1965-02-19

Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That Bill C-136, now before the house, be amended to authorize, in the place of the age adjusted pension now provided for by part IV of the said bill, that a pension under the Old Age Security Act in the full amount of the pension available to those who have attained 70 years of age be paid commencing 1 January 1966 to those who have attained 69 years of age, commencing I January 1967 to those who have attained 68 years of age, commencing 1 January 1968 to those who have attained 67 years of age, commencing 1 January 1969, to those who have attained 66 years of age, and commencing 1 January 1970 to those who have attained 65 years of age.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the minister of external affairs and ask him what is the situation now at the United Nations, and whether he has anything to report on that body.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the general assembly, after rather vigorous debate yesterday, decided to adjourn until September to enable the countries concerned to negotiate with regard to the financing situation facing the United Nations arising out of the default of certain countries for peace keeping operations. A proposal had been put forward by Albania which called for a return to routine proceedings, and this required a vote. A number of delegations including that of Canada have made statements indicating that the

vote on yesterday's decision to uphold the position taken by the president is not to be considered as in any way withdrawing from the stand that has been taken with regard to article 19.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I might reply to a question put to me by the Leader of the Opposition and state that the representative of Canada on the international commission in Viet Nam visited one of the team sites in North Viet Nam during December, and that the legal adviser from the headquarters staff in Saigon visited the three team sites early in January. A special inspection team from Ottawa also visited these team sites in early November 1964.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to answer the question put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) with regard to the Canadian policy in the Viet Nam crisis.
I believe that it is important, first of all, to clearly realize that it is North Viet Nam which for more than ten years has been violating the Geneva agreement; which for more than ten years, has been the aggressor; and which since 1954 has been trying to get by military means what it could not obtain by political means, namely control over South Viet Nam territory. In that situation the United States have but answered a call from the South Viet Nam authorities.
The American forces were in their right in answering those attacks against them and South Viet Nam, as provided by section 51 of the United Nations charter.
However, we have expressed our concern to Washington, Moscow and Warsaw, since

Inquiries of the Ministry the most recent events could lead to an expansion of the conflict.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arises out of his recent statement about circumstances in Viet Nam in which he mentioned that the United States forces were in Viet Nam at the request of the authorities of that country. Does the Canadian government consider that the authorities in Viet Nam represent the people of South Viet Nam?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the authority in Viet Nam that has been recognized by Canada is the authority that, pursuant to article 51 of the charter, invited the presence of U.S. troops to assist that government three years ago.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a wire from some of the British Columbia members of parliament asking for financial compensation for certain industries which must dismantle and move their plants because of the termination of their leases by the federal government. Has any decision been made by the government with respect to this request?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under consideration by the government. Indeed, it was considered at a meeting yesterday, and I hope it will be possible to make an announcement on Monday or Tuesday of next week in this regard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware that under the terms of the termination of these leases the dismantling of these plants commenced on February 15 and that, therefore, if any compensation is to be made so the men who are employed in these plants can be continued in employment a decision will have to be made very soon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that consideration.


Mr. Jack Davis (Coasl-Capilano):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether

consideration is being given to financial assistance for the industries now being displaced by the construction of a grain elevator in North Vancouver?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member from the house that question was asked of the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I can do nothing except suggest to the hon. gentleman that this matter is under very active review and we expect, as the Prime Minister said, to be able to make an announcement at the beginning of next week.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice?
Can he tell us why after several months' waiting, former superintendent Belec of the R.C.M.P. has yet to receive his pension? Why has not the amount been set yet and what is the reason for this delay from which Mr. Belec is suffering now?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that question is one of those which should be put on the order paper. If the hon. member will do that, I will be happy to give him a prompt answer.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Now that the government of the province of Quebec has decided to set up a department of immigration, will the federal government insist that prospective immigrants to the province of Quebec will be required to conform to federal standards for admission to Canada?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply at this time to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Lake St. John, which I took as notice. The hon. member inquired as to whether, since the province of Quebec had set up an immigration service, it could rely on the full co-operation of the federal department to encourage immigration to the province of Quebec.
My reply is that for roughly 20 years the province of Ontario has had a similar service which has been very effective. That department has co-operated well with the federal immigration service. My colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) was minister of citizenship and immigration for a period of approximately one year. Early in 1963 he suggested that the government of Quebec might establish an immigration service similar to that which exists in Ontario. I believe that the action taken by the government of Quebec is as a result of the suggestion made by the Minister of Justice.
I can assure the house that this new agency of the government of Quebec will receive the full and wholehearted co-operation of the federal department of immigration.


Mr. Georges Valade (Si. Mary):: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration aware of the fact that the B.N.A. Act provides that a province can set up its own immigration service?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Certainly I am aware of that fact, Mr. Speaker. I suggest these will be complementary services, and I am sure there will be complete co-operation between them.


Georges-J. Valade: I have an additional supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the event of a conflict, which service will be-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Georges-J. Valade: I have a supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Apparently the hon. member wishes to ask a supplementary question.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. At the time I was directing my question to the minister some of the howling backbenchers of the Liberal party were passing very unpleasant remarks. I think that
Inquiries of the Ministry behaviour is in contradiction to the rules of the house. I ask Your Honour to exercise sufficient authority in this house and ask those insulting Grits to keep the peace in the House of Commons so that we may have law and order.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he has received any representations from Canadian football clubs-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Mandziuk:: Have your laugh, boys.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member can make himself heard now. I should like to hear the question.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any problem making myself heard, but at the same time I see no reason why I should try to make myself overheard-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Overlooked.


