understand correctly that this is a one-sided agreement at the present time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. friend will read the agreement I think he will realize from its contents that reciprocity is essential in this matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Auditor General's comments does it not appear that some legislative authority is required by the government before complete implementation of that agreement can be effected?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it has already been stated by my hon. friend the Minister of Industry that there will be an opportunity for parliament to consider this matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. I believe the Minister of Industry said that he intended to introduce a resolution, but in view of the comments of the Auditor General does it not appear that some legislative authority is required?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will read the comments to which my hon. friend has referred, but it is our understanding that we proceeded in a perfectly normal manner by the procedure we adopted.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I had intended posing this question yesterday, but before I got a chance the bird had left the tree and the time was up. In reply to the question I asked the minister the day before yesterday with regard to the royal mint, the minister mentioned that speculation was being carried on and that the speculators would lose money when the new series was issued. Can the minister assure the house that the second issue will be exactly the same as the first, so they will lose money on the speculation and will not benefit from it?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I understood the question the other day and think I replied to it as fully as I could.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the minister, since he has said there was speculation, to set up an inquiry to find out exactly who speculated with whom in regard to the first series, so the Canadian people will know who is responsible for this?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I suspect that a great many people thought it would be a good proposition to buy something for $4 and sell it for considerably more. I do not know whether any useful purpose would be achieved by investigating who felt this way, but I have a feeling that a good many people may have, including possibly some members of the house, among others.
[Later:'}


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question.
Is it true that orders from the United States were given priority with regard to the first series of coins issued by the Bank of Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Slogan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could tell us when the mint will start accepting the new orders and whether they are receiving them now. He said they would be filled as they were received. Do the people have to wait for an announcement before they send in their new orders?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I included in the press release on this subject that I gave some weeks ago a statement that as soon as the mint was in shape to accept new orders, an announcement would be made and everybody would know about it. I thought this would probably be in a few months' time.


Joseph Slogan: Am I correct in assuming that people should not send in their orders at the present time?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It would be appreciated if people did not send in their orders at the present time.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I believe the minister said that the answer given on Tuesday should satisfy the curiosity of the house with regard to the fact that the second printing would be exactly the same as the first; but on Tuesday the minister said he could not give the house that assurance, therefore leaving the first series as a different series which these speculators will sell at a ridiculous price in a few days or a few years from now.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I really fail to understand the purport of this question. There is no printing. These sets are produced out of the same machines. They will be added to, but the present machines will be used. As I have said, sets for the year 1965 will continue to be produced until all the orders have been met.


Raymond Langlois: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the dies on these new machines be the same as those which are used on the present machines?


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the widespread discontent with the way in which the question concerning coins has been handled by the minister's department, may I suggest that he inform the people whether they are to make additional requests, or is his department going to take care of the matter with the information it already has? I have copies upstairs of at least a dozen letters on this subject which I have referred to the minister.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, as I have explained both since the house reassembled and in the press, the mint was flooded with an unprecedented number of orders.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why did people come from the United States with suitcases?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be glad to continue if I might be allowed to, Mr. Speaker. This was something that no organization could be expected to handle. As soon as we had a chance to investigate the matter we announced that we would continue to produce these sets until all orders had been met; and contrary to my hon. friend's suggestion this statement has received widespread support.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the situation in Viet Nam. Can he tell the house whether the Hanoi government has asked the three nations which form the international control commission to withdraw their members from team sites in North Viet Nam? What has been the attitude taken by the Canadian government in this regard, and will the minister tell us at the same time whether any Canadian member of the international control commission has visited control sites in North Viet Nam, especially Dong Dang on the Chinese border, in recent days?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last part of the question perhaps I could withhold the answer to it until tomorrow. There has been a visit, but whether it has been within recent days I cannot say.
It is a fact that the government of North Viet Nam has asked the commission to withdraw its teams that have been located in various portions of the north. The chairman of the commission, after consultation with Canada and Poland, decided to reply indicating that the commission would prefer to keep its teams in North Viet Nam notwithstanding the allegation that security problems were involved. The government of North Viet Nam repeated the request and the commission asked that the request be put in writing. The reply to this demand that it be in writing has not yet been received.
In any event, if there is a demand that the team sites be withdrawn the commission hopes that the representatives of the commission may, at any rate, stay in Hanoi so they could be in a position to carry out their function of objective adjudication of events in North Viet Nam.
[Mr. Woolliams.l


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
For some days now we have been receiving representations from various Canadian representative bodies passing censure on the U.S. policy in Viet Nam. The arguments put forward in such statements are serious.
On the other hand, we do not receive any statement from Canadian bodies supporting the U.S. attitude in Viet Nam.
In view of the fact that Canada already indicated that she supports the American policy of intervention in Viet Nam, is the minister in a position to give us the true reasons for Canada to support the American policy under the present circumstances?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of the question perhaps I might answer it tomorrow, when I shall also answer the questions put to me by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the minister has just indicated that he will be answering a number of questions tomorrow concerning the Far East, I was wondering whether at the same time he will be kind enough to inform the house to what extent the aid which was voted by this house has gone to Indonesia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the only assistance that has been given to Indonesia is in the form of technical assistance for Indonesian students who are training in Canada. The wheat flour has not been shipped.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister consider using his influence with the Canadian wheat board

to increase the delivery quotas of grain in the Pembina valley in northern Alberta owing to the fact that a most unseasonal snowfall has occurred in this district, which is subject to serious flooding? If the farmers could have their quota raised to 10 bushels an acre they would be able to get their grain out before any flooding. This matter is of some urgency because if there should be an early thaw they would not be able to get their grain out. I should like to bring this matter to the minister's attention, and I am sorry that owing to its urgency I did not have the opportunity to give him notice.


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. gentleman very much, and I will be happy to bring this matter to the attention of the board.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport concerning the business of this house. A couple of days ago, I think, he suggested that the subject matter of Bill No. C-120 be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. In view of the fact that there are a number of people working on the bill, most particularly the counsel for the four western provinces and the Atlantic provinces, who are not yet ready to meet the committee, could the minister give us some assurance that these people will not be called before they are ready to meet the committee?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Technically, Mr. Speaker, the committee would, of course, be master of its own procedure, but I do not think the chairman would object at all to my saying that I feel there are plenty of interested parties who are ready to make representations right now, and the full time of the committee will be occupied with them. There would be no risk whatever of embarrassing anyone who was not ready by calling upon him. Such persons who were not ready could easily wait until the bill was reintroduced in the new session.


George Clyde Nowlan: Would the minister give some reasonable notice of a meeting of the committee to consider the subject matter of the bill?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, unless my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council has further information, I can only say that I have not yet received the assurance of hon. members opposite that they would be agreeable to this course. If they are agreeable to this course I hope that perhaps this could be done some time tomorrow or early on Monday so the committee could meet later in the week. We certainly want to make sure that ample notice is given.


George Clyde Nowlan: I suggest that at least one week's notice be given to the parties who may wish to appear. I am aware of one party who is ready to appear but would require a few days' notice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nothing will be done to embarrass anyone who requires notice.



CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding a statement in the house on the question of the abolition of capital punishment. Is it the intention of the government to bring this matter before parliament at this session or at the next session? I hope he is in a position to advise us in this regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it will not be possible to bring this matter before the house at the present session, but, as I think has already been stated, we hope to do so early in the next session.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if we can take it from his answer that the cases under consideration will be proceeded with in the normal manner?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, until the law is changed the cases will be considered in the normal way.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question similar to one I asked last fall, at which time he gave some indication that he would be able to answer at this time. Can the minister indicate what

Inquiries of the Ministry the situation is in regard to action on the report oi the restrictive trade practices commission respecting the marketing of tires, batteries and accessories?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am still considering with my colleagues the various aspects and implications of the report.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether his government is prepared to open negotiations with the provinces in order to provide old age assistance on a means test basis to needy Canadians between the ages of 60 and 65?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is a very far reaching question of policy. The question of old age assistance is under consideration, as well as ways and means of improving it, but I cannot at this time answer the question my hon. friend has asked.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister received a request from the united fishermen and allied workers union for changes in the fishery closure regulations on the Fraser river and, if so, are any amendments contemplated?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, such a request has been received and the matter is under consideration by the department.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the interest and concern of a great number of my constituents in this matter I should like to ask the minister 
whether she has an answer to the question asked the day before yesterday by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands concerning the closure of the Nanaimo and other Indian hospitals?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is true that there have been informal discussions between departmental officers and the British Columbia hospital insurance services on this subject. Last November I wrote to the provincial minister of health proposing more formal discussions regarding this matter, but to date he has not indicated his reaction to my suggestion.
The department's position is that there are three departmental hospitals, at Sardis, Nanaimo and Prince Rupert, which until quite recently were required for the care and treatment of tuberculous Indians, but because of advances made in the treatment of this disease the case load has dropped to such a degree that two hospitals will be able to handle the situation, so one of them will be surplus.
Since the physical plants at Nanaimo and Prince Rupert are both of temporary world war II construction, one of these is obviously the one that should be closed. However, because the decision will affect the hospital bed situation in British Columbia, provincial hospital insurance people have been brought into the picture, and until I receive an expression of their views I cannot make any further statement on the matter.
I can, however, assure the hon. member that no departmental hospital will be closed without provincial and local hospital authorities having an opportunity to provide for the total hospitalization requirements of the area. I can also assure the hon. member that the department has no intention of closing any British Columbia Indian hospital before April 1, 1966.
I will be pleased to give him a further report after our provincial colleagues have expressed their views on the matter.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STUDY OF ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE OF PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, last fall the Prime Minister stated that he had set up a committee in respect of the economic interdependence of provinces. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether that committee has reported and, if so, is that report available to members of this house?

Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
No, Mr. Speaker. This is an interdepartmental examination that has not as yet been completed.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister inform the house whether any charges have been laid against any person in respect of the race track promotion scandal to which the former minister without portfolio referred in his recent statement?


Guy Favreau: Not
to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question. Was any suggestion or recommendation made in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police report that charges should be laid against any person?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks at the resumption of this session the right hon. Prime Minister stated that the investigation and report in this regard have not been completed as yet.
So far as the question which has just been put is concerned, in view of the fact that the matter has been referred to the attorney general of the province I think it would be improper for me to comment further for the moment at least.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. To refresh his memory I would refer to my written question dated December 1 last, No. 2,534, which was answered yesterday and which I am sure the minister will agree is pertinent to the subject at this time.
Has the minister had an opportunity to investigate the charges of discrimination and political patronage made by officials of the Royal Canadian Legion with reference to hiring practices at Cape Breton Highlands national park, about which I wired him dur-
Inquiries of the Ministry ing the recess asking for an investigation? May I refer him specifically to the statement by the Legion officials indicating that a veteran cannot be hired at the park without having written permission from the local patronage leader of the party in power?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I have had some correspondence on this matter and I have had my officials make an investigation. When a report is made I will be glad either to inform the hon. gentleman or to make a statement in the house.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Will the minister now report on the question put to him on Tuesday last?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Breton South inquired on Tuesday about progress with respect to negotiations with Dosco relating to the possible introduction of a new colliery in that area.
I can tell the hon. member that this involves quite a number of agencies of government. I would suggest that he put his question on the order paper so that he might get a more comprehensive answer from the several government departments involved. I wrote last week to some organizations in his riding which are concerned about this problem and pointed out that the dominion coal board was involved, and that we had invited representatives of the national coal board of Great Britain to investigate the problem and give us some advice. I suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper so that he may receive a full report on all the various aspects.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I am sure the minister can answer without my having to put it on the order paper. He has indicated that representatives of the British coal board have been invited to look at the situation. Can I assume that this indicates that the federal government is prepared to come to the financial assistance of the Dominion Coal Company?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to make any commitment in that re-

Inquiries of the Ministry spect. One does not want to prejudge advice that has been invited and will in a short period be given to us.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of asking the minister to prejudge any decision or findings of the British coal board. I will put the question directly. Is it the policy of the government, as it was of the past government, to stand prepared to give financial assistance to the Dominion Coal Company?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of policy. We have a statute approved by parliament which has determined the assistance given to coal producers up to this time.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister able to advise the house that the minister from Nova Scotia in the government is as well prepared to assist the coal industry as was the minister from that province in the previous government?


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Yukon.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must realize that it is ten minutes to four and that we have had a very long question period. It is not my desire to choke off any questions, but neither should general argument be indulged in by hon. members.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, during the part of the session prior to the recess questions with reference to the unemployed in Cape Breton were continually put aside because they were not considered either urgent or national in scope. It is my privilege to ask a supplementary question as long as the question is not out of order. If the question is out of order I can easily understand the Chair disallowing it. If they are in order I will continue to ask supplementary questions on behalf of the unemployed of Cape Breton just as long as was done this afternoon in the example set with regard to coin collectors. I do not have any coin collectors in my riding, but I would point out that this afternoon we have been denied supplementary questions with regard to the unemployed in Cape Breton while any number of supplementary questions were


permitted with regard to coin collectors. It is my privilege in this house to continue to ask questions in respect of the problems of Cape Breton as long as those questions are in order and as long as the ministers involved have the knowledge to get up and answer them.


An hon. Member:: Which is more important, coin collectors or the unemployed?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has finished, the hon. member for Yukon has the floor.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: It is not a question that need concern the minister yet. I refer to page 11324 of Hansard for December 18 last where the minister agreed to table certain orders in council which I note are available by the return filed yesterday but which have not yet been tabled. Would the minister cause them to be tabled? Also on December 18, as found on page 11321 of Hansard, the minister took a question of mine as notice. Would he refer to that page and perhaps answer the question tomorrow?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I was sure the hon. member for Yukon would be displeased if I did not table these orders in council in French as well as in English. I have asked for French copies, and I will table them tomorrow.



WHEAT-REPORTED CHARGING OF INTEREST ON CASH ADVANCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question I should like to say something further on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. During the last two days members in this area have been getting up and down trying to catch your attention. I was wondering whether as a result of someone tinkering with these lights, a blind spot had been created here. My colleague in front of me got up so many times he had to go out and change his suit. I

waited until the very end, Mr. Speaker, so you could not miss me, and I have an accumulation of questions now.
I should like to address my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware that the Canadian wheat board, in some cases, has charged interest on cash advances on farm stored wheat, even though the repayment of these advances was not in default? If this has been done, under what authority and under what conditions is the board allowed to do this?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not aware of the circumstances put forward by the hon. gentleman. I will inquire, and if there has been anything illegal it will certainly be corrected.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to be open season on the Speaker now that this session has been resumed. Are there any other members who want to ask questions? Have I overlooked anyone in the chamber?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I had one more question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but I see he has left the chamber.



FLOOD CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the fact that the very urgently needed $36 million flood control scheme for metro Toronto is stalled until additional funds can be obtained from the provincial and federal governments, I wonder if any federal funds for this project have been requested? If so, what was the government's response?


Arthur Laing: In view of the complex nature of this situation I should be pleased if the hon. member would permit me to take this question as notice, and I will make a statement on it in a day or so.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council? The Minister
Canada Labour Code
of Justice (Mr. Favreau) might advise him to use his earphone.
Since I have received many complaints- and I am not stating here a grievance-from visitors from the province of Quebec who, naturally, come here to visit the parliament buildings, to the effect that English speaking guides only are assigned to them when touring parliament, would it be possible to have bilingual guides in order that those visitors who do not understand English may, at least, hear in French whatever description is given when they are visiting the parliament buildings?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of fhe Privy Council):: I believe that matter comes under your jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, but I am very familiar with the problem. My understanding is that in all cases where it is known a tourist would prefer one language or the other, an effort is made to provide guides who are proficient in that language. I believe this is done on all occasions. However, with the number of tourists going through the building, sometimes as high as 6,000 in one day, it may be possible that one person or another does have a guide who does not use the preferred language with the fluency or eloquence the tourist might desire. Every effort is made, however, to make sure tourists are addressed in the language they prefer.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 17, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-126 respecting hours of work, minimum wages, etc.-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose yesterday clause 5 was under consideration, clauses 1 and 3 having been allowed to stand.
On clause 5-Standard hours of work.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: At the conclusion of yesterday's sitting we were considering clause 5 of this bill. We had the good fortune to obtain a statement from the minister in answer to the many questions that had been posed to him during the earlier part of the debate. We were all gratified that finally we did have this statement, because certainly the efforts of his colleague from Hamilton East to give us some answers left us very confused.

Canada Labour Code
The minister's statement did contain some clarifications. I believe that part of the trouble in which the minister finds himself in piloting this bill through the house results from his own actions. Last November 2, I believe it was, having been made aware of the impact and possible dislocating effect this bill would have on several national industries, I made representations to him that the bill should go to a special or standing committee where evidence could be presented and witnesses examined. The minister, rather cavalierly, I thought, rejected this plan. However, he must take responsibility for that action, and having taken that action he finds himself in some difficulty today.
Those of us who have dealt with the many representations made in connection with this bill have, I think, to ask questions in order to have the bill clarified. It was helpful when the minister distributed the amendments he proposed to make to the various sections. This has given us a chance to look at the whole package, and perhaps that will facilitate the passage of clause 5. Although I do not agree entirely with the minister, I should like to quote what he said as recorded on page 11452 of Hansard:
I am satisfied that the facts that have been put forward by the trucking industry are sound and that this industry would he among the most eligible for a deferment for that period. In that case we would immediately establish an inquiry under clause 35.
Later I posed a question to him and, after he chastised me a bit because I misunderstood him, he refused to go any further, saying that he had gone about as far as he could go. I do not believe this answer is acceptable. We know the problems of the trucking industry, one of which relates to the fact it is controlled by two jurisdictions, and another to the fact that they compete in a highly organized field where their competition is heavily subsidized by government. I believe, therefore, that the minister should give an assurance in slightly more definite terms than he has that the passage of this bill will not create havoc in the trucking industry.
I see the minister is temporarily busy, but I should like him to hear this argument. I think we are concerned, as representatives in parliament to whom representations have been made, that the implementation of this bill will not create havoc or disturb the trucking industry. I hold no brief for the maintenance of the status quo in the industry. I want that to be clearly understood.

I am in favour of the general principle. But I do not think the minister's answer has been as clear as it might be. He says he recognizes that the submissions of the industry are such as to qualify for an inquiry. But there will be a considerable time lapse between the setting up of an inquiry and the announcement of the findings when the question has finally been determined. This might lead to havoc in the industry.
I think the minister himself recognizes the great problems which this industry faces and in the circumstances I believe he could go further than he has gone so far, and say that the bill will not apply to the trucking industry until findings have been made by an inquiry which could be instituted immediately. This is all I was asking yesterday in the debate on this subject. It is not only management which has made representations; representations have been made to me by employees. I have taken the trouble to check them and they have been made voluntarily. They have a fear that in some cases their take home pay would be reduced by as much as 25 per cent as a result of these restrictions. Certainly, the minimum wage suggested is not a factor in this situation. These people are unionized; they have union agreements which provide for wages well in excess of the minimum suggested here. But in the absence of amendments, the hours of work and the restrictions set out here might result in a loss of take home pay amounting to 25 per cent.
I turn for a few moments to a statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Hamilton East. He spoke about an increased safety factor as being somewhat of a fringe benefit. But it seemed to me it amounted to a reflection on the whole industry when he cited one case in support of his contention. I would remind him there are a large number of other factors which result in death on the highway. Great efforts are made by the industry to provide for safety in trucking operations and to train their personnel accordingly. Nevertheless, since human beings are what they are, some truckers may break the regulations from time to time. This may have been the case in the instance which the hon. member for Hamilton East called to our attention. I do not think it is fair that reflections should be cast on the management and operation of an entire industry on the basis of a single case. In the main, as I understand it, employees are not unhappy with their contracts and with the way they work. They certainly

do not wish to have their take home pay reduced, as it may well be under these arrangements.
I do not wish to hold up progress at this point, but I would point out there is still doubt about the implications of the minister's policy. I had a telephone call only recently asking me what the hon. gentleman means. Does he mean that once this bill is proclaimed the industry is placed in a chaotic position until such time as there is a deferment of the provisions, or will a deferment be granted immediately? That is the point on which I should like clarification.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would reply by saying that, presumably, as soon as this bill passes, the trucking industry or any other industry would make a submission and it would be possible to defer the operation of part I immediately on the coming into effect of the bill on July 1 of this year. So, from the first day of the coming into effect of the bill it will be possible to delay the operation of part I. Then of course it is understood that in order to establish an arrangement beyond the period of deferment, 18 months, an inquiry would be set up to determine the facts which would assist in deciding what might subsequently be done. So there is no danger that any industry which is eligible for a deferment would be put into a chaotic condition because of the application of part I and its subsequent removal.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I thank the minister for his statement and I think the industry will welcome it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I rise to speak on this clause having made extensive inquiries in my area on this subject as far as it affects the operation of country elevators in western Canada. In addition, I have become aware of the problem as it affects truckers. I do not intend to speak at length on the trucking aspect of this question but I should like to bring to the minister's attention a matter which, although it cannot be dealt with under the particular clause before us, is nevertheless one of which he should be aware.
As the responsible minister he should take care to see that the labour force of Canada is protected in every field of its operations as modern society demands. In the trucking industry there are many difficulties to be faced. There is evidence that in the well organized, efficient and large operations in central Canada the employees do receive a high degree of consideration from their employers. But there are areas of western Canada in which the trucking industry is neither 20220-726
Canada Labour Code
as strong nor as large as it is elsewhere. We have seen the development there of a series of small companies, sometimes possessing their own equipment but more often renting it from outside. Because of the fierce competition which exists in an area such as the prairies, many of these small companies work on a marginal basis, and what often happens is this-when they "go broke" they simply do not pay the drivers or the rent of the tractors; they set themselves up as new companies and thus avoid their responsibility toward the labour force. The provinces have provided strong legislation to protect the working man-mechanics lien legislation and so on-but the drivers of these tractor trailors still do not have the protection to which they are entitled. If they do go to law, where is the law effective? Is it in the province where their truckloads originated, in the area where the driver is domiciled, or in the province in which the trucking company has its head office? I leave this question with the minister. I know it cannot be dealt with under this particular clause, but it is something which should be brought to his knowledge.
I propose to deal mainly in the course of these remarks with the elevator system in western Canada. We have developed in western Canada what is probably the most efficient method of handling grain in bulk that the world has seen. The fact that we are able to store and handle grain under conditions of strict regulation has given us great ability to compete in world markets, even though on occasions ministers do not take their full share in the task of protecting this type of operation. This has a bearing on the question which is before us today because the bill proposes to introduce a certain rigidity into the hours worked by elevator operators. Let me make this very clear: Every party in this house, and I would think every individual in Canada, supports the principle that the working people of this country must be protected as far as hours of work are concerned. But we must remember that in this delicately balanced industry concerned with the handling of grain in western Canada there are three parties involved, the management, the operators themselves, and the farmers. It seems to me that the present legislation as presented shows great ignorance of the manner in which this particular industry works.
I am going to try, in a positive and I hope constructive way, to put forward a proposal that I think will be acceptable to the minister

Canada Labour Code
and I ask for his concurrence in accepting this approach. First of all, Mr. Chairman, it is impossible, in the operation of a country elevator in western Canada, to average out on a two weeks period; there has to be an annual averaging. From the remarks of the minister the other day I think this is now possible, and therefore this is one point that is clear.
Second, there is a difference of interest as between management, the farmers and the elevator operators themselves. The farmers obviously want that elevator open when they have grain to deliver, and as a matter of fact one bit of legislation of the federal government, namely the Canada Grain Act, makes it mandatory for the elevator operator to keep his elevator open 24 hours a day if the grain is suitable for delivery. So here you have one bit of federal legislation making it mandatory for the elevator to stay open, and another bit of federal legislation saying he is limited to eight hours, even though there is an allowance for averaging. I would suggest that this sounds like an insuperable hurdle to get over at the present time, but it actually is not. I will come back to that in a minute.
Let us look for a moment at the interest of the management. Most of the elevators in western Canada are owned by the farmers themselves. We do have the private elevator companies under the association known as the northwest line elevators association, but generally speaking the interest of management is to keep their costs under tight control, not just because of the profit motive, which would be true in the case of private elevators and is one of their main interests in operating, but this even applies in the case of the coops which handle most of our grain. Even though they can take the excess profit and turn it back into dividends, the fact remains that they are not masters of their own destiny. Under federal legislation now in existence these elevator companies, whether privately owned or co-operatively owned, have to obey the regulations of the board of grain commissioners. The board of grain commissioners decide what price they shall receive for the handling of a bushel of grain; the board of grain commissioners decide what will be the price for storing grain. So here you have one government agency insisting, by law, with the full authority of the government of Canada, that these shall be the maximums; and if anything is done under another law, such as is now proposed, to push the costs above those ceilings, there is a clash of interest. Once again this may appear to be a hurdle

that is very difficult to get over, and once again I say that it is not as difficult as appears on the surface.
The third group are the elevator operators themselves. The elevator operator is a labourer. He works, and should have the protection of a limitation of hours on a weekly or annual basis like any other labouring man. But at the same time as he works in manual labour for his management or boss, which may be the local pool committee, a provincial pool or a private elevator company, he is also a manager himself, because almost every country elevator has some other business line. He is a small town businessman. He may handle fertilizer; he may handle coal; he may handle articles used on the farm. He is in competition with the groceryman; he is in competition with the hardwareman. In fact, he is one of the main small businessmen in our prairie towns. So when you try to draft legislation for a private businessman that limits his hours, you are getting into a field with regard to which it is completely impossible to legislate.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, what are we going to do? Are we going to look on this elevator operator as a labourer, deserving the protection that labouring men get all across the country with regard to limitation of hours, or are we going to consider him as a businessman? I understand that management have made some representations to the government. I understand that management have pointed out that under one of the sections of this bill you can exempt certain people. I think this section deals with the question of whether they are managers or superintendents, or who exercises management functions. This is under clause 3 (3). I understand, too, that one group of employees have made representations to the government. I refer to the employees of the Saskatchewan wheat pool association.
I would like to point out to the minister that here you have a contradiction which I have expressed in general terms in the remarks I have just made. Management want their industry exempt; the employees-and the only organized group is the Saskatchewan wheat pool employees-want the principle of this bill established. We have not heard from the employees of the other pool elevators or the private company elevators because they have no such thing as an association. Therefore, like many other hon. members of this house, I asked last fall whether the minister would consider letting us take this matter up before a committee, where we could draw

from representatives of management and employees, and in the presence of both could question them. In this way we could better decide what course of action should be followed in this bill and would resolve these apparent contradictions.
In my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, I suggested that I would try to put forward something of a constructive nature. I think I have made it clear that the elevator men- and I have seen the majority of them in my own constituency-do want the protection of this legislation; they do want to feel they have a right to be out of that elevator at their own time, without being under the thumb of, (a) their customers or (b) their management, if they have worked an average of 40 hours. But as they are important parts of the integrated, complicated machinery of marketing grain, they understand that they cannot work under a rigid system. There are weeks in the year when there is not a single operation carried on in their elevators that has to do with the handling of grain-not a single thing, hour after hour. If they are under a rigid system, if they have to stay there eight hours a day when there is nothing to do, and if their supervisor calls them from Winnipeg, Regina or Calgary and they happen not to be there and not answer the phone, you force on them a ridiculous situation which they solved long ago themselves.
In most of our towns in the prairies the elevator men in each town have made quiet, little agreements, not called the national labour code but which could be called the local labour code. They agreed among themselves how they would handle this question of protection of working hours. There is no written document; it is just a gentlemen's agreement. I would like to think that in the great majority of western towns they have earned for themselves, by co-operation and gentlemen's agreements, the type of protection that this bill hopes to provide.
What they fear about this bill, if they are brought under it, are the usual types of rigidity that are associated with labour codes in other fields; that they will be the subject of an espionage system which they would not be able to live under; and if somebody has a light on in the elevator at nine o'clock at night, they could be reported for working overtime, although it may only be that the usual pinochle game is going on there. This is the type of thing they do not want. '
On the other hand, even though there is an agreement to work so many hours, supposing a farmer has been hauling a load of 20220-726J
Canada Labour Code
grain 20 miles and then has a breakdown five miles out of town, phones in and says that he will be an hour late, does the elevator man want to be called up on the carpet for breaking the regulated hours of labour? The elevator man does want a system which is workable.
Now, here are the terms which he would accept. First, he would like the right to establish an annual average. In his speech the day before yesterday the minister said that right has now been given. Second, he would like to be able to sit down with management and arrive at a code of hours which will keep him out of the hot seat with the farmers on the one side and management on the other. He knows that a 40 hour average week over the year will handle all the work he has to do in his elevator, so he would like to sit down with people who are knowledgeable, not only his management but also with the farmers, and work out hours which are acceptable to all three.
He also knows that if the act goes through management is frightened that they may have to hire extra men in some elevators when the hours of work during the day do not enable all the grain to be brought in, This happens in certain seasons in the year. The elevator man does not want that to happen, because under his instructions he is held responsible for everything which happens at the elevator, both financial and physical. If someone continues working for another four hours and something happens, he is the man who is held responsible, so naturally he does not want a second or extra man brought in.
Then with regard to overtime pay, if he is the one to decide how much overtime should be worked he knows that this creates constant friction with his boss. He knows, as I say, that he can handle all the work during a 40 hour average week, but he would like to sit down with his employer and work out the hours he should be at the elevator during the busy seasons, which are mostly in the spring and sometimes in the fall. He can handle the great bulk of the farmers' business without inconvenience to the farmers, yet he would still like the right as a private businessman, who derives his income from selling things both to the farmers and to the community, not to be held responsible under the act for the hours worked in his elevator.
His proposal would be: Let these hours which are arrived at by collective agreement between management and operator deal only with the opening of the elevator. Let us agree,

Canada Labour Code
he would say, that during the months from the middle of April to July 31 he stays open 10 hours a day during this busy season, right through till the end of the crop year on July 31. But in the slack seasons let him work only six hours a day. It might even be put down as low as three hours a day, or whatever time is arrived at by mutual consent. If the elevator management, the elevator men's association or individual employees agree that on the labouring component of the job the employee has not worked longer than an average of 40 hours a week, then he will be satisfied and he has the protection of the act. Even though most of the others in the community have already done this by mutual agreement, there are still areas in the prairies where anything goes, and this act should protect these people from that type of thing. So I think that this proposal can satisfy the interests of all.
On the question of deferment and adopting an inquiry procedure, I would suggest that if the northwest line elevator association could show they had reached agreement with their employees, either by the plebiscite technique or some other form of referendum, that they would adopt an arrangement like this, then that should be considered as protection enough for the people in that particular operation. Likewise with the Saskatchewan wheat pool and their provincial-wide association of employees. This can be done in the Alberta wheat pool and the united grain growers. The only place Where there might be difficulty is with the Manitoba wheat pool operations, where under their system in most cases each elevator is a single elevator, as distinguished from the provincial entity in the Alberta and Saskatchewan pools.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that that would be a proposal which all of us here could support. We would have done our duty in protecting these working men in their labouring functions. We would also not interfere with private business operations which can be conducted 24 hours a day if wanted. But we have put ourselves clearly on record that the hours of opening during the year for the reception of grain shall be an average of 40 a week during the year.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Less holidays.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is understood. At the moment I do not think it is possible to extract this understanding from the bill, in spite of the amendment the minister suggested in his speech on Tuesday. However, if he adopted this proposal I think he would satisfy management which knows it is under

the control of the board of grain commissioners with regard to rates. It would also satisfy the workers and the great majority of the farmers, because if they knew that this man's elevator would be open 10 hours a day in the busy season for measuring moisture in the grain, for reception of grain and for all the other operations, they would not object to the elevator opening for only four, five or six hours a day during the slack season.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the substance of the constructive proposal I wanted to make, and I do not think there is anything more I need add. I would emphasize once again that the hours of opening for the reception of grain are the key. If a private operator is in his elevator doing his books, or is playing a pinochle game, or is even loading grain in his own time, whatever he is doing some person will not be able to phone up an inspector or the police and complain. He should be removed from this sort of Gestapo type threat, and if he is he will co-operate. He wants this legislation; at the same time he knows he cannot cripple the management of which he is part.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Chairman, I should like briefly to commend the hon. member for Qu'Appelle for his very thought-provoking suggestions and recommendations which he has given the Minister of Labour with regard to this bill. I should like to go further and say that I feel quite sure his suggestions and recommendations would apply most favourably to mills in Ontario and eastern Canada. There is quite a difference between the operation of western mill operators and the operation of those in eastern Canada, and Ontario particularly. I think the minister owes it to this house to prove more conclusively than he has thus far that the small village mill operator, the privately owned business, should be forced to come within this proposed legislation. I think the hours of work are very well controlled by provincial labour regulations within the respective provinces. I realize that yesterday the minister cited the Canadian Wheat Board Act as his verification for bringing the Ontario and small mill operator, chopping mill operator, and so on, under this particular act. However, I still do not think the minister has given this committee sufficient reasons, or supported his case with existing legislation, for proving that these mills in Ontario should come under this present legislation. I know that there are other hon. members on this side of the house who feel similarly, so I

hope we will not move too fast on this legislation at the moment.