Malcolm MacInnis: Apparently the backbenchers are not getting the signals from the hon. gentlemen in front who want them to keep quiet. We know what developed the last time something like this started, and I am perfectly willing to wait.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would call your attention to a sign just made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, a sign for which Ted Williams was expelled from baseball. I do not think I should have to stand here and watch him make that sign at this time. He may think he can get away with it in the case of other members on this side of the house, but I for one will not take it from him.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member a question to ask. The hon. member for Skeena.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON CHANGES IN ACT AND REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister yet received from Mr. Joseph Sedgwick a report on his inquiry into the handling of deportation cases?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, although I expect it in a day or two. Mr. Sedgwick is continuing his

Inquiries of the Ministry inquiry, as my hon. friend knows, under new and enlarged terms of reference.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Is it intended that there shall be a first report before the second inquiry is completed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry in his capacity as the minister who reports for the emergency measures organization. Is he able to give the house any up to date information about the effects of the slide yesterday at the Granduc copper mining project at Stewart, British Columbia? Just what co-ordination is taking place among the various departments of the federal and provincial governments and also, I understand, the government of Alaska?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, as I think most hon. members will know, communications with the area where this most unfortunate disaster took place are rather poor and it is difficult to get up to date and factual reports.
However, in respect of the second part of the question I can say that to meet a request of the provincial government of British Columbia a combined team has been organized under the command of Colonel Matthews of the Canadian army composed of army engineers, mountain civil defence workers and doctors who were to embark at Prince Rupert to go to Stewart to provide the assistance needed. The government of Alaska has also undertaken to provide what civil defence assistance may be required from the sources they have at their disposal.
To the best of my knowledge, as I am informed, there are no confirmed reports of known fatalities yet. We all, of course, hope there will not only be no fatalities but that the teams will be able to bring relief and assistance to those who are in difficulty at Stewart.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell us when this team under the direction of Colonel Matthews left Prince Rupert, by what means it left, and when it is expected it will arrive in Stewart?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do know that they were to embark from Prince Rupert on the Alaska ferry, the name of which I have not got. Precisely when they are due to arrive I cannot answer.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chalierion (Esquimalf-Saanich):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. According to a telegram I received this morning the Department of National Defence forbade the release of ensigns presented by the navy for laying up ceremonies at some churches in the greater Victoria area. Will the minister say whether this is correct, and if so will he do something about this discourtesy to those who feel strongly about these ensigns?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I will take the question as notice.


George Louis Chatterton: May I ask a supplementary question. Since some of these churches may want to hold these ceremonies this Sunday, will the minister tell the department to see that these ensigns are released?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We will look into the question as quickly as we can.



INQUIRY AS TO CONTINUATION OF ARMOURIES PROTECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister's order issued some months ago whereby all armouries in Canada were placed under 24 hour guard still in effect? If so, does the minister not think the order should be rescinded, since it involves great cost to the taxpayers?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not all armouries are under 24 hour guard, Mr. Speaker. The situation is based on the circumstances applying in each case. The order is under constant review, and the protective measures in each case are being changed as we feel appropriate to fit the situation.


Alfred Dryden Hales: What areas are still under this order?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am afraid I will have to take that question as notice. As a matter of fact

I am not sure it would be advisable to give that information. It would not be advisable to state the precautions that are being taken in each case.



MICHELE DUCLOS-EMPLOYMENT BY DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Associate Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask whether he could advise the house if Michele Duclos, who was recently apprehended in the United States, was ever employed by or connected with the Department of National Defence.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have investigated this matter and ascertained the following facts. Michele Duclos was a one time employee of national defence at Val Cartier. She was employed from July 1, 1957 to March 1, 1958. She was connected with the Canadian army research and development establishment. Her job was typist, and she did no classified work.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In a statement issued in Calgary yesterday by Dr. Reuben Baetz, executive director of the Canadian Welfare Council, it is stated that a poverty study will be undertaken in Ontario in the county of Lanark, in Quebec in the counties of Pontiac, Gatineau and Papineau, in Nova Scotia in Inverness county and in Manitoba's interlake area. When one couples this statement with the serious unemployment situation, with half a million people unemployed, one wonders if the minister would not condescend to give us his statement of policy today.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to make a statement on this matter today. As I said earlier, I will do so at the appropriate time.


Mr. Churchill:: When is that?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I notice that he is in a very amiable mood this
Inquiries of the Ministry morning, particularly with the Minister of Labour, and I was wondering whether the minister would use the services of his good office to impress upon the Minister of Labour the serious situation in regard to unemployment.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In 1962 a plan was incorporated for a national park in western Nova Scotia, calling for a section of sea coast. Now that the establishment of Kedgemakooge national park has been announced by the government can the minister state whether his department plans to add a section of sea coast to add to the facilities of this tourist attraction in Nova Scotia?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this aspect of the addition to Kedgemakooge national park is still under review. If we should come to this conclusion it would require a corridor of land of contracting size to reach the coast and there are some difficulties there, but the matter is still under review.



POSSIBLE REDUCTION IN U.K. SPECIAL IMPORT SURCHARGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the government of the United Kingdom has informed the Canadian government that it intends to reduce the special surcharges imposed very recently on importations into the United Kingdom. If so, what will be the effective dates of these reductions?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, although there has been some speculation in the press there has been no formal communication on that subject.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet

Inquiries of the Ministry I wonder if I might answer-and I am afraid I shall have to do so at some length-the question put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Ontario about a report of the O.E.C.D. The report referred to states that it was-
-approved by the economic and development review committee in December 1964.
This committee is a committee of the whole of the O.E.C.D. Canada was represented on this committee when the report was approved and, if I could obtain the consent of the house, I should like to table a copy of the report which may be of some interest to hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I quite agree with the statements on pages 24 and 27 of the report that there is a trend in Canada toward a greater relative share of provincial governments in tax revenues and expenditures. The O.E.C.D. has properly noted that already the combined expenditures of provincial and municipal governments on goods and services exceed that of the federal government. This point has been brought out many times. In particular, the budget white paper last year devoted some attention to this subject.
Given this obvious fact I agree that, as the O.E.C.D. puts it-
-it is important, as federal-provincial relationships evolve, that the means for a flexible fiscal policy for demand management purposes should be kept in view.
The government has had this aspect of federal-provincial relations very much in mind.
The most important and concrete step which we have taken to date in connection with this problem is the establishment of a tax structure committee in which the federal government and the provincial governments are represented. As I stated in the house on October 15 of last year, in announcing the establishment of the committee-
-the purpose of the .... committee as its terms of reference reveal is to conduct a complete and fundamental re-examination of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements .... It is our hope and expectation, and in this we are joined by the provincial governments, that the committee will find better ways of effecting a balance between the requirements and the resources of Canada's 11 governments. It will also be the committee's task to ensure that the fiscal partnership which results can be used effectively in the achievement of Canada's economic goals, namely the full employment of our people and the full use of their rich resources .... For the first time the federal