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday evening as recorded at pages 11392 and 11393 of Hansard I raised a question in respect of the application of this legislation to the feed mills of Ontario and eastern Canada. I should like it clearly understood that because I spoke only of those feed mills, that is not an indication that I am not interested in the problems relating to the trucking, railway and fishing industries, as well as others. I am pinpointing my remarks to the application of this legislation to Ontario feed mills and elevators, and in this regard I referred to the sentiments of the Ontario feed dealers association and the Ontario elevators association.
Following the minister's reply last evening, in which he drew our attention to the fact that he bases his position on section 45 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and proceeded to read that section into the record, I took the trouble of studying the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Canada Grain Act and the British North America Act. Amendments to these three acts were placed on the statute books in 1950 in order to tighten regulations relating to the handling of grain by the Canadian wheat board. The foundation for this tightening procedure had to be laid on the basis of section 92 (10 (c) of the British North America Act which states:
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more provinces.
The beginning of section 10 states:
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:-
Paragraph (c) which I have just read falls within that description. I suggest that is the foundation paragraph.
The same principle has been followed in the Canada Grain Act which supports the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Section 45 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which the minister quoted last evening, reads as follows:
For greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of any declaration in the Canada Grain Act that any elevator is a work for the general advantage of Canada, it is hereby declared that all flour mills, feed mills, feed warehouses and seed cleaning mills, whether heretofore constructed or hereafter to be constructed, are and each of them is hereby declared to be works or a work for the general advantage of Canada, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, each and every mill or warehouse mentioned or described in the schedule is a work for the general advantage of Canada.
Canada Labour Code
There is no question in that regard.
We must then consider the Canada Grain Act which lays the foundation for the Canadian Wheat Board Act. A number of sections in this act deal with elevators and define elevator in the following terms:
"elevator" means any premises into which western grain may be received, or out of which it may be discharged, directly from or into railway cars or vessels, and, notwithstanding anything contained in any other general or special act, includes any such premises owned or operated by Her Majesty, either directly or through any individual, public body or company;
That, of course, refers to terminal elevators.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member in the middle of his very interesting argument, but I am wondering whether he intends to pursue this line of argument extensively. While this subject has been discussed during our consideration of clause 5, the member is now presenting a substantial argument in relation to the interpretation of specific subclauses of clause 3, and I would suggest that perhaps his argument should be deferred until we reach consideration of clause 3, which has been allowed to stand. Perhaps we could attempt now to settle the points in respect of clause 5 and consider those arguments referred to by the hon. member later when we revert to clause 3. There has been some leeway allowed hon. members in this regard, and that is why the Chair has permitted the hon. member to at least commence his argument; but if he intends to be very extensive he might reserve his remarks until we return to a consideration of the appropriate clause.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I appreciate your comments and direction, Mr. Chairman, but I hope you will allow me to conclude my argument, and I assure you I will not be too lengthy.
It is my suggestion that I can show conclusive proof that the minister is not interpreting this section correctly. A reading of these three acts to which I have referred might indicate that the minister has an air-tight case, but that is not the situation.
I have taken the trouble to go back to Hansard for 1950 wherein is recorded the discussions about these proposed amendments. These discussions are recorded, at least in part, in Hansard of May 31, 1950 at page 3034. Those discussions quite clearly show what was intended by the then minister of trade and commerce, Right Hon. C. D. Howe. That intention I suggest is quite different from the intention of the Minister of

Canada Labour Code
Labour as indicated by his interpretation of this legislation.
At that time parliament was amending the three acts in order to give the Canadian wheat board greater control over the handling of grain. I should like to quote from page 3034 of Hansard for that date where the following was offered in substitution for the then section 133 of the act:
"Subject to this section, the operator of every licensed public or semi-public terminal elevator and, unless otherwise provided by the terms of his licence, the operator of every eastern elevator, shall, without discrimination and in the order in which the same arrives at such elevator and is offered, receive into such elevator all grain of any grade for which there is available storage of the kind required by the person by whom such grain is offered."
Mr. Chairman, I put that quotation on the record in order to lay the foundation of my argument so that it will be understood.
Returning again to that page of Hansard, the following question was asked by Mr. Charlton, the then member for Brant.
Does that include all grain elevators? Section 10 reads:
"All elevators in Canada heretofore or hereafter constructed are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada."
Does section 6 include all elevators? If it does, I think it is going a little too far.
This was Mr. Howe's answer:
According to the definitions of the act:
'Elevator' "means any premises into which western grain may be received, or out of which it may be discharged, directly from or into railway cars or vessels, and, notwithstanding anything contained in any other general or special act, includes any such premises owned or operated by His Majesty, either directly or through any individual, public body or company."
That is just a rereading of the paragraph I read a moment ago. Mr. Howe went on to say:
Therefore, if it is an elevator to receive and discharge western grain it comes under the act. If it is holding only local grain it does not come under the act.


Mr. Charlton:: It does not include an ordinary feed elevator in eastern Canada-
I want the minister to note this.


Mr. Howe:: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: -buying western feed grain?


William Marvin Howe: No, it would not; it speaks of shipping western grain. It would not include a feed elevator that ships western feed.


John Alpheus Charlton: This section does not mention anything about reshipment at all, as I see it.


William Marvin Howe: The elevator definition is as I just read it. An eastern feed mill is not a work for the benefit of Canada and does not come under the grain act.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not think that is a satisfactory answer because there is nothing in the bill which says it is confined to grain in transit, western grain or eastern grain. The words "eastern elevator" are used in section 6. If this is discrimination against an eastern elevator that is buying feed grain and has to accept grade 3 grain in lieu of grade 2, which it ordered, I do not think it is right.	.


William Marvin Howe: Which would my hon. friend consider discrimination-to have it declared a work for the benefit of Canada and subject to the jurisdiction of the board of grain commissioners, or otherwise?


John Alpheus Charlton: I am not saying anything about that.


William Marvin Howe: My hon. friend spoke of discrimination.


John Alpheus Charlton: As I see it the discrimination is right in this section of the bill.


William Marvin Howe: Does the hon. member want the feed mill to be a public elevator or not?


John Alpheus Charlton: It is right in the bill. He must accept the grain regardless of whether it was what he ordered or not. That is the discrimination I am speaking of.


William Marvin Howe: No. A feed mill in eastern Canada is a private institution. The owner of the mill does not have to accept any grain unless he wishes to.
That is what makes these eastern elevators entirely different from western public elevators which have to accept grain under the regulations prescribed under the Canada Grain Act.
He does not handle the public's grain. I do not know of any feed mill in eastern Canada that handles public grain.
The section was agreed to. I submit there is a very great question with regard to whether or not the minister is interpreting the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Wheat Board Act properly. I submit he should re-examine his position in this regard very carefully and I suggest that ordinary eastern feed mills and elevators should be exempt or that the legislation should be declared to be not applicable to them.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 5 carry?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, in view of what has been said by the hon. member for Middlesex West I think it is only proper that the Minister of Labour should clarify the position. It would seem that the matter of whether feed mills in eastern Canada come under federal jurisdiction is now in dispute and I think the minister should clarify that point.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Before the minister replies to the argument advanced by the hon. member, I should like to renew the suggestion made a moment ago that the type of argument made by the hon. member, which related very specifically and directly to the

application of the act, should be considered under clause 3. If the hon. member wanted to give effect to the argument he has just made to the committee by moving an amendment, certainly no such amendment could be relevant to clause 5. It would have to be moved under clause 3. I would suggest that what the hon. member has now proposed should be specifically considered by the minister when we reach consideration of clause 3.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: May I ask for direction? How is it we are on clause 5 if clause 3 has not already been disposed of?


Lucien Lamoureux: It was allowed to stand back in the month of October. Shall clause 5 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Scheduling hours of work.
Michael Starr: I think the minister wishes to propose an amendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have an amendment to clause 7 that I should like my colleague, the Solicitor General, to move. I should explain the amendment before I ask my friend to move it. In consultation with certain industries we found that clause 7 was quite rigid and did not take into account in particular the case of ships' crews who by custom and necessity have to work seven days a week for a period of time, and by custom have their days of rest at the end of a particular voyage or trip. If this clause were applied rigidly it would mean the cessation of operations on these particular days. So the purpose of the amendment really is to take into account this particular difficulty and to provide that regulations may be developed to prescribe hours of work that will take into account this particular situation. If it meets the convenience of the committee, I should like my hon. friend to move the amendment.


Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That BUI C-126, an act respecting hours of work, minimum wages, annual vacations and holidays with pay in federal works, undertakings and businesses, be amended by striking out line 33 on page 4 and substituting therefor the following:
''7. Except as may be otherwise prescribed by the regulations, hours of work in a week shall be so scheduled"


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Do we also have the French version?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word about the amendment to clause 7 which has just been proposed. I am happy
Canada Labour Code
to say that I find myself in favour of it. I think it is clear from the context of the amendment that it is not intended to alter the general and normal practice of one mandatory day of rest in every seven, which should be Sunday wherever practicable.
As the minister has said, this is a problem which does arise in connection with certain occupations. He may recall that I did have an informal conversation with him on this subject quite some time ago, particularly as it relates to coastal shipping in British Columbia. We have a collective agreement in operation in that industry under which practices have been established which provide that, normally, crews are at sea for 15 days and then are able to spend 15 days on shore. Certainly, if some arrangement had not been made to make the application of clause 7 a little less rigid than as originally drafted, I could envisage a situation under which ships would be pulling in to some little hole in the wall along the B.C. coast, and the crew spending a rather unpleasant rest day, when they would have preferred to have that rest day with their families when they returned home.
I just wish to say that I am pleased the minister has proposed this amendment. It had been my intention, if he had not taken that initiative, to have suggested an amendment to the clause.


Mr. Leboe:: Will the minister tell us
whether or not he believes the interpretation of the word "practicable" would cover religious beliefs as well? I am thinking of a situation in which an individual does not work on Saturday but works on Sunday. Would the word be broad enough to take that into consideration?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think this word is broad enough to cover that situation.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the amendment
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 8-Overtime pay.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is one point I believe we should have clarified. I realize that a number of these clauses are not at all contentious. However, on Tuesday evening the minister indicated to the house, as recorded on page 11399, that he was going to answer a number of questions. There were a great

Canada Labour Code
many questions asked about eastern feed mills in Ontario, as well as some other industries. At that point the minister said:
Mr. Chairman, naturally I expect to answer as many questions as I can, and 1 thank hon. members for their interest in this particular part of the bill. I think perhaps we should wait until tomorrow before I begin to do so, so I am quite agreeable that we now call it ten o'clock, I will attempt to deal with all the questions that have been asked when we return to our consideration of this bill tomorrow.
There were a lot of questions asked and the minister has not given any explanations as yet. The only objection I have to proceeding under these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, is this: I certainly agree that clause 3 is still standing, and it is perhaps the most pertinent clause upon which questions had been asked. However, clause 5 was certainly related to these things. Many of us fear that a number of these clauses will be allowed to slip through before the minister has given any of the assurances he has indicated he would give. I believe a lot of time would be saved in getting this bill through if the minister could give some indication when he is going to give us some answers to these questions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think my hon. friend is mistaken. I made this commitment to answer questions on Tuesday. Yesterday, before the house rose at six o'clock, I spent quite a long time dealing with specific industries. I answered the questions, at least as well as I could and to the apparent satisfaction of members who were in the house. I did deal with trucking, shipping, grain elevators and feed mills as well as pipe lines, and made quite a number of answers. I thought I had cleared up the situation. I regret if my hon. friend was not in the house, but I did live up to my commitment.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In order that there will be no misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman, I may say I have gone through what the minister did say. I thought he had indicated earlier he would give a somewhat more comprehensive assurance than he did when he replied last evening. Can the minister indicate to us now -I think it would save a lot of time-if he can give somewhat more definite assurances on this question of eastern feed mills in particular.


Lucien Lamoureux: I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member the fact that we are now considering clause 8. It seems to me the remarks that he is making now, and the suggestion he is making to the minister,

are not relevant at all to the question of overtime pay.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was raising a point of order in the hope that it would facilitate the passage of the bill. I know many members want to see the bill passed. However, if we are not going to get co-operation-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am quite prepared to deal with eastern feed mills in reply to the statement made by the hon. member for Middlesex West. However, the Chair made a ruling, which the committee accepted, that I should wait until clause 3 was under consideration and deal with the feed mill question under clause 3. If there are questions asked as to the application of the clause, there will be a full opportunity to pursue the situation with respect to any industry. I am quite ready to co-operate and provide as much information as I have available. However, I have to follow the clauses, particularly in the light of the ruling by the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I believe it would expedite the passage of the bill if we had an explanation under this clause. All of these clauses are, in a sense, related. Some questions were put by the former minister of agriculture in which the western members are interested. I agree with the ruling of the Chair, but these clauses are interrelated. However, without clause 3 the other clauses do not mean anything. If we had an explanation now, we might just hold up our hands and say "Agreed".


Lucien Lamoureux: So far as the Chair is concerned, there is a rule of relevancy that has to be applied in so far as that is possible. When we are considering a clause such as clause 8, which is so limited in its application, I suggest to hon. members that this is not the time to have a general discussion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate your ruling, if the minister were ready to make this explanation covering eastern mills, I think he should make it now. If we know there is going to be no hardship imposed on the employees at these country elevators, then that will influence our attitude to some of these clauses. Surely if the minister is ready to make a statement, he should make it now. If he makes a statement at the end, when we have agreed to a lot of these clauses which may affect these people, then we are left in an impossible situation. I think he should make this explanation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If we could have the
consent of the committee to regularize the proceedings, I would make a brief statement at this point. I certainly appreciate the speech made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, which I thought was extremely useful and helpful in allaying some of the apprehension which had been raised about this particular bill in relation to country elevators. He put forward a proposal which, to me, is sensible and which could be fitted into the framework of this particular bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will it be fitted in?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course it will be fitted in; there is no question about that. As a matter of fact, the former minister of agriculture adopted a rather progressive line in connection with that particular aspect. I was glad to have his views that the principle of this bill is applicable in the way he has suggested.
In so far as feed mills are concerned, let me say that the late C. D. Howe has been accused of many things in this house but he has never been accused of being a constitutional authority.