government and the provinces will together study the fiscal problems of the 11 governments, will together assemble the facts necessary to illuminate these problems, and will together develop fiscal arrangements which meet the needs of Canada. This approach to federal-provincial arrangements met with the unanimous whole-hearted support of all governments.
In a public speech the following day in Montreal I said:
In all this process the federal government must remain conscious of its own powers and of its own position; it must maintain its clear responsibility for economic policies affecting the country as a whole, including fiscal policy, monetary policy and tariff policy. To do otherwise would be to risk having not one Canada, but several. And that would be disastrous for us all.
I am very glad to see that the O.E.C.D. agrees with this. The hon. member for Edmonton West asked if I would make a full statement on the O.E.C.D. report. As hon. members know, this report deals with the whole Canadian economy. I do not think this sort of review could be made appropriately on the orders of the day. I will, of course, be dealing with it extensively, and I hope soon, when the next budget is presented.



REMOVAL OF TAX ON PRODUCTION MACHINERY AND BUILDING MATERIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It arises from a C.B.C. interview in which he made this remark:
Canadian manufacturers must meet growing import competition in the home market with lower costs and increased efficiency.
My question is, does he not think the government should immediately withdraw the tax on production machinery and building materials so manufacturers can meet this competition, without waiting for the next budget?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This is a question of opinion, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think it is appropriate on the orders of the day.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN FAMILY ALLOWANCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.

Could he inform the house whether he intends to do as much for the young as for the old? Will family allowances remain at the present level or will they be improved in the near future?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It does seem to me that this question raises a matter far too large to expect an answer at this time.



USE OF SILVER IN CANADIAN COINAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in view of the critical silver situation throughout the western world can the Minister of Finance indicate whether it is the intention of the government to provide a substitute for silver, or decrease the amount of silver used in Canadian coinage?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can accept the preamble to my hon. friend's question. This is a matter which is being considered and has been considered for some time. If and when there is anything which should be announced, an announcement will be made, when a decision has been reached.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask whether he can report to the house the progress that has been made as a result of the negotiations between Canada and other countries as to the application of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act to nationals of other countries. Perhaps at the same time he might also tell the house whether geographic co-ordinates delineating Canada's territorial waters have yet been established.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. In reply I wish to say that since the time the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act was passed by the House of Commons last July, Canada has con-20220-729J
Inquiries of the Ministry tinued to conduct negotiations with countries whose fishing would be affected by our drawing straight base lines. We have had discussions with the United States, France, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Italy, In some of these negotiations we have made very satisfactory progress; certain other negotiations are proving rather difficult. While we had hoped that the discussions with all these countries would have been concluded by now, I must inform the house that the negotiations with some countries are still continuing. We remain hopeful that they will prove successful.
In reply to the second part of the hon. member's question, I feel it would not be proper to establish co-ordinates before our negotiations are completed.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources as trustee of our water resources in Canada. My question is based on the fact that I understand the government of British Columbia has appointed a committee composed of Canadian and United States citizens to deal with certain problems relating to the development of the Columbia river.
Can the minister inform the house whether he has received any information regarding the work of this committee, and in particular with respect to the safety of the dams proposed to be constructed; and second, with respect to the regulations issued by the comptroller of water rights for the clearing of these basins behind the dams and their possible effect upon fish life and navigation, which are recognized as responsibilities of the federal government?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that the hon. member is referring to a five man engineering committee appointed last summer by the British Columbia hydro and power authority. These five men, all of whom are top authorities on dam construction, were commissioned to review for the hydro authority all the engineering plans for the construction of the treaty dams in Canada, namely Duncan lake, Arrow lakes and Mica.
This committee was appointed by B.C. hydro and reports to that authority. The gov-

Inquiries of the Ministry ernment has not received any information with respect to their work, nor do we necessarily expect to receive any such reports concerning that particular committee, as under the British Columbia-Canada agreement of July, 1963 the government of British Columbia has undertaken responsibility to construct or arrange for the construction of all the dams required by the treaty. The engineering committee's terms of reference are, I understand, limited to the designs of the dams themselves, and therefore do not include any matters relating to the clearing regulations recently issued by the provincial comptroller of water rights or the recreational aspects of the reservoirs.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, while we are on the subject of water may I pose a question to the Minister of Industry and ask whether he is in a position today to announce to the house the results of the bids or proposals on heavy water, to which he referred several days ago.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker, but I would hope to be able to do so next week.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could the minister tell the house as well as all the dairy farmers in Canada when he intends to announce the new dairy policy for 1965-66?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: This is government policy, of course, Mr. Speaker, and it will be introduced, I hope, in the not too distant future.


Clément Vincent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether that policy announcement will be made prior to next April 1?


Harry William Hays: I would not like to say at this time, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he could give the house and the air line operators of this country some idea as to when his government will be able to announce the regional air carrier policy for Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think, sir, I can say anything useful about the time when that would be done, beyond saying that it will be done just as soon as we think we have something to communicate to the house which will really work.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What does that mean?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Is the government intending to do anything about establishing air line service for our cities that are now without such service before this policy is announced; that is to say, in the interval?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the particular problem to which I am sure the hon. member for Medicine Hat is alluding is under very active consideration with two air lines at the present time.


Mr. J. H. Addison (York Norlh):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has anything to report on the negotiations between Air Canada and C.P.A. with regard to a merger on international flight routes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that in this matter there will be something to announce in the very near future. The conversations between the two international carriers have been proceeding, and in my opinion proceeding along the right lines and very well. I really sincerely believe that it will not be long before they reach a conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might correct an impression which I may inadvertently have given the house in answer

to the hon. member for York North. I did not hear the question correctly, so I am informed by one of my colleagues, and the hon. member used the word "merger" in his question. There is no question or discussion whatever about a merger between Canadian Pacific Air Lines and Air Canada. The conversations have relation to co-operation of the most intimate kind in the international field, but not to any merger of the two companies.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I think this would be a supplementary question to the minister. Would the minister make a statement to alleviate fears in the Cape Breton area that all flights now operated by Air Canada out of Sydney will be taken over by Eastern Pick-ersgill Air Lines-I am sorry; I mean Eastern Provincial Air Lines?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had not heard that rumour, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister going to file the annual report of the maritime trustees? The second part of the question, to save time, is when will the committee on industrial relations meet in order to examine the trustees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I received the report of the chairman of the board early this week and it is now being translated. As soon as the report is available in both languages it will be tabled in the house. Then it will be up to the committee to decide when it wishes to meet to examine the board on the basis of the report which will then be available.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON FISHERY PROBLEMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, may I divert the attention of the house from wheat to fish by directing a question to the Minister of Fisheries. The minister will recall that shortly before the recess we dealt with the extension of a certain provision in the Combines Investigation Act,
Inquiries of the Ministry and at that time he indicated he felt that this extension would allow us time to get a report from a joint federal-provincial committee which he suggested could help to resolve the rather complicated and unsatisfactory situation in the field of labour-management relations in that industry in British Columbia. I wonder whether the minister can tell us if he has received any further information as to the progress this committee is making since the house recessed and, if so, when will the results of the committee's findings be made available to the members of the house?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, this federal-provincial committee on wage and price disputes in the British Columbia fishing industry was appointed jointly by the minister of labour for British Columbia and myself. The committee has made its report; yesterday I consulted the minister of labour for British Columbia, and it is my intention to table the recommendations on Monday next.



WHEAT-KNOWLEDGE BY MINISTER OF PRICE REDUCTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I should like to ask the minister whether he was aware that prices were going to be cut on wheat and whether he gave his approval to this price cut before it took place.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question the other day. The Minister of Trade and Commerce cannot instruct the wheat board. He cannot approve price changes; this is entirely within the control of the Canadian wheat board.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question. Could the minister explain why on January 28 he flew into Winnipeg to have discussions with the wheat board and the advisory committee of the wheat board, since apparently he had no control over them?


Mitchell William Sharp: I was invited by the Canadian wheat board to meet with them and with the advisory committee to talk about changes in the world wheat situation which were then occurring. It is not my responsibility to fix the prices, since that matter rests entirely

Inquiries of the Ministry with the Canadian wheat board, but it is my responsibility, as it is the responsibility of any minister of trade and commerce, to promote co-operation and consultation between governments, and it was in this connection that I was there.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, the philosophy just enunciated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce forces a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that on previous occasions before price cuts were made by the Canadian wheat board the minister asked the wheat board to hold up those cuts until consultation could take place between the governments of Canada and the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think this question refers to a matter which the hon. gentleman has raised on previous occasions. I would not ordinarily look back into the history of my predecessor in charge of the Canadian wheat board, but in this instance I felt that since he had raised the matter I had some responsibility to do so. I discovered that the particular instance which he had in mind related to a time when prices were very much lower than they are today, when wheat threatened to go through the floor of the international wheat agreement and he had every right to raise the matter at that time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question to the minister. Would the minister not agree that the initial price set by the wheat board is actually the price set by the government, and that therefore the minister has some responsibility as a member of the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the initial price is fixed by the government for the Canadian wheat board.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not think the minister heard all my question; he was talking to another minister, so I will put my question again. Surely the Minister of Trade and Commerce appreciates that if it is government policy to set the initial price, it is his responsibility to look into the price of wheat as a member of the government.


Mitchell William Sharp: Of course it is my responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to keep closely in touch with the operations of the Canadian wheat board; but I have no authority, nor has any other minister in the past ever exercised such

authority, to instruct the Canadian wheat board as to the price it charges.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Has the minister or the government received any representations from other grain exporting countries regarding the price cuts authorized by the Canadian wheat board and apparently endorsed by the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, both yesterday and on a previous occasion I made it quite plain that throughout the whole period of adjustment there was very close consultation among all the governments concerned, particularly between Canada and the United States and between the Canadian wheat board and its opposite number in the United States.


Edward Nasserden: Could the minister tell us whether he has received any representations from any grain exporting countries besides the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what "representations" mean. We were in touch with the Australian government; my colleague the Minister of Agriculture was in Australia at the time and I asked him whether he would speak to the minister in charge there about the desirability, for the sake of all of us, of trying to avoid any price war; and we were able to avoid it.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would it not be possible for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to invite the Canadian wheat board to appear before the standing committee on agriculture so that many of these questions pertaining to trade, prices and whatnot could be answered by the officials of the Canadian wheat board?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think this is most desirable. I know the wheat board would like very much to appear before such a committee; it ordinarily appears when its annual report is presented.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister

advise the house when we may expect legislation based on the recommendations of the O'Leary commission report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter which will be up for consideration before long, but I am afraid not during the remainder of this session.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to a question I asked on December 18, which can be found at page 11321 of Hansard, and which he took as notice at that time. Perhaps the minister is in a position to answer it now.


Guy Favreau: The hon. member for Yukon, who obviously is a mind reader, is right. I was just going to answer his question and I wanted to say that yesterday I had undertaken to table some official documents which I expected before 11 a.m. I do not have them in hand, but with the consent of the house, I could now undertake to table them during the day as soon as I have received them.
As for the second part of his question-in answer to a previous question-the answer is no.


Erik Nielsen: For the purpose of clarification, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he is stating that the superintendent of bankruptcy has not received any report from the trustee in bankruptcy?