Mr. Knowles:: He may be applauding that remark right now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He may have made certain legal arguments, but my advice is that these mills are under federal jurisdiction because they have been declared by an act of parliament to be for the general advantage of Canada, and this act makes them subject to the conditions which are here outlined. The hon. member for Ontario brought in an Annual Vacations Act, and its conditions apply to these feed mills. They are subject to the terms of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. We have certified the feed mills and flour mills of eastern Canada as coming within the terms of that act. So the legal opinion is that they are covered by this bill. That is my advice, and the examples I have given illustrate that it is sound advice. If the hon. member has sound arguments to the contrary they can be tested in the courts. But that is the situation as we see it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It is, then, I take it, the minister's intention that no exception should be made in the case of eastern feed mills.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That would be an unwarranted conclusion. But no facts have been put forward to suggest that the system proposed for the country elevators cannot be applied
Canada Labour Code
with equal success to the feed mills in eastern Canada. Why is it presumed that the principles of this bill cannot be applied suitably to the eastern feed mills in the same way as the Annual Vacations Act? There was no request to exempt them on that occasion, and if we were to exempt them completely from the present measure they would be in a completely unregulated field, one which provincial jurisdiction would have no authority to enter.
As the hon. member knows, there are a number of provisions in this bill designed to meet difficulties if any should exist in connection with feed mills under the arrangements proposed. There is the averaging system, the overtime, the provision for securing a deferment and so on. There is yet another point. If the hon. member would look at the section dealing with minimum wages he would find it is possible to defer the application of the $1.25 rate for 18 months-not beyond that time-and only in respect of enterprises of a local character. This is the only exception to the minimum wage proposal, and it can apply to local feed mills. If it can be demonstrated that the introduction of the minimum wage at once would work a hardship on the industry or upon the employees, this course can be followed. But I do not think it is unreasonable to expect all feed mills in every part of Canada 18 months from the application of this bill to pay $1.25 an hour. I think this would be good for the rural people. It would have the effect of raising standards in the rural communities of Canada. I do not agree that it would be bad for the farmers, because one of the problems we have in securing farm labour today is the provision of proper working conditions so as to attract men to employment on farms. This is a step which will give a lead in that direction and I do not think it would be sound to remove the feed mills from its application.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the desire of the committee that we should now return to clause 8 and delay this general discussion on the application of the bill? Is that agreed?


Mr. Smallwood:: I have one more question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. In order to permit the house to consider private members' business it is my duty to leave the Chair.


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

Private Bills PRIVATE BILLS



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-41, to incorporate Mountain Pacific Pipeline Ltd.-Mr. Groos (for Mr. Deachman).
Bill No. S-43, respecting Canadian-Mon-tana Pipe Line Company-Mr. Gundlock.

Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-47, respecting the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.


Frank Howard: Before we adopt this motion for second reading I think cognizance should be taken of the fact that during the Christmas recess a housecleaning took place. I have no idea what has become of the bills I had in my desk and my seat-mate does not know where his are, either. I wonder whether we could have an explanation of the merits of this bill and be told what it is all about.


John (Jack) Davis: This is a brief and simple bill. It is designed to wind up the operation of the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company. This company is presently owned substantially by the three municipalities on the north shore in Vancouver, the districts of west Vancouver and north Vancouver, and the city of North Vancouver. The company was incorporated many years ago. It built the original second narrows bridge. Since then a much larger bridge has been built at the second narrows and the old property is now used solely for railway purposes; it has been sold to the Canadian National Railways. All that the company now represents is financial assets largely in the form of Canada savings bonds, and it is the desire of the municipalities I have mentioned to wind up the company and recover these assets so that they can be used for other municipal purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-44, to incorporate the Royal College of Dentists of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us have an explanation.


Frank Howard: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we could go through the same process with this bill as well.


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Speaker, the bill now under consideration is non-controversial. It tends to incorporate the Royal College of Dentists of Canada.
This bill has been drawn up at the request of the Canadian Dental Association at its annual convention held in Vancouver in 1962. At that meeting the following resolution was submitted and unanimously carried.

Agreed. The following resolution was adopted:
Whereas it is apparent that there is an increasing trend towards specialization in dentistry, and
Whereas candidates electing to prepare themselves as specialists are in need of guidance and encouragement, and
Whereas a recent survey has shown a wide variation in provincial bylaws respecting specialists, and
Whereas there is a need for an organization, on a national level, for setting up qualifications for dental specialists and for the examination of those who claim to possess these qualifications, therefore be it
Resolved that at the earliest possible moment, this association seek legislation to incorporate the Royal College of Dentists of Canada according to the pattern proposed in this report.
The object of this bill is to protect the general public against those who claim they are specialists in dentistry and charge the fees of the specialist, without having the necessary qualifications. I admit that in a good many provinces it is impossible for a dentist to call himself a specialist without having the necessary qualifications, but in certain provinces there are no regulations regarding dental associations and the control of those who claim they are specialists in the profession. This bill is, therefore, for the protection of the public and also for the good government of the profession throughout Canada. It is almost exactly the same incorporation as that which applies to medical specialists, physicians and surgeons, under what we call the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.
This bill is a symbol; it is for the protection of the public and to encourage more dentists to specialize in dentistry.
I hope that hon. members have read the bill and will adopt it. It has been adopted already by the Senate, and I do not believe there is any serious objection to the incor-

poration of the Royal College of Dentists of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask just one question. I do not intend to make a speech and delay second reading of this bill, but I wonder whether the hon. member would inform the house at this stage-and I know the bill may go to committee-whether he or the people behind the bill, that is, the dentists, have been in communication with the dental associations of the various provinces and obtained their consent. I am not saying they need consent, but in this regard has the feeling of the dental associations of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, for example, been canvassed.


Rodolphe Leduc: We have obtained the consent of all the provincial organizations of dentists in the whole of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much.


Joseph Slogan: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the passage of any of the bills before the house today; all I wish to do is associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc), who introduced this bill, and support the establishment of the Royal College of Dentists of Canada, which will certify specialists in the dental health field. As the hon. member has said, one of the objects of the establishment of this body is to demonstrate to the public those who are and those who are not qualified specialists in these fields. I also believe that membership in this organization is something which will be of great value to the specialist who has taken further training and has demonstrated that he has a specific knowledge. I think such a specialist is worthy of membership in this organization. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Gatineau and support this bill.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, at one stage during his remarks the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) said that this bill had already been passed by the Senate. I hope he did not mean that in any sort of commendable way, thereby saying that just because the Senate does something, it automatically sanctifies it and we should deal with it posthaste. I do not want to get involved in a controversy about ourselves and the Senate and some of the things that it does, except to say that at some other time 20220-727i
Private Bills
and on another occasion when we are considering bills which fall within that category-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Like a bank.


Frank Howard: -we may have some words to say about that. I want to thank my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) for saying, sotto voce, as it were, "Like a bank". This is precisely what I was thinking about when I made those comments.
I am certainly not opposed to the passage of the bill, but in view of the document that was tabled today, namely the second volume of the report of the royal commission on health services, or the Hall commission report as it is referred to in short form, and in view of the first volume of that report, which reports are voluminous to say the least, running to thousands and thousands of words, I think it would be interesting for the committee that considers this particular bill to consider it in the light of some of the recommendations which may be contained within the Hall commission report. Presumably some time we in this house are going to enact legislation relating to health services and a medical care plan, which may or may not be what any one individual likes; but none the less I presume we are headed in that direction. In fact, it was suggested privately today that we might look to 1969 as being a deadline for the government to set for the enactment of such a medical care plan, because 1969 will be the 50th, or perhaps the golden wedding anniversary, of the Liberal party's original declaration about this matter and it might be a worth-while anniversary present for this house if whatever government happens to be in office at that time would bring about such a plan.
None the less, Mr. Speaker, it is a subject matter that is of concern to this parliament, of concern to a number of legislative assemblies, some of whom have already made enactments in this field, and of concern to people all across the country, because there is a great deal of discussion about the question of health services, about the relationship which physicians and surgeons have with respect to any such health plan, and also with respect to the relationship that dentists, or doctors of dentistry, or whatever the formal designation is, have to any such plan. I think it would be well worth while to toss out this thought in the hope that the committee will explore this particular facet.
With those remarks I will close, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to indicate my agree-

Private Bills
xnent with the substance of the bill, and perhaps the parts of it which could cause some consternation could be reserved until the committee stage either before the standing committee, or when the bill comes back to the committee of the whole for consideration.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Just a sentence or two, Mr. Speaker. One matter of slight concern to me is the possibility of farming out dentistry work. I heard of a case in the past where a particular dentist had working for him in another town another dentist who had not the right to practise dentistry on his own, and the dentist in charge, so to speak, of the other dentist was receiving half of his fees. I hope that the passage of this bill will not permit a dentist to farm out another dentist and thereby collect money from him as a result of his being unable to get a certificate to practise dentistry, yet is still practising in spite of this and passing on a portion of his fees to another.
fTranslation]


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief because I am in favour of the bill to incorporate the Royal College of Dentists of Canada.
However, I wonder whether the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) could give us some statistics so that we may establish how many specialized and non-specialized dentists there are? In fact, there might be some dentists who are not specialists in the sense given to the word but who are nevertheless conscientious and who do their work very well.
The hon. member might also tell us whether or not the intention is just to exclude dental mechanics-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must bring to the hon. member's attention the fact that the house is now considering a motion for second reading of the bill and that the statistics he is asking for or the questions he is asking could be put before the committee when the bill is referred to it, if the motion for second reading is agreed to.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I just want to put one question before the hon. member, and I want to do it on second reading as I do not expect him to have the information before him today. Perhaps he can obtain the information in order to facilitate the study of the committee. My question refers to clause 11 which deals with the rights

of the new council to admit and expel dentists.
When a similar bill was before us last year which dealt, I think, with undertakers-not that there is any relationship between the two-in the part of the bill dealing with expulsions the committee agreed an amendment should be made to provide that any person expelled from that profession could appeal such expulsion to the Exchequer Court of Canada, the decision of the exchequer court judge being binding on the council. I realize that at this stage the hon. member is not expected to know the procedures which will be followed, but I wonder whether he would inform himself as to what procedure is applied and whether or not the association would object to a similar amendment when the bill comes back to this house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-45, to incorporate the Canadian Institute of Actuaries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I presume I can deal with this matter very briefly because most hon. members will be aware of the increasing importance of the part played by actuaries in Canada in recent years. There has been for some years an unincorporated association of actuaries, the purpose of which is to improve the professional qualifications of actuaries in Canada and to provide means whereby they can communicate with one another. The purpose of this bill is to incorporate this association.
Actuaries, as we all know, are highly skilled, and it is becoming increasingly important that they should have a more formal organization. Most professions in Canada are represented by an incorporated organization, and it is felt that it would be helpful if the actuaries were incorporated as well. Several statutes, federal and provincial, refer to the term "actuary" but do not attempt to define it. Where it is defined the definition is usually to the effect that the term means a fellow of the institute of actuaries of Great Britain or of the society of actuaries of the United States. If this bill is passed, Mr. Speaker, it will mean that we will have a Canadian incorporated institute which will be available to prescribe standards for this profession.
Perhaps that is sufficient to indicate to hon. members the purpose of this bill, but if there

are any further questions I can answer them either now or when the bill is referred to committee.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, we approve of the general principles of this bill, but want to pose the same problem to the hon. member sponsoring the bill as was posed to the previous bill's sponsor, namely whether or not the association will be licensing practising actuaries; and whether they will have powers of expulsion. If they have, will there be any recourse to an expelled person to appeal such expulsion? Perhaps the hon. member would inform himself so that we can again deal with this question in a more detailed way.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member sponsoring this bill a couple of questions; he may know the answers, but I do not expect he does at this stage. I should like to know whether there is an examination in the present informal organization which sets the standard of qualification required for membership; whether there are any universities which confer degrees in this area; or whether there are other training courses which meet the qualifications required.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-46, to incorporate Settlers Savings and Mortgage Corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Siegfried John Enns: Mr. Speaker, briefly for the information of hon. members this is another of those measures which has come to us from the other place, having received consideration in the Senate committee on banking and commerce. It is a very standard form of bill since it has to conform with the Loan Companies Act, which is chapter 17 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952. This provides a model on which bills of this kind are based, and the only things that can be revealed in such a bill are the names of the directors and the amounts of money involved.
There is nothing in the form of this bill as it now appears that should cause any concern to hon. members. It simply represents a request by a group of successful business and professional men of the greater
Private Bills
Winnipeg area for the incorporation of fhd Settlers Savings and Mortgage Corporation in order that they may carry on this investment undertaking. I know most of the directors named in the first clause of the bill personally, and can assure hon. members that any undertaking promoted by them will meet with success.
I should point out to hon. members that any corporation under the Loan Companies Act comes under the direct supervision of the superintendent of insurance for Canada, and in that regard the powers and privileges of the corporation are carefully spelled out by that act.
With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I ask this house to give second reading to this bill in order that it may be referred to the appropriate standing committee of this house for consideration.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should point out that there is an oddity in respect of the name Settlers Savings and Mortgage Corporation which may have some implication.
As the sponsor has pointed out, this is a standard or relatively simple bill. The legislation applying to this and any similar corporation, I understand, is the Loan Companies Act, as is the case in respect of trust and loan companies. Perhaps one of the reasons the Senate acted with dispatch in regard to this bill is that one of the provisional directors named in this bill is the Honourable Paul Yusyk. I presume that he is a senator. Another of the provisional directors named in this bill is a dentist of the town of Selkirk having the same name as the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Slogan). I come immediately to the conclusion that they are one and the same person. Perhaps because one of the provisional directors is a senator well settled in the Senate the name Settlers Savings was chosen. The members of this house are not so well settled and have to try periodically to be re-elected.
Would the sponsor advise us as to the proposed directors being resident or otherwise in Canada? For some time here in parliament we have followed the concept that companies incorporated by way of private members' bills should have as directors at least a majority who are Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada. There is no such provision contained in this bill, and before we proceed to give it second reading I should like the sponsor, if he has this information readily available, to indicate whether the provisions of the Loan Companies Act cover this concept

Private Bills
as far as this bill is concerned. If this information is not readily available to the sponsors perhaps we can deal with that aspect during a consideration of the bill by a committee of this house. I do think that the house should have this information before passing this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The rules do not permit an hon. member to speak twice on the same bill, but if the hon. member requires a short answer to his question and the house is agreeable, perhaps the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns) could be allowed to speak again.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that I asked the hon. member a question before he took his seat.


Siegfried John Enns: I will attempt to comply with the ruling from the Chair in answering the several questions asked by the hon. member.
The name Settlers Savings was chosen because all the individuals named in clause 1 of the bill, or their parents, were settlers in Canada. None of these people are of Anglo-Saxon or French origin. This name has been the subject of some discussion by the group of individuals named in the bill, but the choice of the name was made by the proposed provisional directors, and I am sure the hon. gentleman will not take exception to the name as such.
The hon. member made reference to a senator being named as a provisional director. I would point out to him that there is ample precedence in this regard. Surely no valid objections can be taken to members of the House of Commons or the Senate being named as directors of a corporation.
In relation to the directors being Canadians, I can assure the hon. member that they are all Canadians and residents of Canada, and as far as I am aware there is no intention on the part of these individuals to invite non-Canadians to become part of the directorship. I can assure the hon. member that at the time this bill was drafted, and at the time of incorporation, these provisional directors were and will be residents of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Frank Howard: Can the hon. member answer the question I asked in respect of the provisions of the Loan Companies Act?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Charlevoix.


Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I rose by mistake-


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), it is my understanding that the provisions of Bill C-123, an act to amend certain acts administered in the department of insurance, presently before the house, provides for Canadian ownership in financial institutions, and would apply of course to this corporation.


Frank Howard: Can you answer my question?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to ascertain whether this bill will in any event be sent to a standing committee of this house.


Siegfried John Enns: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, December 3, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-27, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Brown-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Number of directors.
Lucien Lamoureux: When the committee rose on December 3 last clause 1 of the bill, an amendment proposed thereto by the hon. member for Timiskaming and an amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe were being considered.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that the sponsor of this bill would stand today, not to deal with the amendment and the amendment to the amendment, but to speak about the discussion which has taken place in relation to the suggestion that the federal government should be represented on the directorate of the Bell Telephone Company, which is of course the subject matter

of both amendments. There is also the fact that a hearing has been ordered by the board of transport commissioners into the financing of the Bell Telephone Company, which involves somewhat the same approach to the problem that has been outlined by many members.
The problem is mainly that the Bell Telephone Company is a company operating in the public utility field and enjoying a federal monopoly in that field in those areas particularly where it is the only communications medium. I think there are several problems about which the board of transport commissioners is concerned in relation to their inquiry. One problem is that in Canada there are many telephone companies. I would guess there are over 500 telephone companies but only two of them enjoy a federal charter, the British Columbia Telephone Company and the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
By law the board of transport commissioners has been charged with the responsibility of regulating the amount of money that the Bell Telephone Company may pay in the form of dividends and also the amount of money that the company may set aside for expansion. The situation in Canada has been further confused by statements made continually by the Bell Telephone Company and its subsidiary, Northern Electric. The president of Northern Electric made a speech to a symposium on telecommunications engineering held at the Northern Electric research and development laboratories, Crystal Bay, Ottawa. In his remarks he said:
Contrary to the usual pattern of development, Northern's progress led it to become more rather than less Canadian until at the present time the company is entirely owned by Bell of Canada, which itself is owned by 195,000 stockholders, about 98 per cent of whom live in Canada and, what is more important, they own some 93 per cent of Bell's stock.
I think that is not correct in any way, shape or form. In my view the company will have to indicate how they arrive at these figures because I am of the opinion that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada is a direct subsidiary of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company of the United States. This is borne out by something else that was said by the president of Northern Electric. He went on to say:
The dangers of foreign ownership come, in my opinion, not so much from the restrictive influence exercised by foreign owners as from the temptation on the part of subsidiaries to lean on the parents for guidance and advice in everything they do.
Private Bills
Northern Electric, of course, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bell of Canada.
Canadian subsidiaries with ready access to the fruits of parental thinking in technological and other fields have tended to develop into intellectual slaves, not because they are incapable of creative thinking of their own but because it has been so easy and so deceptively attractive to draw all ideas from the foreign source. To make matters worse, the economic rationalization of dependence on others for the fruits of their creativity has cloaked Canadian subservience with an aura of virtue, which to say the least might be challenged.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but perhaps because of the fact it is so long ago that we considered this bill he has forgotten what we are presumed to be discussing now, an amendment and a subamendment, both of them dealing with the appointment of an additional number of directors to the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company. The remarks that the hon. member is now making may be relevant to this point, but that is not too apparent to the Chair. Perhaps the hon. member will want to make his remarks as relevant as possible in the circumstances.


William Arnold Peters: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that we are concerned with the question of the board of directors. This is what I am referring to because the point I am trying to make is that even the Northern Electric Company, which is wholly owned by Bell but has its own board of directors, admits quite frankly that the direction it has been receiving has come from the United [DOT] States and that to date their board of directors have not found it necessary to develop Canadian facilities to make the technological advances necessary in the telecommunications field. In this regard the president of Northern Electric went on to say:
For many years Northern-
As well as Bell, of course.
-relied for its design and manufacturing process information almost entirely on the Bell Telephone laboratories and on the Western Electric Company.
Both of these are American companies. He is obviously referring to the American Bell Telephone Company and he also refers to the Western Electric Company, a subsidiary of the American company which is in exactly the same position as Northern Electric is with relation to the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. So, Mr. Chairman, the president of the subsidiary company is admitting that the directors of his company are not directing but are only supernumeraries. He is also say-

Private Bills
ing that the board of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada are not directing and that the company is a subsidiary of the American company.
How do we relate these facts to the statement made that the Bell Telephone Company is a wholly owned Canadian company? The Bell Telephone Company of Canada is a monopoly and I should like to refer to the sums they have received from the federal government. In 1962 they received almost $6J million under direct contracts for services supplied. Up to the end of August, 1964, a period of eight months, they had received $13,277,000. When they are doing business with the government on such a large scale, is it unreasonable that they should permit the government to have some say in how this huge monopoly is being operated? The figures I have cited, of course, refer only to direct contracts which are unclassified.
The Bell Telephone Company has many other contracts with the federal government, particularly the Department of National Defence, which are classified. I think of the microwave network and the D.E.W. line, the Mid-Canada and the Pine Tree line which have to do with the early warning system and the contracts for which are classified. Therefore the figure of $13 million does not reflect these operations.
I submit that this company has an obligation to accept the appointment to their board of directors a number of directors to assist in providing information to the government that the company is being operated to the advantage of the government of Canada. We have suggested that three directors be appointed by the federal government. I give the government a certain amount of credit, although they perhaps do not deserve it, for the fact that on most occasions they appoint people to the various agencies and boards of the government who are, I believe, highly skilled and qualified and not politically oriented.
I do not believe it is easier for the Bell Telephone Company to go to a university and get one of the senior executives of that university to become a director of the company and provide that impartiality the president of the company informed me was desired, than it is for the federal government to do the same thing.
When the board of transport commissioners asked for this public hearing, they must have assured themselves that the information they were receiving was not sufficient to allow them to make a judgment as to whether or

not they should permit an increase in the profit structure of the Bell Telephone Company. There is incorporated somewhere in the charter of this company, which has been renewed on a number of occasions, a provision that there would be a limit to the profits this company could earn. We find that in 1958 the board of transport commissioners allowed the company to have earnings of $2.43 per share, of which $2 should be for dividends and the balance was to be treated as retained earnings. The Bell has had earnings of more than this amount since 1959. In one year they had exceeded the agreement they had made. In order to try to maintain the attractiveness of Bell stock to investors, dividends were set at an annual rate of $2.20 per share. Now, they are again asking for an increase.
It seems to me that we are not unreasonable in asking that the federal government participate in the board of directors so that the government can know whether or not this company is going to be operating in the future in the interests of Canadians. The sponsor of this bill knows that there are alternatives to the proposals we have made. The amendment to increase government participation in the board of directors is one of them, and there are many others. One would be the taking over of the Bell Telephone Company and operating it as a crown corporation which would widen its monopoly by taking over all the private telephone companies in Canada. I feel this would be a fairly reasonable and probably economically feasible solution. It seems to me that the Bell Telephone Company generally operates in areas in which a large number of people are confined in a small space. This, to me, would appear to be the easiest possible way to operate a telephone service. However, Mr. Chairman, you find that some of the rural telephone companies and provincial telephone companies in the three western provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, have rate structures substantially lower than the Bell Telephone Company offers its subscribers in Toronto or Montreal.
The Bell Telephone Company has argued, unsuccessfully so far as I am concerned, that it is more costly to provide electronic equipment and service to a large number of people in a small area than it is to provide service in western Canada where you have hundreds of thousands of miles of telephone lines serving a relatively limited number of subscribers. I feel it is going to be difficult for the Bell company to explain this fact to the

board of transport commissioners, and thus convince the board of transport commissioners the company should be allowed to raise the amount of money it can earn to improve the profit picture of the company.
There is another solution which I think is more likely to be adopted. I say it is more likely to be adopted because I believe the province of Quebec has already taken some steps in this direction. The provincial government has asked the federal government for jurisdiction in this field, and I understand the Quebec government is now considering the expropriation of The Bell Telephone Company of Canada in that province.
I feel the company itself should look very carefully at the attitude of the public toward the company, especially when the company resists the type of change we are suggesting. The company should look at the changes that may come about in some of the provinces if they persist in the attitude of not giving a damn about their subscribers.
I believe that the amendment which asks the federal government to appoint members to the board of directors also requests the company to waive the ownership provision that would attach to these shares because our thinking has not been along the line that we should buy into the Bell Telephone Company and take it over. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if this type of amendment is not carried, then there will be an opportunity to suggest that the government should acquire 51 per cent of the shares of the company and make it a crown corporation operating for the benefit of the Canadian people. I am not sure if the sponsor of the bill has had an opportunity of discussing these facts with the directors of the company during the recess. If he has not, I strongly suggest that he communicate with them to see if some arrangement cannot be arrived at so that the wishes of the Canadian people can be given some expression through appointments to the board of directors. If this is not done, the company should be prepared to face some of the consequences which I feel are inevitable.
I have considerable more to say on this particular subject, but I see it is now six o'clock.
Progress reported.
Canada Labour Code LABOUR CONDITIONS



MEASURE RESPECTING HOURS OF WORK, MINIMUM WAGES, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-126 respecting hours of work, minimum wages, etc.-Mr. MacEachen -Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Lucien Lamoureux: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering clause 8 of Bill No. C-126. Shall the clause carry?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: During the recess hour I spoke to the minister about the effect of his proposal upon the operations of western grain elevators. The hon. gentleman did reply to certain queries and suggestions put forward by the former minister of agriculture in this field, but I should like further clarification with respect to the working of extended hours at certain periods of the year.
As I explained to the minister during the supper recess, there is a period of about three weeks in the fall during which farmers go to the elevators at, possibly, seven o'clock in the morning or ten o'clock at night with samples of grain to be tested. The elevator men have no objection to this practice and we would like to see that it can be continued.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can assure the hon. member that under the terms of clauses 9 and 10 this necessary longer period of hours is possible.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Excess hours under ministerial permit.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Certain aspects of this clause are important as far as the general application of the bill is concerned and what I have to say about clause 9 should, I feel, be considered in relation to the provisions of clause 10 which makes it clear that in emergency situations hours of work over and above the normal hours can be permitted.

Canada Labour Code
Clause 9 as I understand it allows an extension of normal working hours in certain circumstances on application to the minister. It is therefore an important clause, as far as it will concern the administration of this bill when it becomes law. The aspect of the matter which most concerns me at the moment is that the minister is permitted to take certain action under this clause on the application of an employer or of an employers' organization. It is true that the clause provides that if an application is received from an employer the minister must take into consideration the conditions of employment and the welfare of the employees. However, having regard to the emergency provisions set out in clause 10 the issuance of such a permit should not be the result of a unilateral decision by an employer or an employers' organization.
I know that in British Columbia the circumstances in which a board concerned with industrial relations is allowed to grant overtime permits on the unilateral application of an employer has in the past created considerable difficulties and resulted in a good deal of argument between employers and employees. As I understand it, the present bill is designed to operate within the collective bargaining framework upon which all of us are increasingly agreed. In the circumstances envisaged by clause 9 I believe any application to the minister should be the result of a prior understanding reached between an employer and his employees. Let me point out that we are not now dealing with emergency situations-breakdowns and that sort of thing. We are talking about situations in which for a period of time and for certain reasons the normal provisions restricting overtime are to be waived. Therefore, without further lengthy argument I should like to propose an amendment to clause 9 as it now stands, and move:
That subclause (1) of clause 9 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
9. (1) On the joint application of an employer or an employer's organization, and the employees or employees organization, the Minister, having regard to the conditions of employment in any industrial establishment and the welfare of the employees, may, by a permit in writing, authorize hours to be worked by any class of employees therein in excess of the maximum hours of work prescribed by or under section 6.
It is apparent at once that the only change I am proposing to the clause as presently drafted is the inclusion of the words "and the employees or employees' organization". In other words, the purpose of my amend-
ment is to ensure that there be a prior understanding between an employer and his employees involved before any application is made to the minister for permission to work in excess of the hours set forth in the bill as being a normal working day or working week.
I hope that the committee will see fit to accept what I consider to be a very reasonable proposal without any lengthy argument or discussion upon the subject matter of my amendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, in connection with this amendment there is one question I would like to raise immediately. It concerns the problem that would arise in a plant or an operation where no employees' organization existed and where this particular necessity would arise. In some cases, especially in the north, where we are accustomed to issuing, under the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, overtime permits in somewhat the same way, the casual nature of work at times may make it quite impossible to consult an employees' organization. In the absence of an employees' organization, how is the application to be made on behalf of the employees?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I think the terms of my amendment, where I say "employees or employees' organization", is designed to deal with just that kind of situation, in other words, that in the absence of an official collective bargaining agent, duly certified, there would have to be submitted, I suppose in this case by the employer, evidence in writing that the employees, by their signature or other appropriate means, had indicated that they were agreeable to the application being presented by the employer.
I deliberately tried to phrase my amendment to take care of the situation that the minister has mentioned, where in the absence of an official collective bargaining agent it would be possible for the minister to set up the appropriate machinery for the employees to indicate their position in regard to an application. It seems to me that this is simply a matter of the appropriate administrative machinery being established. It would mean, in my view, that the minister, prior to dealing with an employer's application in the case where there was a group of employees who were not formerly recognized as being bargained for by a collective bargaining agent, would have to formally satisfy himself that the employees involved were agreeable.

In other words, as the clause stands as originally drafted there is a certain obligation imposed upon the minister to decide whether or not the welfare of the employees has been safeguarded. My amendment would ensure, in my view, that the employees, whether or not they were organized into a collective bargaining unit, would have an opportunity of making their views known to the minister through some sort of official machinery prior to the minister being able unilaterally to decide. The employees would have a voice directly as to whether or not they considered that their welfare was being adequately taken care of, whereas under the original drafting of the clause it would be entirely at the discretion of a particular minister of labour. While I might go so far as to say that I have a certain amount of confidence that the present Minister of Labour would have due regard to the welfare of employees, that does not necessarily say that every minister of labour we might ever have in Canada would be, shall I say, as conscientious in looking into this matter as I would hope the present Minister of Labour would be. I believe that when we are considering legislation we have to have in mind not only the current situation, but future possible situations.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, this is the-


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for York East.


Mr. Oito:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Who has the floor?


Steven Otto: -point out that what the hon. gentleman has said in his amendment is that if both groups do not agree, then the minister cannot use any discretion and in fact the application cannot be processed; and if both groups do agree, then the minister has to allow it. So we get back to an agreement between employer and employees without any discretion at all in the minister. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would just define his amendment and see if it does not mean what I have said it means.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Not at all, Mr. Chairman, because I have not changed in any way the discretionary power of the minister as set forth in the original draft. It still says, "the minister, having regard to the conditions of employment in any industrial establishment and the welfare of the employees, may, by a permit in writing", and so on. I think this is a very important point, because the min-
Canada Labour Code
ister still has the overriding responsibility, as far as I am concerned, if this amendment I have proposed is accepted, of deciding whether or not there are particular circumstances that would justify the issuance of a permit; he still has the responsibility of deciding whether, even though a group of employees might apparently go along with the idea, their welfare would be adversely affected. Therefore my amendment, as I see it, does not in any way reduce the responsibility or authority of the minister as far as the operation of this clause is concerned; but it does ensure that there is an obligation on the minister to listen to the employees concerned, or their authorized representatives, just as under the original draft he would only act if, as and when, an employer takes the initiative. In other words, it provides for equal and co-initiative on the part of both the employer and the employee.
From such experience as I have had in situations where this practice prevailed, if there are reasonable grounds for an extension for overtime under certain conditions the employees are generally prepared, under normal relationships, to recognize that such is the situation. I may say that this arises in part out of some experience I have had in previous years as a responsible officer of a local union, where I was in the position of having to agree or disagree with a request from an employer for an overtime permit, and on the basis that the employees involved were prepared to go along with it, as the officer of that particular local union at that particular time I agreed that the arrangement could be made. If the normal and proper employer-employee relationship is in existence, and if there is justifiable reason under special circumstances for some extension of hours, then I think there is every likelihood that the employees would go along with a joint application. But if an employer is simply seeking to abuse his privileges and authority, then naturally there would be resistance from the employees.
I think the act should be so drafted that the minister will be made fully aware through some official requirement in the act of the views of the employees as a group, either informally or through their collective bargaining agent, before he could move on the granting of a permit. As I previously pointed out, this question does not affect the emergency provisions set out in clause 10, which enable overtime to be worked in the event of a breakdown or other emergency situation de-