Guy Favreau: No. But the question as it was asked in December, in the atmosphere prevailing at that time-if the hon. member for Yukon will remember-referred to the possibility of an inquiry into campaign contributions. It is obvious that in his official capacity as superintendent of bankruptcy, that person was not called upon to request or receive such a report. Naturally, he did receive the reports on the bankruptcies in question which had to be sent to him in his official capacity. But, while he actually received those routine reports, he did not receive any of the kind referred to in the
Inquiries of the Ministry question asked on December 6 by the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: I should like to ask one final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Obviously the minister and I do not share the same view as to the purport of my question asked on December 18. I wonder, therefore, for the information of this house, whether the minister will table any report which the trustee in bankruptcy made to the superintendent of bankruptcy, the federal officer, in connection with the particular bankruptcies that were under discussion at that time.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I shall of course have to examine the question to ascertain whether or not that document is privileged and, in so far as it is privileged, if I can take the responsibility of tabling it.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has his attention been drawn to a story which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on February 17 to the effect that a group of demonstrators and separatists in the province of Quebec had burned a new flag? Has the minister given any consideration to amending the Criminal Code which would make such an indignity to the flag an offence, or has he given consideration to perhaps a general code which would govern the flying of the flag, such as is in existence in the United States?


Mr. Bell:: How about the Prime Minister's hat?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take this matter into serious consideration.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister of Justice also investigate the circumstances surrounding a hat made out of a new Canadian flag which was given to the Prime Minister?


An hon. Member:: What an indignity.

Canada Labour Code SHIPPING



BRITISH COLUMBIA-RESEARCH COMMITTEE ON MANNING AND SAFETY IN TOWING INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked me whether I had signed an agreement with the joint consultative committee of the British Columbia towing industry with regard to the establishment of a research committee. I should like to advise the hon. member that this agreement has not yet been signed on behalf of the Minister of Labour. However, a meeting of that joint consultative committee of the British Columbia towing industry is being held today in Vancouver for the purpose of having representatives of this committee sign the agreement. The document will then be forwarded to Ottawa for the signature of the Minister of Labour.
This labour-management-government agreement, and the research committee being set up under it, involves, as my hon. friend is aware, four maritime unions and 46 companies, and will affect approximately 3,000 men.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 18, 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 12 was under consideration, clauses 1 and 3 having been allowed to stand.
On clause 12-Employees under 17 years of age.


Mr. Ofio:: Mr. Chairman, just prior to the adjournment last evening the parliamentary secretary described this as a minimal bill. I should like, therefore, to speak about this clause, which I venture to suggest will prove to be the maximal clause of this minimal bill.
After all the arguments pertaining to feed mills, truckers and railway employees have been forgotten I respectfully suggest that the application of clause 12 will prove that it is the instrument by which a very serious and grave wrongdoing perpetrated in this House

of Commons was removed. I am sure hon. members of this committee will not be surprised when I state that I have looked at this clause in light of its application to the page boy staff in this chamber. Clause 5 (b) of the bill states:
An employer may only employ a person under the age of 17 years
(b) subject to the conditions and at a wage of not less than the minimum wage prescribed by the regulations for the occupation in which such person is employed.
There can be no doubt that the Minister of Labour and his department have the right, the obligation and the duty to institute reform in this house in connection with page boys. 1 intend to present certain facts in a precise and unemotional manner to the members of this committee. When I am doing so I should like hon. members to remember that I am speaking of conditions today here in this chamber, not of conditions which existed at the time of Charles Dickens or Oliver Twist.
The page boys in this house range in age from 11 to 15. They have been employed in their duties in this chamber for decades. They are impeccably dressed and a delight to all visitors and tourists. They work here under our very noses day in and day out, but not one of us has ever inquired under what conditions they are working. Representations have been made in the house time and time again on behalf of secretaries, stenographers, elevator operators and other public works employees but on not one occasion-


Mr. Lambert:: How long have you been here?


Steven Otto: -that I recall has any member
asked-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member who has the floor has every right to speak for himself but I would suggest as a matter of privilege that he is taking in a lot of territory when he includes all members of the house.


Norman Platt Lambert: Having in mind the short time he has been here.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As the hon. member has interjected, having in mind the relatively short time, if I may say so, that he has been a member of the house.


Steven Otto: I have said that in the time I have been a member of the house I have not heard any such representations. However,

if there have been representations so much the better. The fact is that there are 17 of these boys. One is from Ottawa, 13 are from Hull, two are from Gatineau Point and one is from Gatineau Mills which is 17 miles away. They all live at home and they work because their families need the money. They arrive here at approximately twelve o'clock noon.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The Chair has some doubt whether the speech the hon. member is making is really relevant to clause 12 now before the committee. He is referring to the cases of individual page boys, and there is some doubt in the mind of the Chair whether the cases to which he has referred are really covered by clause 12 of the bill. Perhaps the minister might enlighten the Chair on this point, but it does appear to me as though the hon. member is straying far afield at this time.


Steven Otto: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I have read this section and I believe it is quite clear that it covers all employees under the age of 17. It provides that an employer may only employ a person under the age of 17 in such occupation and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by regulation. These children are certainly employees and with great respect, Mr. Chairman, I think what I am saying is a proper subject for discussion under clause 12.
I should like to continue to give some facts on the presumption that not too many members are aware of these conditions. As I say, these page boys live quite a distance away. They come to work at twelve o'clock noon and they are still here at ten o'clock or even 10.30 at night. In fact most of them leave at approximately 10.30 and by the time they get home, have something to eat and get to bed it is midnight, long after most of us are in bed.
Would hon. members care to hazard a guess as to how many of these children still go to school; all 17, 15, 13, 8? The fact is that not one of them goes to school. At this age they are all drop-outs, and it is no wonder. What schooling can they get between nine o'clock and eleven o'clock in the morning? How long could they continue to pursue the curriculum? These young boys are now enrolled in a private business college at Sussex and Rideau streets and they take typing. One takes mathematics, but they take no geometry or languages. Not one of them can go on to higher learning. They are drop-outs. These boys work long hours and have no time to play.
Canada Labour Code
Any member can find out the details merely by inquiring, but it is a tragedy that right here in the House of Commons we should tolerate such conditions. When I say that, I do not place any more blame on the minister than I place on any other member, myself included. We have known the situation existed and we have done nothing about it. Now is the time to do something. The minister has the power and the right to institute certain reforms so this situation will not be tolerated any longer.
What do these boys do? They spend 60 per cent of their time bringing members water, coffee and cigarettes, and take the odd message. If coffee is so important let us instal dispensing machines in the lobbies rather than put up with this situation.
What will these boys do when they leave here? It is almost impossible for them to get jobs even in the civil service, because they are told that they have no education. How can they get jobs? We have done this to them. It is not their fault they cannot get an education.
I should like to make some recommendations, but first may I say I am not unmindful of the traditions of the house. I believe there is a place for tradition. These young lads may be a part of our traditions, but let us put things to right. Let us recruit young page boys from all over Canada, preferably two or three from each province, so it will be an honour to become a page boy. Let us establish a residence for them. Let us give them good tutoring by a good staff and see that they have a little time to play. If they are qualified to enter university when they grow older, let us see to it that they get a university education. Let us assure them of opportunities for advancement on the House of Commons staff or in the civil service as they grow older so they will be able to earn a decent living and make use of their abilities and intellects in whatever capacity they can.
I have indicated only some of the factors and have made some recommendations. There are many other recommendations that could be adopted. I do want to say, however, that it would be absolutely wrong for the minister to say at this time that it is not his responsibility. If he purports to be a reform minister and if he purports to sit on the treasury benches as a member of a reform party now in power, then I say to him there can be no clearer opportunity for reform than that which is required in the case of these page boys, having in mind their grievances and the conditions under which they