Canada Labour Code
veloping, such as the tidal wave which occurred in the Alberni valley last year where the employer took the initiative to protect the plant and equipment and called out the employees without any question whatever. I feel this is the important principle which should be set out in the bill as far as any normal arrangement for special extension of hours is concerned.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, this is the clause which the minister said might be used in the case of longshoremen. I intended to complain about the horrible bureaucratic mess I could visualize in applications for permits under this clause. I do not know how far the minister has taken his thoughts, but I am wondering whether in the case of the longshoremen in Halifax and Saint John one permit would do for the entire season, or whether there would be any difficulty with the various stevedores moving from ship to ship even in the course of one week.
In any event, I think that this amendment might bring the employees more into the picture; I do not think it is as earth shattering as the hon. member suggests. In fact, I cannot conceive of a situation where an application for a permit for these extra hours would go forward unless the employees and the employers both desired it. However, as I have said, the amendment looks all right to me because it does bring the employees more into the picture, which I think is desirable, at least in the case of the stevedores on the east coast.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, having spent 15 years working as an employee and some 13 years as an employer, I have some difficulty with this amendment because I visualize the word "joint" as a possible roadblock whereby an application which is made will never reach the minister, in which case he would be unable to adjudicate on the question because a disagreement might have arisen in the meantime. This is the problem which I see.
Another problem here which I see is this. Where we have an administration, that administration is responsible for a particular plant or operation. Somebody has to call the shot; someone has to be in the harness; someone has to be in the driver's seat. If we were to get a situation where the management of a particular operation was no longer in the driver's seat, it would seem to me that we would be headed toward a deteriorating position. In the final analysis I think that any employer who remains an employer for very long is bound to have certain public relations

with his employees which could ascertain whether or not there was a willingness on the part of the majority of the employees to agree to go along with any application.
There are two different viewpoints in any operation; there is the viewpoint of management and the viewpoint of labour. Somewhere along the line these two viewpoints must, in order to establish a good operation, come together for the good of both employer and employee. I am a little troubled here by the word "joint" in the amendment which has been put forward in that it could serve as a roadblock to prevent the application ever getting to the minister's desk.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment because I feel that to reach an agreement it is essential to consult the worker in order not to fall into a complete dictatorship.
One reads:
On the application of an employer or an employer's organization, the minister... may-
In my opinion, a very important factor, namely the worker, is being left out.
I feel that in the administration of this legislation the minister is acting only as a referee between the employer and the employee who will discuss a step which the legislation does not allow, and then ask the minister to prescribe an exemption from that legislation.
I feel that, as it stands now, the legislation leaves the door dangerously open as far as the employees' protection is concerned.
The present Minister of Labour is anxious to protect the employee but this legislation will be in force longer than one, two or three years.
For instance, if you had a minister who had very friendly relations with an employer, he could very well approve of labour conditions unfavorable to workers.
Therefore, I wish to inform you, Mr. Chairman, that for those reasons we shall support this amendment, and we shall do so in the workers' best interests.


Mr. Regan:: Mr. Chairman, I see some aspects of this amendment which are not at all desirable. I am pleased that there is provision for this extension to be granted and I have been assured that it could be used in cases similar to the stevedores in the shipping industry of this country, as mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. However, if we were to follow the suggestion

of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I do not think the situation would be so good. I feel that he overlooks the fact that in Canada we are not dealing with an economy in which all or even nearly all of the employees have the benefit of the protection of collective bargaining or collective agreements. Many of the employees of this country and many of the employees to whom the act will apply are in the position that they do not have any unions to protect them.
Let me give an immediate example. Many of the employees of small radio stations in small towns in this country, other than the engineers-announcers and so forth-are not unionized and have no protection. I am sure there are many other examples in relation to federal jurisdiction.
This is bad legislation because it puts people who are not unionized and who do not have the protection of a trade union into the position where an employer can put pressure on them, for his own purposes, to join in his application for an extension of hours. I am sure the minister would not wish to be in the difficult position of turning down an application made jointly on behalf of an employer and his employees. However, in the case of these employees who are not unionized, and are without the protection of a union, employed in a business in the competitive market, they can be replaced very easily if they do not bend to the pressure placed on them to sign their employers' application for the extension of working hours. The employer in such a case could very easily suggest to those employees that unless they signed the application he would not be able to employ as many people on the staff. I think that is the main objection to the amendment.
Like the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I have observed many of these phoney objections placed before the labour relations board during certification hearings, in respect of which employees had been forced by their employers to sign them. I feel that exactly the same situation could occur in regard to this bill as a result of the amendment. The situation would be better as outlined by the bill without amendment, and for that reason I cannot support the amendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak briefly to this amendment. Having listened with some interest to the arguments put forward by hon. members opposite I must state that I am still in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate the desire to protect workers. That is, of course, a general principle embodied in this bill.
Canada Labour Code
This particular clause authorizes, under certain circumstances, working hours in excess of 48 hours in respect of which the time and a half overtime provision prevails. Under clause 9 the minister is obliged to take into account the welfare of employees. A similar procedure is authorized under the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act which applies to the federal contracts. As the hon. member for Ontario appreciates, this type of application is often made by employers. In this case the worker is protected by the overtime provision and by the assurance that the minister of labour will take the employees' welfare into account.
It seems to me that we ought to take into account as well the employers' side of the situation. One of the functions of management is, of course, the scheduling of work hours. This is an important function which, in this case, is given to the employees or an employees' organization. It seems to me in this way we are entering excessively into something which is an accepted part of management function, namely the scheduling of hours of work.
Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that the worker is fully protected under the provisions of this bill. It is also my desire to make sure that this bill does not become too restrictive, although I think it might if this additional veto power, as suggested by the amendment, is included. For that reason I must oppose the amendment.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Barnett) negatived: Yeas, 52; nays, 79.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost.
Clause 9 agreed to.
On clause 10-Emergency work.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, this clause seems to be vague. I presume it refers to the emergency operations of a business. While the marginal note refers to emergency work, nowhere else in the bill is emergency work mentioned or defined. I suggest there are many loopholes left which will lead to ultimate litigation. Perhaps the minister will explain what is meant in this clause by "serious interference"? How serious must the interference be?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The purpose of clause 10, Mr. Chairman, is to provide an employer with an opportunity of scheduling hours be-

Canada Labour Code
yond the standard hours in order to meet emergency situations. However, wherever emergency work is required and the maximum weekly hours are exceeded, an employer must report in writing to the minister, within 15 days of the month end in which the maximum hours were exceeded, the number of employees who worked additional hours, the number of hours each employee worked, as well as the nature of the circumstances which necessitated the emergency work. This information must be reported to the minister, and in turn must be reported by the minister in his annual report to parliament. Hon. members must keep in mind the fact that any work schedule for emergency purposes beyond the maximum hours must be paid for at overtime rates. This clause provides some elbow room in the application of the provisions of the bill.
One thing we have attempted to do is to make the provisions of the bill as flexible as possible. This clause has relation to emergency work as a result of accidents to machinery, equipment, plants or persons, or to urgent and essential work to be done to machinery, equipment or plants, or other unforeseen or unpreventable circumstances, but only to the extent necessary to prevent serious interference with the ordinary working of the industrial establishment affected. This is a general clause, of course, but there is the overtime pay protection. Employers are not going to be anxious to incur additional expense unless the emergency is real.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the minister not agree that the expression "serious interference" is pretty loose and fairly broad? Who is going to determine whether or not the interference is serious?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The employer, of course, will determine it himself, and remember that the employer normally will not be anxious to incur additional hours because of the additional expense. This is a deterrent against the exercise of this clause, except in emergency situations.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I would still think this is fairly wide open. The union in the particular concern may not agree it is a serious interference. This certainly leaves the door wide open for litigation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if the application of this clause is to include only maintenance or repair workers to repair machinery and equipment that may have broken down, or

would it extend as far as to include production workers who would be trying to catch up on lost production to meet quotas and deadlines that have arisen because of the machinery having broken down?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, the intent is not to provide a method of accelerating production activity. The intent is to provide additional hours to meet an emergency situation affecting machinery, equipment, plant or persons. I think the distinction appears in the clause. It is not intended to cover production activity.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: But the clause does not say that it shall be confined to maintenance or repair crews.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Paragraphs (a) and (b) imply, of course, that work of this kind is maintenance rather than production line work.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I thought I heard the minister say in the course of his recent remarks when explaining the clause something to the effect that the reports that were filed with the minister would be part of the annual report of the Minister of Labour to parliament. I am not quite sure whether I heard the minister correctly. I do not see anything in the clause that makes any provision for that. First of all, would the minister tell me whether he did say what I thought I heard him say and, if so, what part of the clause requires that such a report be made to parliament?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The clause itself makes no provision, but clause 49 obliges the Minister of Labour to include a statement in the annual report showing the additional hours worked by employees under permits issued by the minister under section 9 and the additional hours worked under section 10. Therefore this information will be contained in the report and will provide an opportunity for members in subsequent sessions to ascertain whether these sections are being abused in any way.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, section 10(2) reads partly as follows:
Where the maximum hours of work in an industrial establishment have been exceeded under the authority of this section-
Could the minister tell us whether the words "industrial establishment" cover only those establishments which come under the federal government or whether they apply to industrial establishments in general?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the expression "industrial establishment" is defined in subclause (g) of the interpretation clause.
"Industrial establishment" means any federal work, undertaking or business and includes such branch, section or other division of a federal work, undertaking or business as is designated as an industrial establishment by the regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-Minimum hourly wage.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, clause 11 is the clause of the bill which sets out what is to be the minimum rate of wages under the general provisions of this legislation. I should like, as I believe I said on a previous occasion, to congratulate the minister on putting a figure in the bill and on making that figure one that applies right across Canada. I suspect it was not an easy battle for him to win. I suspect there were those involved in the drafting of the legislation who would have liked to leave it to regulation or to regional differentiations. So I say that I congratulate the minister on putting a figure in the bill and on making it national in its application.
However, the minister will not be surprised if I tell him once again that I think time has moved on and, indeed, has moved on even since the bill was first introduced, and that a figure of $1.25 an hour is not now high enough as a minimum wage. If one does a little arithmetic he will realize that $1.25 an hour for a 40 hour week works out to $50 a week. May I go further and suggest that if a person earns the minimum wage of $50 a week for 50 weeks in a year, allowing for two weeks annual vacation as set out in this legislation, that comes to a total of only $2,500 a year.
I remind the minister that it is now fairly generally accepted in the United States amongst social workers and government people as well that $3,000 a year is the poverty demarcation line. I suggest that the same figure is probably applicable to Canada. Surely if that is the case, surely if $3,000 a year merely indicates the line of demarcation between poverty and subsistence, it is hardly appropriate in 1965 for us to pass a minimum wage law that at best produces an annual income $500 below that figure.
Therefore I suggest that the figure should be changed to $1.50 an hour. If members will do the same kind of arithmetic I was doing a moment ago they will see that works out to $60 a week for a 40 hour week or $3,000
Canada Labour Code
a year for 50 weeks. If $3,000 a year is the line between poverty and subsistence, surely that is the least that we should be legislating in 1965. I see my hon. friend from Hamilton East glancing in my direction. In the last few weeks I had a good deal of opportunity to observe what was in his mind. I do not know for sure what is in it now, but he is probably thinking of the fact that there is still on the order paper a bill which I introduced on the first day of this session in which I suggested a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour. May I remind the hon. member for Hamilton East and the applauding member for Carleton that this session started one year ago today. Surely, a session that goes into its second year ought to move on a bit.
The fact that $1.25 is no longer a sufficient level for a minimum wage is also attested by the fact that the Canadian Labour Congress, which for years advocated $1.25 per hour, at its convention last April in Montreal amended this policy and proposed $1.50. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the action taken by the Canadian Labour Congress represents a reasonable stand and that the least we should do in parliament is to keep up with this kind of minimum.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, because I think that in 1965 we should be doing better than we were doing in 1964, because I think that when we are passing legislation of this kind we should make it as good as we can, I move:
That clause 11, subclause 1, be amended by deleting therefrom the words "one dollar and twenty five cents" and by substituting therefor the following words: "one dollar and fifty cents".
I submit, Mr. Chairman, this is a reasonable amendment, and that it is in keeping with the spirit of the legislation that the government has introduced after all these years. I would hope that the government would see fit to accept this amendment and thus make its own legislation a little better.


Mr. Munro:: In defence of this particular clause and in defence of the $1.25, I think it should be pointed out, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did point out, that he does have a bill on the order paper providing $1.25 as a minimum wage. It is true this was put on the order paper more than a year ago, in 1964. As he pointed out also, we have been in almost continuous session during that time and a lot of progressive legislation has gone through, much of which he has supported. I believe that when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre talks about $1.50, no one could argue that

Canada Labour Code
$1.50 could be considered an adequate wage. Even if it worked out to $60 per week or $3,000 per year, I think it could be established that it would not be adequate for a man with a family. It certainly is a subsistence or below subsistence level. All of these arguments can be advanced, but I am not so sure they are pertinent to this particular bill.
One thing the hon. member did not emphasize in his remarks is the fact that this is minimal legislation. We are not advocating across the country that this is what should be paid or even acknowledging that it is an acceptable standard. This is minimal legislation, and is the point below which wages should not fall. This is the aspect that should be emphasized as the governing factor in the minds of members when they vote for this legislation. As the hon. member knows, we are well ahead of many provincial legislatures in this field and if we were to set a higher standard it would not be realistic. As the hon. member pointed out when we were dealing with the clause concerning hours, this legislation is ahead of legislation passed by the provincial legislatures, which covers ever so many more employees than fall under federal jurisdiction. We are hoping that by the passage of this measure we will be applying a pressure point to provincial legislatures to pass similar legislation making this a minimum standard. I am not so sure, when you are dealing with minimal standards, that you are unrealistic not to realize that you will defeat the very purpose of your legislation by discouraging many provincial legislatures from any real attempt at improving their legislation. We want to achieve that degree of uniformity that will benefit ever so many more employees who would be affected by such provincial legislation.
The hon. member talked about the United States, Mr. Chairman; their congress has been dealing with this minimum wage legislation for some time. In certain areas, no doubt they are now up to $1.25. The late President Kennedy had great difficulty in pushing $1.15 through congress. Even today a substantial segment of the labour force has been exempted from the legislation. Many of the people who would benefit most from such legislation have been exempted from its provisions. So far as the Canadian federal authority is concerned, I believe we are well ahead of the United States. We have resisted this very tendency that has been so prevalent
IMr. Munro.]
in the United States; the tendency to make exemptions.
Then, too, it has been advocated by many of those authorities in the United States and Canada who have studied poverty that $1.25 should be the minimum wage. They are not saying that minimum wage legislation is the all important type of legislation so far as combatting poverty is concerned. What they are in fact saying is that it is a factor and only a factor. They emphasize the fact that it should be considered minimal. I do not know if the official New Democratic party platform has been changed, Mr. Chairman, but the last formal policy announcement I saw advocated $1.25. I am aware that the last formal representations made to the government by the Canadian Labour Congress, I believe in December, 1963, a little over a year ago, advocated $1.25 as the minimum wage.
I believe the government can say, in view of the study and preparation that has gone into this bill, in view of the representations favouring $1.25, in view of the studies on poverty and in view of the fact we are advocating this as a minimal standard only, that to go any higher at this time when so many other provincial governments are not anywhere near this level, is being unrealistic.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It was rather refreshing, Mr. Chairman, to hear the parliamentary secretary to the minister of health talk about wage standards. It seems to me that when you are setting a minimum wage you are also establishing somewhat of a maximum-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They say, "Oh, oh". Remember, this bill sets a 40 hour week, and that is an absolute provision. It is not something you can extend. I agree with the member from the New Democratic party when he says this provision will mean $2,400 a year. This party has sort of adopted the platform of the democratic party in the United States and is talking about a war on poverty. If this is a war on poverty, all you have really done has been to put a ceiling on poverty so far as the working man is concerned. I say that $1.25 is not enough if you are introducing a minimum wage. I say that is an excuse. You are trying to buy votes and pad the situation. You know as well as I do that $2,400 a year is not enough.


John Carr Munro: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes.