Canada Labour Code
work. It is going to be very difficult to convince the people of Canada that we are a reform party and that the government is a reform government if we allow this situation to continue. With great respect, I think it is the duty and obligation of all of us to support the minister in introducing measures to alleviate this situation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 13-Handicapped employees.
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, this clause has to do with disabled and handicapped persons. It sets out that upon application to the minister either by a handicapped person or an employer a permit can be secured for the hiring of the handicapped or disabled person at less than the minimum rate. If this provision is enforced, I humbly suggest it will militate against the hiring of handicapped or disabled persons. When you consider the delay involved in sending to Ottawa for a permit and the delays in getting it from Ottawa, all the red tape that is involved, an employer is going to say "I don't think I will bother". The handicapped or disabled person may not be hired. I know the national selective service people are always trying to find jobs for disabled and handicapped people. I believe these two branches of the minister's department will be working at cross purposes. I believe it would be much better if we followed the idea that is followed in collective bargaining agreements which are in existence in many provinces. I suggest to the minister that these two branches of his department are going to be working at cross purposes.


Mr. Orlikow:: It seems to me that the implementation of this provision will go a long way toward destroying the very worth while and very effective program which the national employment service and voluntary organizations, such as the society for crippled children, have conducted for a number of years. The whole purpose of this program has been to convince employers that handicapped people, given the proper training and careful selection of jobs, can do just as well as non-handicapped persons. In fact I have often heard it said by national employment service officers that with the proper selection of jobs the handicapped people can do a better job than those who are not handicapped.
Having spent all these years of effort in attempting to convince employers that handicapped people deserve a chance, not as a matter of charity but on the basis that they

can do a job, the minister now proposes to write into the act an invitation to every employer not to use the kind of ingenuity which the minister's department has asked employers to use in finding the right jobs for handicapped people and paying them the normal wage to make them feel it is worth while to make the effort to overcome their handicap, but to ignore all the efforts which have been made. Employers will not be willing to write to the minister to get a permit to pay less than the $1.25 to handicapped persons.
In my opinion this wage is not too high in any event. It seems to me there is really no valid reason for this kind of thinking on the part of the department. It seems to me to be an admission of failure when no failure has been demonstrated in so far as the efforts of the department or the voluntary agencies are concerned. I hope the minister will agree to withdraw this provision.


Mrs. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to underline the points that have been brought out by these hon. members who have spoken about this provision. I have questions related to those people who are so severely handicapped they are unable to work in ordinary job situations or to compete with others in any way. These people need special conditions before they are able to work. I am referring to the sheltered workshop situations which are currently of such interest across this country.
I should like especially to talk about those people who need to work but who at the moment are considered unemployable because they are so severely handicapped, either through mental illness or mental retardation, that they need individual consideration in connection with their work performance. These are people who must work for wages that are below the minimum prescribed in this legislation. They are people who must be considered individually from the standpoint of their variation and what they are able to earn each day. They must be considered not purely from the standpoint of how much they can earn per hour, not just on the basis of time alone but on their performance; what they are actually able to produce. There will be, as well, individual fluctuations. Some individuals will vary from day to day in so far as what they are able to produce is concerned. You cannot, therefore, prescribe an across the board wage rate for these people. They have to be considered individually.



I96S

[Stage Direction]
I do not know how this clause is going to apply to such work situations, or if it will apply. I anticipate that the federal government is going to become interested in at least providing partial assistance for the setting up of this type of workshop across Canada for these unemployables. If the government did become involved in a national program, how would this clause be applied to those people? Will the minister consider a third subsection which would exempt whole projects of this nature rather than consider the problem on an individual basis? Obviously you cannot keep coming back to the minister for permits to pay the type of wages that would be necessary if these people were to be employed. I wonder if the minister would consult with his officials and clarify that point.
Norman Platt Lambert: May I say that my position is the same as that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I think, unfortunately, the implementation of this provision will result in a statutory embodiment of the differential between the person who is handicapped and the person who is not. I believe we would then have it fixed in black and white within the statute that there must be a differential between the handicapped and non-handicapped person. I do not know what good is really going to be done by this sort of thing except perhaps to furnish the employer with an excuse for insisting that there be a differential.
I can certainly support the views of the hon. member for Saskatoon and others as a result of my own experience and interest in the work of social welfare organizations and the work of national employment officers who place handicapped people in the best possible employment that can be found for them. This provision is going to encourage people to go to the minister and say "I want something less." I do not know, but perhaps you might cure one or two cases by putting the scale at less than $1.25 per hour. However, you would also establish a precedent and, through this provision, encourage employers to do precisely the reverse of what the minister wants. I strongly urge him to voluntarily withdraw this particular clause.