John Carr Munro: During the years your party formed the government, why did you make no attempt at any time to pass similar legislation?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You know, that is a song to which we can all put words. Every time there is a party over on this side, it does not matter which party, they always ask that question. But members opposite are bringing in legislation and they are supposed to be measuring up to their responsibilities. They are bringing in legislation to ensure a minimum wage, and if it is to be a minimum wage let us make it a wage upon which people can live. If they are just putting up a little window dressing in order to win votes, that is something different. But if they really want to set minimum wages for Canada-


John Carr Munro: Can the hon. member name one provincial legislature in this country which has laid down a minimum wage in excess of $1.25, even though provincial legislation would cover a great many more employees?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I realize that the Liberal government has been led by the nose by certain provincial governments but I did not think they listened to them so much that they would fail to lead the way as far as Canada is concerned.


Mr. Macaluso:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Why did he for five years talk out N.D.P. bills asking for a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is bad enough to hear an interruption of that kind, but when we realize that all the hon. member can do is repeat what another man has said to him it is a sad state of affairs.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Would the hon. member please resume his seat. The hon. member for Bow River has the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I realize I have disturbed some of those members opposite who are extremely sensitive on this subject because they rely on the workers of this country to give them the votes which put them in their seats. But the fact is they are bringing in a minimum wage. They are bringing in an act which says no man may work more than 40 hours. The fact is, they have put the people into the refrigerator and frozen them at $3,000 a year. That is what they have done as far as the working man is concerned.
Canada Labour Code


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two thousand five hundred.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I was being a little liberal when I said $3,000. I will say this: If all members opposite want to do is win votes needed for the return of the government, that is all right. But no man can live on a wage of $2,500. Supporters of the government know that. So all they are doing is encouraging moonlighting. It means a man has to work 80 hours a week, because he has to take on a second job. That is all they are doing. Then again, by setting a minimum wage of $1.25 they are encouraging the employers of this country to pay $1.25.


An hon. Member:: What about the cost of living?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not need to remind them of that. But I will tell the minister this:
I would support an amendment calling for an amount greater than $1.25.


John Carr Munro: Would the hon. member answer one further question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


John Carr Munro: Was he not the hon. member who was telling us this afternoon that the grain elevators could not afford to pay a minimum wage of $1.25?


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am very happy to answer that question. I did not discuss the grain elevator men. What I did say was that the companies of western Canada certainly should pay their employees more than $1.25. What we were saying this afternoon was that if permission to work more than 40 hours a week at certain times of the year were refused, employers would have to hire additional men at certain seasons. It is unfortunate that the parliamentary secretary was not present this afternoon to hear our arguments, because he is certainly confused. All he is trying to do now is impress his constituents that he is doing a job for those who elected him, but I am sure that when they read the newspapers and realize he stands for $1.25 an hour they will know where to put the "x" next time.
I would remind the parliamentary secretary of one other thing: the most underpaid people in this country are the newspapermen.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Clause 11 and the amendment made to it raise what is, in my judgment, possibly the most important element in relation to this labour standard. I should like to begin by saying that this standard of

Canada Labour Code
$1.25 an hour is the most advanced and progressive and far reaching standard established on this continent. The United States government under the regime of the late President Kennedy was regarded as having taken one of the most important steps in the labour field by establishing a minimum wage of $1.25. But this was a rate to be reached only progressively. Moreover, that legislation does not initially cover a large proportion of the employees. In this bill, despite the fact that general wage levels in the United States are considerably higher than those in Canada, we are establishing a rate of $1.25 across the country on July 1, no differentiation being made between one part of Canada and another. It is the best standard which has ever been introduced on this continent-much better than in the United States where a start was made at $1.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let us take a look at some of the standards which prevail in the provinces. Take the province of Alberta. The hon. member for Bow River, who comes from that province, is a great champion of the working man. But in Alberta the minimum wage per week is $34.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the minimum in centres of over 5,000 population. Elsewhere in the province it is $30 a week. What is the situation in Saskatchewan, the alleged laboratory of social change? It is $36.50 for a 44 hour week. How much is that an hour?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And that applies in the cities and within a five mile radius of the cities. In the country it is $34.50 for a 44 hour week. In the province of Ontario, the centrepiece of the Conservative party, the minimum wage is $1. That is just in the Oshawa, Toronto and Hamilton areas. The rates for workers in other parts of the province are lower. And these are the best rates. These are the rates in the provinces with relatively high wage rates.
We have been confronted in the preparation of this bill and in establishing a standard of $1.25 with constant pressure from many groups in the country which tell us that our standards are far in excess of any provincial standards. Let me say this: The standard proposed in this bill is a high minimum standard. It is the highest on this continent. It compares favourably, even dramatically, with pro-

vincial legislation proposed by any government of whatever political stripe in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I realize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is interested, as I am, in this question of a minimum wage. We began the session by adopting as declared policy the principle that the appropriate minimum was $1.25. The hon. member himself enshrined that policy in a bill which is still before us. We brought in the present bill, as government policy, establishing $1.25. Now the hon. member says it ought to be $1.50. Well, if we had put in $1.50, his amendment would be to raise it to $1.75.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Canadian Labour Congress-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You have been talking to the Minister of Agriculture too long; you are on the auctioneer's block.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Canadian Labour
Congress has advocated $1.25 as a minimum. After this bill was introduced, or after our policy was declared, the congress, for understandable and laudable reasons, decided to raise the target and have now declared a policy of $1.50 an hour. That is the target. But no labour group has come before me and argued against the appropriateness of the wage rate that is established in this bill.
I would remind hon. members that in addition to establishing a minimum wage rate we are doing three other things, namely providing eight general holidays, two weeks vacation with pay after one year, and standard hours of work. Three features of this bill imply additional cost factors for every enterprise that will be affected, the minimum wage, the vacations and the eight statutory holidays. If the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were adopted, it would have an immediate financial effect on overtime pay, vacations and statutory holidays.
The hon. member for Ontario said in his original statement on second reading that there would be little adverse effect on the functioning of the economy generally or on most of the industries involved; that there would be no serious employment effect. I agree with that. But I believe that if we at this point increased the minimum wage rate to $1.50, there would be adverse employment consequences and adverse industry conse-

Canada Labour Code
quences and that, instead of making the pace of change more rapid, we would be making it more difficult in the future to establish standards. This would be the result of taking a step that would have these adverse consequences.
The hon. member for Red Deer and other hon. members cautioned me on second reading to take practical steps, and yesterday I listened all day to speeches suggesting the additional costs which this legislation would impose on a variety of industries in this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By Conservatives.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: By members of the official opposition. Surely, Mr. Chairman, one is entitled to ask, why the conversion since yesterday?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I am speaking for myself.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And one is entitled to ask, who is really looking for votes?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has no interest in votes when he proposes $1.50.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sure the hon. member for Bow River has no interest in votes, and it is only the base Liberals-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -who are proposing the most progressive step in wage setting in this country, who are interested in votes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to draw the conclusion that my hon. friends may want me to draw from their speeches. I want to make another point. I undertook, on the part of the government, in introducing this legislation to say that when we established these standards in this bill we would make them apply to all employees of the government service. That is a very big step. I said that we would amend the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act to apply the wage and hours standards to construction contracts and to a designated category of service contracts. That is a very important step. If I were obliged to accept this $1.50 proposal at the present time, these other steps would then become impossible because it would be completely upsetting at
this stage in our development to apply this wage standard to these additional groups.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to be placed in the position of suggesting that we should not as a country or as a government be interested in accelerating social standards. Of course we should be. That is our objective, and we are not ended when we establish a minimum rate of $1.25. But it is a good sound, appropriate step at this stage. It ranks ahead of anything done on this continent; it ranks ahead of anything done by any province, and it sets a standard for all Canada. When it is reached by the provinces, this parliament will be able to take a further step in the steady advance in and improvement of the working conditions of the people of Canada. I do not intend, because of this amendment, to become apologetic about this bill; not at all. It is a very important bill; it is a good bill; and I intend to remain with the main elements of the bill and ask hon. gentlemen to appreciate the consequences of attaching a minimum wage of $1.50 at this point, moved by an hon. member who has a bill before the house telling me, the house and the country that $1.25 is a good standard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to ask the Minister of Labour a question, and it is this. In his enumeration of the minimum wage legislation in the various provinces, what was the minimum wage that he said was prevalent in Ontario in the area of Oshawa, Toronto and Hamilton?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I said $1, Mr. Chairman,
for the Oshawa, Toronto and Hamilton zone and, in the main, for the other major industrial areas. For other areas lower rates have been set, to increase at regular intervals, with the result that a minimum rate of $1 an hour will be in effect for employees of both sexes throughout the province by 1965.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, may I now ask the minister a question? He said I could ask him a question at the end of his remarks. When he quoted the minimum wage of the provinces, did he want to leave the impression in parliament' tonight that they also have a minimum working week; in other words, does that legislation say you can only work 40 hours a week, with no overtime? I say that all this provincial legislation does not set the hours at 40; you can work overtime. What the minister has done, as I told him,

Canada Labour Code
is put them in a strait-jacket or a refrigerator and frozen the time and wages. Is that not correct?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Chairman. As I illustrated in the case of Saskatchewan, the minimum wage for the week is $36.50, but the hours are set at 44; and the same is true of Alberta, 8 and 44. These are the weekly limits in Alberta.


An hon. Member:: Put them all in.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In Saskatchewan the limits are 8 and 44.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But, Mr. Minister, is it not a fact that you can work overtime in those provinces, and according to your statement-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course, Mr. Chairman; and there is provision in this bill for eight additional hours at time and a half, or overtime rates.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Isn't the difference between this bill and the provincial bills that this bill is frozen with regard to time, and provincially you can work overtime, except that it sets out so many hours in the bill? Therein lies the difference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like, once again, even at the risk of repeating myself, to say one or two things that I said a moment ago. I congratulate the minister on bringing in this legislation; I congratulate him on the fact that he has put a figure in the bill and that he has made it national in scope. I accept the fact that the figure is a better one than can be found elsewhere on the North American continent in minimum wage legislation, but I ask this question of the government and the minister and these Liberals on the backbenches who are applauding the government's stand: Do they not want to give a lead? Do they not want to draft this legislation to meet the conditions of today?


Mr. Moreau:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Maurice John Moreau: In view of this amendment is the hon. member going to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw his bill which is before the house?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently hon. members opposite have very little of substance if they think they can make very much out of the fact that one year ago today I myself filed

a bill which asked for $1.25. May I tell hon. members on the back row that 10 years ago I put in the same sort of bill, and at that time I asked for $1. Does that mean that I am committed to $1 for all time? When I first came to parliament 23 years ago I asked that the old age pension be raised from $20 to $30 a month. Do hon. members suggest that I am stuck with that figure for all time? I would suggest that one thing which is important in political life is that we make progress.
May I tell hon. gentlemen opposite that when I had the opportunity to move second reading of my bill, which is still on the order paper, during the early part of the session I indicated at that time that if I could do so I would change the $1.25 figure mentioned in the bill to $1.50.
Let me set the minister straight on something else. He said that the Canadian Labour Congress in its last submission to the government asked for $1.25 and that that is the latest he has heard from the C.L.C. He also said that the Canadian Labour Congress, after it knew the policy of this government, changed its policy and instead of $1.25 asked for $1.50.


An hon. Member:: True.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who says true? Does the hon. member not realize that this bill we are now debating was given first reading on October 1, 1964? It was at that point, October 1, 1964, that this government made clear its policy of $1.25 an hour. The Canadian Labour Congress passed a resolution asking for $1.50 an hour at its convention in Montreal last April.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Does the hon. member not recall that in the election campaign literature of 1962 and 1963 $1.25 was stipulated by the Liberal party?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So was $2 wheat. So was medicare. So was the Canada pension plan in a form which called for higher figures than we have today. The minister did not try to trade on Liberal party platforms in the last elections; he contended that the Canadian Labour Congress changed its policy after it had learned of the policy of the government, and I have put the record straight. The policy of the government was made clear in this bill on October 1, 1964. The hon. member for Hamilton West may laugh, but surely he can read, and the fact is that the Canadian Labour Congress asked for $1.50 last spring.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Is the hon. member indicating that he himself, for instance, received no indication prior to October 1, 1964, that it was the intention of this administration to bring in the figure of $1.25?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There were many rumours that the government did intend to bring it in and many statements were made. Surely hon. members opposite have been around here long enough to know that you must wait for government policy until it is announced by the government. I am suggesting that the Minister of Labour made a misstatement when he said the Canadian Labour Congress changed its policy after the government's policy had been announced.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Chairman, I did not say that at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will let the record speak for itself, but let it be clear that the Canadian Labour Congress changed its policy in this matter in April of 1964.


Rémi Paul: Could I ask the hon. member whether there was any communication between some of the members here who heard it could be $1.25 and the Canadian Labour Congress?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would tell the hon. member and other hon. members opposite that during the two years between the 1962 and 1964 conventions of the Canadian Labour Congress many sections of that movement were sending in resolutions asking the congress to change its policy. Quite frankly, I do not think we need spend much time on this, but the point I am making is that hon. members opposite certainly have not much to argue about or have not much substance if they are trying to trade on the fact that the Canadian Labour Congress and the member for Winnipeg North Centre prior to last April suggested $1.25. Ten years ago I suggested $1. In light of the economic needs of the people today I would suggest that $1.25 an hour, or $50 a week, or $2,500 a year is not enough. The figure should now be $1.50.
I can also tell the Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Hamilton East, as they both know, that the Canadian Labour Congress is appearing before the government again on March 10. Many of us who have been invited to the reception which will be held afterwards know officially of that date, and
Canada Labour Code
I am sure that everybody in this chamber can readily guess that in the brief that the Canadian Labour Congress will present on that occasion when it speaks on minimum wages it will base its request on what the last convention of the Canadian Labour Congress asked for. What the last convention asked for was $1.50, and I suggest that hon. members opposite are just running for cover if they are trying to find support for their position in the position taken by the Canadian Labour Congress and others in times gone by.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I ask the hon. member one question. Is he sure that the policy statement was issued at the annual convention of the congress, or was it issued in connection with a meeting of the executive council?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Among the resolutions moved at the convention of the Canadian Labour Congress-the Minister of Labour was there on one occasion, and being there myself I heard him speak on this same subject although he did not name a figure-were several asking for the policy to be changed so as to make the figure $1.50 an hour. Those resolutions were not reached at the convention itself-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members say "Oh, oh", but the executive council confirmed the change soon after the convention and I would suggest to these members who are so gleeful about this, especially the members from industrial areas, that they go back to those industrial areas and attend the meetings of labour councils in those areas and reflect the kind of attitude they are showing tonight and see what happens.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lucien Lamoureux: May we have some order please. Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Since the hon. member has suggested that we go back to our constituencies and see what the workers in those areas are saying in connection with what the figure should be, is the hon. member aware that less than two months ago the Nova Scotia federation of labour, an affiliate of the Canadian Labour Congress, made a presentation to the provincial government to the effect