Mr. Matheson:: I would earnestly urge the minister not to consider for a moment withdrawing clause 13. I point out that each of the provincial acts except the act of Prince Edward Island, specifically provides for the employment of handicapped workers at rates below the established minimum. In seven
Canada Labour Code
of the provinces the administrative board or the minister of labour has authority to deal with such cases on an individual basis and to issue a permit or certificate authorizing the employment of the handicapped worker at a wage specified in the permit. In New Brunswick and Newfoundland the board has power to set special minimum rates for handicapped employees or recommend such rates to the lieutenant governor in council. In several provinces the board may limit the number of handicapped workers to whom the lesser wage may be applied. But what is important-


Norman Platt Lambert: Is that a departmental memorandum you were reading from, or your own notes?


John Ross Matheson: It was a departmental memorandum with which I have some familiarity, and I would answer my distinguished and hon. friend by saying I also have some experience from the standpoint of the person who is handicapped. I am a member of the Canadian Paraplegic Association. Many of my old friends who were in hospital at different stages I know have made remarkable contributions to industry, management and the professions. Their real problem has always been how to get in, how to get started.
I know that from my own particular experience, being somewhat disabled after the war, I found it almost impossible even in the large city of Toronto to be afforded the opportunity to practise law, an opportunity that would otherwise have been readily available. It so happened that at the time I was president of Osgoode Hall and thus made a lot of friends and personal contacts, but I know some of the finest people who honestly felt unable to take the chance of offering me employment. In fact I can quite understand how difficult it is for competent, public spirited and professional people to risk undertaking the job placement of some person with serious physical limitations.
But I know of many instances where people with major physical disabilities, once they get inside the door, were successful. I know of several such people in my own home city of Brockville. In particular I know one young man, very seriously disabled, whose contribution is far in excess of that of normal people, who very quickly has proven himself, securing salary increases and furthering his own advancement.
Sympathy is not what is sought. Nobody wants it. For example, I have a friend who had an amputation at about the hip, and

Canada Labour Code
the last thing he wanted was sympathy. He has been able to make an extremely good career for himself, and I believe that once these people get in the door they can succeed.
Clause 13, precisely as drafted, can be of great assistance to a class of Canadians who want to compete on an equal basis with everybody else. The real problem is that they want to be given the opportunities to get started, opportunities where employers do not assume an unfair or undue risk because of obvious physical limitations.


Norman Platt Lambert: I don't see how this clause helps that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I think the objective which the minister has in mind is a very laudable one. He is extremely anxious that people who suffer some physical disability may have an opportunity for employment; since, as the hon. member for Leeds has pointed out, such persons do have greater difficulty in securing employment than do persons who are physically well. However, I am not sure that this is the best way to tackle the problem. I doubt that by labour legislation we can accomplish what is really a social welfare task.
I have had an opportunity of looking at welfare programs in several countries which are extremely interested in making use of handicapped persons, and the same goal is accomplished by having the government offer some incentive to an employer who employs physically handicapped persons, and even mentally retarded individuals. To me it seems a wrong approach to provide this incentive to the employer by allowing him to hire an employee at a lower wage. By doing so the danger is that you put such an employee in an inferior position vis-a-vis his fellow worker, in that he is on a lower wage and consequently in a lower category than the person beside whom he is working.
If the government wants to help physically incapacitated people, then we ought to have some provision in the physical disability legislation by which the government would pay an employer compensation, an employer grant or some tax concession for each and every physically handicapped individual he takes onto his staff. I greatly fear that the provision in this clause will give the physically handicapped person a sense of inferiority, a feeling that in relation to his fellow employee he is a second class employee, a feeling that he is not really expected to do the same kind or quality of work. It would be much better if the handicapped person came into employ-

ment in the same way as his fellow worker, and that compensation be provided for his employer under a social welfare program deliberately beamed at helping handicapped persons find employment.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate my agreement with the views expressed by those who question the advisability of retaining this clause in the bill. I think the hon. member for Wellington South, who suggested there is some conflict between the policies of the department and this proposal, made a point to which the minister should reply.
I cannot recall the exact wording, but I have seen billboards around the country, with the minister's name at the bottom, urging the employment of handicapped people, and I think the slogan reads "Everybody is handicapped." Having seen it I can realize how true it is. None of us is perfect. None of us has all the virtues and all the capabilities. Being handicapped is a relative matter, but for us to pick a particular group of persons and say it is legally and statutorily proper to pay them a minimum wage below what others get is basically wrong in principle.
I agree with the point made by the hon. member for Leeds that an effort should be made to help handicapped people get their foot in the door, to get started; but this is not the way to do it, by saying to the employer "You may take advantage of these handicapped people by hiring them at a minimum wage less than that paid to others." I hope the minister will be prompted by the arguments presented to him during the last few minutes to think it might be a good idea to allow the clause to drop.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, along with the others who have spoken I would like to register my opposition to the clause. With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Leeds about his own personal experiences, I wish to say that as the result of an accident I also was a paraplegic and it is quite true, as the hon. member said, that handicapped people do not want sympathy. It is also true, as stated by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, that anyone in that position would not want to feel inferior.
Handicapped persons are in an awkward position and everything possible should be done for them, but not at the expense of giving an employer cheap labour. That is not the solution to the problem. When you do that you are making the individual affected-