Canada Labour Code
that the minimum wage should be set at a figure considerably below the figure the hon. member is suggesting in his amendment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Knowing some of the economic conditions of the maritime provinces I can well imagine that requests of that sort might be made for a minimum less than this, as a minimum for a particular area or a particular province.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Is the hon. member suggesting then that there should be area rates in Canada?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, not at all. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons I want the minimum wage rate in national legislation to be an adequate rate is because I want it to result in pressure being put on the provinces to bring their rates up. I think it is a disgrace that across Canada there are rates as low as the Minister of Labour was able to quote tonight, and he did not quote the lowest ones. If he were to give the figures for right across the country the picture would be shameful. If he gave us the figures with respect to the provinces where the Liberals are in power, especially in relation to Newfoundland, we would then see the disgraceful picture which exists. Surely after all the talk the Liberals have indulged in about the lead they are going to give during these exciting days of decision, we should come to the conclusion that the thing to do today is come forward with something that is really progressive and adequate, considering present conditions.
The hon. member for Hamilton East suggested that this legislation deals only in minimal standards and is not legislation which seeks to set going or standard rates which are adequate. I think his suggestion was that this legislation sets a figure below which no wage should fall. The issue is put squarely before the member for Hamilton East and his colleagues. Where do they want to set that figure below which wages should not fall? I accept his definition and agree that we are not setting fair wages or wages which will provide a modest living, or wages which will meet the needs of people, but that rather we are setting a figure below which wages should not fall. Is he suggesting that the Liberal party is supporting a minimum wage in the year 1965 of $3,000 a year or $2,500 a year? If he votes against this amendment he is in effect saying that $2,500 a year is the figure below which wages

should not fall but that they can fall below $3,000.
Mr. Chairman, I give again my full commendation to the Minister of Labour for the battle I know he must have put up in the cabinet in order to persuade the government to proceed with this bill. I believe that it is an advantage to have a figure set, but why not go first class; why not do the job adequately if it is to be done at all?
Some of my conversation tonight across the floor has been with the Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Hamilton East. I have been interested in both those gentlemen since they came into this house, and I have been impressed by the suggestion which has been made that they are examples of the new young Liberals-the people who are going to rejuvenate the party and give us a new forward-looking approach.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. member who now has the floor that he is perhaps going beyond the scope of the clause now before us for consideration.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to hear about the new young Liberals.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say something in respect of what those two gentlemen in particular have said about my amendment to increase the minimum hourly wage from $1.25 to $1.50.
What they have said about this amendment is that it defeats the very purpose I have in mind. As I suggested, Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that these were examples of the new young Liberals, but they speak in the same way the Secretary of State for External Affairs used to speak to me in this house and in the corridors, when he was minister of national health and welfare ten or 20 years ago. In those days that hon. gentleman said to me: Stanley, what you are doing is defeating the very purpose you have in mind, in reference to increases to old age pensions or the establishment of medicare.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, when he speaks about what happened ten, 20 or 30 years ago, that some of us are not so preoccupied with what took place in the past, but concerned with what is happening at the present and what will happen in the future. At the present time here in Ontario, having regard to this federal legislation, which is certainly progressive,

there has been a commission studying the effects of minimum wages on a greater number of employees in the construction industry than all the employees affected by this legislation.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I should like to remind the hon. member for Hamilton East that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the floor. Perhaps the hon. member for Hamilton East will make a speech when that hon. member has concluded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question put to me by the hon. member for Hamilton East. He has suggested that some of us should not be so concerned with what happened in the past, and that he and some of his colleagues are concerned with the future. The point I am trying to make is that he has put himself back into the past by taking the same approach as did his forebears in the Liberal party, suggesting that my amendment defeats the purpose I have in mind. I know very well that if the hon. member for Hamilton East and the Minister of Labour were sitting on this side of the house at a time when this kind of legislation was before us for discussion they would be pushing for these benefits and asking that the minimum standards be increased. I am asking them to take the same attitude toward social progress and toward this legislation at this time, when they have the responsibility of government and are in a position to do something about this, that they would take if they were on this side of the house, and which they did take at the time they were here.
At this time, in the mid 1960's, $3,000 per year has been recognized in North America as a salary which is at the breaking point between poverty and existence. Surely any minimum wage to be set by this parliament should be set at least at that figure.
Again I congratulate the minister for bringing this bill before parliament, because some of it is good; but at the same time I must ask him why he does not make it better. That is exactly what we are trying to allow him to do in proposing this amendment to increase the hourly rate from $1.25 to $1.50.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Chairman, I think there is one fundamental difference between legislating for minimum wages and legislating wages. It seems to me that the amendment the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has put forward, because of his own argument, goes beyond the national minimum wage which should be set at this time. The
Canada Labour Code
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre cited the minimum wage rate covered by provincial legislation. Obviously the rate set by this bill must apply not only to the most highly industrialized parts of Canada but all across Canada and, therefore, must be realistic.
The whole crux of the hon. member's argument hangs on his own personal embarrassment at having introduced a bill setting the basic rate at $1.25 per hour. He now says he would like to move forward one year, although he does not offer any particular standard to be followed in moving forward that year. He merely suggests that we increase the minimum hourly rate by 25 cents, or roughly 20 per cent. That is a very good increase for a one-year period, and one which could not be sustained on any cumulative basis. If the hon. member was concerned about offering some regular yardstick by which we could advance the minimum wage rates under a defensible plan, or a plan bearing some relationship to reality, he might have argued that it should be related to the cost of living, or some other reasonable indicator. However, the hon. member does not offer any yardstick at all, but merely picks the $1.50 figure out of the air. As the Minister of Labour has pointed out, if the $1.50 figure had been set by this bill, I am sure the hon. member would have suggested $1.75.
The hon. member does not argue in terms of regular standards in respect of which a minimum wage rate could be established, such as the cost of living or some indicator related to the productivity, but, rather, suggests a figure which is not in reality a minimum wage. He is moving beyond the purposes of minimum wage rate legislation into a field which, as far as I am concerned, should be occupied only by union-management bargaining processes. This is a field in which I hope there will be more productive advances made by those bargaining processes than could ever be made by legislation in respect of something of this nature.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago we heard a bragging contest between the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). According to them, Canadian workers have had some relief only since this government took office.
We heard the Minister of Labour state the minimum salaries in various provinces,

Canada Labour Code
but we also noticed that he failed to mention the provinces which are under a Liberal administration.
Since I am from the province of Quebec, I would have liked the Minister of Labour to indicate the minimum salary in that province. I would also have liked him to tell us what is the minimum salary in New Brunswick and Newfoundland. But it so happens that those three provinces are under Liberal governments, and it is a well known fact that under a Liberal provincial administration the average salary of workers is lower than in the other provinces. That is why the minister failed to give us that information.
But there is more than that as far as this bill is concerned. Being from the province of Quebec I do not hesitate to say that this Bill No. C-126 is a discriminatory measure for the province of Quebec. For instance, if we read clause 11 of this bill, we see that:
(1) Except as otherwise provided by or under this Part, an employer shall pay to each employee of the age of 17 years and over-
It so happens that in the province of Quebec one may work as soon as one reaches the age of 14. You realize therefore that, between the ages of 14 and 17, there is discrimination against workers employed in federal establishments.
The minister can take all the credit he wants for the welfare and comfort of the working class, he will never convince us that the measure he is proposing now is not a discrimination against the people of Quebec.
Having been for many years in a position to provide jobs for my fellow citizens, I can say that I hired dozens of workers from 14 to 17 years old who were the breadwinners of entire families, orphans and needy mothers. Consequently, the proposal under consideration is a striking example of what the present administration has in mind. It is nothing but window dressing and the government did not intend to help the people when they introduced that piece of legislation.
I urge them to stop bragging about themselves and to get down to the level of the small wage earners by introducing legislation which would be more helpful for the people in general.
I am not surprised to hear that New Democrats are calling for a minimum of $1.50 an hour. On that point I share the opinion of my friend the Minister of Labour. If he had suggested a minimum of $1.50, they would have called for $1.75 or $2.00. Well, they

know they will never have to keep their promises, and that is why they so readily promise $1.50, $1.75 or $2.00.
Personally, I ask the Minister of Labour to amend his bill so that it will not be discriminatory to the citizens of Quebec.
I make this suggestion most humbly and in all objectivity, so that people will stop suggesting we are spending our time enacting laws or passing legislation discriminatory to the province of Quebec. There could be no better opportunity for the Minister of Labour to refute this argument put forward by the extremists in my province.


Mr. Drouin:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Two, if you wish.


Vincent Drouin: Does he know that as a member of parliament he can move an amendment? If he is not happy with the wording of clause 11, he can move an amendment and the house will vote on it. The hon. member does not have to beg or implore the Minister of Labour; as a member of the house, he can move an amendment to the bill.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, in reply to my hon. friend from Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, I must say that I did not move an amendment because I wanted to give the Liberal government the opportunity to improve its political fortune which is at a low point. I am helping the government out of charity.


Mr. Graffley:: Mr. Chairman, before we conclude the debate this evening I should like to make the following remarks. First of all, may I say there are certainly many aspects of this legislation that appeal to me and I am sure to many of the people in my riding. I am forced to speak at this time, however, because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has brought up something that I think every member of the house should be concerned about at the present time.
The other day I read certain statistics compiled by the Ontario federation of labour which showed that a family of four living on a total annual income of under $2,000 a year was living in absolute destitution, that a family of four with a total annual income of only $3,000 per annum was living in grinding poverty and that a family of four with a total annual income of under $4,000 a year, having in mind the standard of living in the nation at large, was living in a state of deprivation. I think every member of the house

must realize that here in a country where we have the second highest economic standard of living in the world we have done a terribly poor job of pushing back the frontiers of poverty and want. It is all very well to talk about poverty in the countries of Africa and Asia, but here in Canada 35 per cent of our population are living in a state of deprivation, destitution or poverty.
I do not say this in a political sense at all. I say it simply to bring forward the point I wish to make, and I do not think that anybody with a conscience can quibble with the statistics of the Ontario federation of labour. Any family of four with a total income under $4,000 is certainly living in deprivation, with a total income under $3,000 in poverty and under $2,000 in destitution.
I realize and recognize the fine aspects of the bill as do most members of the house, but let us not for a moment overestimate the effects. We are in fact setting a minimum standard which is within the area of poverty for a family of four with a total income of under $3,000 per year. I hope we recognize this as we are doing it.
The minister recognizes that a family of four, no matter where they are living in Canada, in Newfoundland or Quebec or any of the other provinces, cannot live on a total income of $3,000 unless they are living in poverty. I will say this categorically. Every member recognizes this. We know that in passing this legislation here in Canada we will have done a poor job in pushing back the frontiers of poverty.
I am ready to support this legislation, but I feel also that the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should be listened to with great care tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear some members
calling "Question". I know that one of them will be the hon. member for Hamilton West, and one will be the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle. They never get up to say anything themselves. I should like to answer the minister. I do not know how the members of my party will vote on this issue, but I know how I feel. However, nobody on this side of the house is criticizing the minister for introducing this kind of legislation. Nobody is criticizing the minister for introducing minimum wage legislation.
However, I say to you that if you are going to legislate to put a floor under wages, and if it is to be of any use to humanity, let us 20220-728
Canada Labour Code
do something worth while. You are really not declaring war on poverty, you are freezing these people in poverty. Hon. members know as well as I do that if we legislate a wage rate of $1.25 there will be a lot of employers in this country who will use it as an excuse and say that is the amount of money these people are going to get. In other words, we are freezing wages. We are freezing these people in poverty. We are not declaring war on poverty.
It is no answer, Mr. Chairman, to say we are doing better than the United States. Is this what this government is going to do? Is this a government that is going to say we are going to implement everything the United States does? Is this your program? I say to you, and to the minister, that is not good enough. I say if we are going to do a job tonight we should take a hard, logical look at the situation. If we are going to have a minimum wage, then let us establish it at $1.50. Let us not freeze it at $1.25. Let us have some flexibility in the bill, Mr. Chairman.
Certain powers have been assigned to the minister. This may be an area in which powers should be assigned to the minister so that the legislation can be made more flexible. Within the last few months, in fact within the last year, the cost of living has increased. When the cost of living is increasing, what is the use in chaining workers to a minimum wage which does not fit that cost of living? I want to be fair to the government. The cost of living has been escalating for some time. In fact, there has been a gradual escalation in the cost of living ever since the last war. Let us face it. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that just because he proposed a bill establishing $1.25 as a minimum wage is no reason for establishing that rate today. We should have some flexibility today. If we are going to declare war on poverty, let us do a job.
I know that you have had a hard time getting this measure through cabinet. I believe any minister of labour would have had a hard time selling this measure to any cabinet. The fact is, however, it is not doing the job we want it to do. Perhaps I was a little unkind in some of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, when I said there were politics behind this bill. If you really want to be politicians, then let us set a minimum wage which is reasonable, one upon which the average man can live. Then, I will say you are doing a job in that regard. The argument which has been advanced that the province

Canada Labour Code
of Ontario, Alberta or Saskatchewan has a minimum wage of a certain amount does not answer anything. I suggest to the minister sincerely that I have read the bill. I know its terms, and I know you can enlarge them. However, basically, you are not only setting a minimum wage, you are freezing the hours of work. Many of these pieces of legislation in the provinces allow overtime, and it is by the use of the overtime provision that workers are able to make a living. Instead of limiting these workers to 40 hours per week, what you are doing is imposing on them the necessity of working another 40 hours in order to make a living. In other words, you are really legislating an 80 hour week; let us face it.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived: Yeas, 27; nays, 84.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the clause carry?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I would like once again to draw the attention of the house to clause 11 of Bill No. C-126, which constitutes a discrimination against workers in the province of Quebec; in fact, I am surprised that the Quebec Liberal members have nothing to say about that. I ask them to bring pressure to bear on the minister in order that in the third line of that clause, we may read: -14 years and over
-instead of 17 years, so that there be no discrimination against workers in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Is it only in the province of Quebec that 14 year old children work, or is it the same in all provinces? It must be noted that the preamble reads as follows:
An act respecting hours of work in federal undertakings and businesses.
-and not in all undertakings.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, my argument is even more sound since a specific age is mentioned. This means that the present minister has considered all those things and has decided that even in the province of Quebec, where some people have to work as early as 14 years old, the latter are not included and will not be able to earn $1.25 per hour before being 17 years old.
This is what I want to draw to the attention of the house and it is to correct this anomaly that I ask my hon. colleagues from

the province of Quebec to help me do away with this discrimination in regard to Quebec workers.
I am sorry if they do not realize the significance of this measure, but as far as I am concerned, I wish to call the attention of the house to the importance for the workers of the province of Quebec to be treated in the same way as those of other Canadian provinces.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 12-Employees under 17 years of age.
Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Mr.   Oiio@: Since I intend to speak on clause 12 with some vehemence, I wonder if I could call it ten o'clock?


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the committee would be agreeable to continuing in order that we may make some progress?


Mr. Churchill:: We think we should continue.


Some hon. Members:: No, ten o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Some hon. members have called it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



TRANSPORT


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether the house would be ready to consider a motion of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) having to do with the railway legislation which was discussed at the question hour this afternoon. Could we agree to do that? It would enable the proper notices to be sent out to the various witnesses in good time. This motion simply refers the subject matter of the bill to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: First of all I suppose I must move the second reading of the bill seconded by my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). Then, I propose to ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) to move, seconded by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the

standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On a
point of order, does this motion not run counter to a decision of the Chair supported by a vote of the house last fall in connection with the farm syndicate bill?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I suppose we can assume that the order has been granted- a motion made for second reading.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No; it is an amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of the bill.


George James McIlraith: , in amendment:
That the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
Amendment (Mr. Mcllraith) agreed to.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we shall continue our consideration of the labour standards legislation, and when that is completed I would hope we can deal with some other matters on the order paper. Perhaps it would be useful if I were to indicate some of them, not necessarily in order of priority, so that
Business of the House
they may be on the record where members can refer to them.
There is the resolution and legislation on the Coal Production Assistance Act, item 58 on the order paper; the insurance and trust company legislation amendments, item 76; the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act amendment, item 54; and the Companies Act amendments, item 92. I would ask hon. members to look at this legislation with a view to the possibility of referring it to the banking and commerce committee for immediate study and return to the house.
Then there is the act respecting the Geneva conventions, item 48 on the order paper; the act amending the Privileges and Immunities (United Nations) Act, item 52; the Senate retirement legislation, item 40; the amendments to the international tax agreements, a bill which was given first reading today; the amendment to the Penitentiary Act, another bill which was given first reading today; the Canada Shipping Act, which I understand is now in committee, and the second reading of Bill No. S-2, respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada, item No. 15 on the order paper. I would call tomorrow any one of those items that would be agreeable to the house leaders of the opposition groups, after we have finished the labour standards bill.


[Stage Direction]
It being seven minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]

	i .
	
	
	
[Stage Direction]

... ' *
***'	:	,VV: , . .	[DOT][DOT]	*; .fu,	. * i	1 ;	. :	-
.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 19, 1965