and he already has a mental cross to bear along with his physical one-feel inferior, feel that he is a second class citizen, that he can be hired for much less than anyone else. He will say "I am hungry. I have to feed my wife and children, so I must accept this." I appeal to the minister to think more about this and make some changes in the clause, because I certainly think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam hit it right on the head when he brought up this point about inferiority. I say this because believe me, as the hon. member for Leeds can verify, when you are in that position for many, many months there are times when you feel "What am I doing around here? I am not wanted; nobody wants me", so surely we should not do anything to make anyone feel worse than he already does.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister whether he has given consideration to including this problem in the regulations section. It would not be as noticeable if it was hidden there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: I mean that quite seriously. I think the regulations section might have been used for this purpose, because it would not make it as obvious.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the point of view that has been expressed by hon. members with respect to taking a broader attitude toward disabled persons. Really the purpose of this clause is to assist disabled persons, because normally disabled persons are in competition on the labour market with able-bodied persons, and all things being equal an employer will select an able-bodied person rather than a disabled person. This clause refers to persons who may have a disability that is a handicap in the performance of a particular job.
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that everybody is handicapped; but handicapped as we may be, we may perform a particular job efficiently. This clause is intended to deal with persons who are handicapped with respect to the particular job that is to be performed, and all we say here is that the handicapped person can come to the Minister of Labour and say "I can get a job in this operation for $1.15 and I would like to get the job. Can the employer pay me that rate?" Or the employer can come forward and say "I can take on several disabled persons at this rate. Can I have a permit?"
Canada Labour Code
Each case will be examined and advice will be received from the civilian rehabilitation branch of the Department of Labour. That branch is actively concerned with rehabilitation work, in co-operation with all the provinces, and their advice with respect to each individual case would be sought to determine whether in the interests of that person, as a handicapped person, a special permit ought to be granted to permit a wage rate lower than the $1.25.
The purpose is to help. I do not believe that essentially it would affect psychologically the handicapped person to know that he was working at a lower rate or that he was receiving, by virtue of his disability, an additional social welfare subsidy. I do not know whether it would make very much difference.
That is the purpose of the clause. It is for special cases where we think we may be able to help a person get a job; and certainly it would be better for the handicapped person to be employed, even at a rate lower than $1.25, than to be completely unemployed. That is the whole intent of this clause.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, would the minister not agree that since handicapped persons should be assisted, such assistance ought to come in the form of some payment, if that is necessary, from welfare departments to the employer, rather than taking it out of the income of the handicapped person? Because a handicapped person cannot live on any less than an able bodied person; he probably needs more.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would agree with the general proposition, Mr. Chairman, I should think there would be persons in receipt of disability assistance already who would-


Norman Platt Lambert: They have the means test.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It would depend upon how the means test would operate. But I would agree that this is an approach that ought to be considered. It cannot be embodied in this bill. This is a very small effort within a minimum wage bill to make provision to help the handicapped; it is certainly not a total solution in any way. It is there to make sure that if there are special cases for whom we can provide jobs, the $1.25 will not be a bar, especially if that person has a handicap in the performance of any work; in other words, if that person on that job could not operate as efficiently as a person without a handicap or disability. From the productivity point of view there is a justification, because an em-

Canada Labour Code
ployer would normally say "I will employ an able-bodied person".


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister is sincere in wanting to provide jobs for handicapped people, because if he was not he would not have these provisions in the national employment service, and he is not too sure in his own mind whether he is going about it in the right way with this piece of legislation. I think he is making it very difficult for an employer to hire a handicapped person by putting in all these regulations and this red tape before an employer can hire this person whom the minister wants hired because he is handicapped. So why not let the employer and the employee make an arrangement between themselves so the handicapped person can go on staff at a lower rate than the minimum, and then if the handicapped person feels he is not being fairly treated as far as wages are concerned, put a provision in the act whereby the disabled person could make representation to the minister or the department to ascertain whether he is being paid a fair wage rate.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I attempted to listen very carefully to what the minister had to say on this point. I am quite sure we all agree that his purpose in putting forward this proposal is with the idea of trying to be helpful to handicapped persons. But it did seem to me, as I listened to him, that what he was disregarding in the argument he advanced was the very argument he has been advancing right from the beginning of our discussion of this part of the bill. There was the discussion we had last night, for example, when my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre proposed an increase in the proposed minimum. The minister kept emphasizing that we were talking about a minimum standard, something that was an absolute floor, and it was not to be construed that he was advocating that the general wage level throughout the country should be $1.25 an hour. As I recall it, the minister became quite eloquent at one point in his argument last night with regard to this very point, and it does seem to me that in what he was saying a few minutes ago he was disregarding the argument that he advanced last night.
I suggest that we are not considering here legislation providing, for example, that where the prevailing wage rate for a particular job is, we will say, $2.50 an hour, someone who is handicapped cannot be hired for $2.30 an hour. That is not the sort of thing we are talking about at all. What we are talking

about in this clause is allowing handicapped workers to be hired at what the minister argued last night was an irreducible minimum. It seems to me that if the minister is going to continue to argue that this clause should be included in the bill he should give us some examples of what kind of jobs and where and under what circumstances in Canada it is right and proper that handicapped persons should be enabled to be hired at less than what he described as the basic minimum.
To me this question is perhaps the most important aspect of the matter. I think the questions raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in regard to a program of assistance to ensure that handicapped people will be taken into the stream of employment point up a very necessary and desirable part of the approach and the program which the Department of Labour and this parliament should be promoting. But in addition to that it seems to me that if we pass this clause what we are admitting is that the basic proposal of a $1.25 minimum, as an absolute floor, is being thrown overboard in respect of workers who certainly require that kind of minimum to live on. Surely the minister will not argue that these people do not need a minimum of $1.25 an hour in order to make the effort to become employed worth while.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the proposition, except that if this variation or reduced rate is very exceptional and special circumstances would draw somebody into a job who otherwise would have no opportunity to work, then there is some justification for it; and that is the point.


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to say a few words on this clause.
It is quite easy to continually request a raise in the hourly rate. It is also very easy to continually complain that wages are not high enough, without even taking into account the difficulties that that would entail for business in general and export trade in particular.
I think that the purpose of section 13 is not to help skilled technicians or those whose qualifications permit them to get higher wages, but to help the common man, the common labourer, who otherwise could not find a job. Therefore, the purpose here is to help the individual who, because of his physical condition, cannot perform as much work in an hour as an ordinary employee, so that in an

eight hour day such a worker would often only put in five hours of efficient work, but he would still be paid for eight hours although at a slightly lower hourly rate.
I think we would be helping the handicapped person by carrying clause 13. It could not do any harm, quite the contrary.
Mr. Chairman, I merely wished to explain why I was in favour of clause 13, although this may appear to be somewhat strange to the Canadian people generally.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, can we have a vote on this clause?


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman, I rather subscribe to the principle that the job carries the rate. I think there is no question that this principle should apply when a person is in a physical condition to carry out the job assigned to him.
The hon. member for Wellington South has said that if this clause is dropped it will permit certain arrangements to be made between employee and employer; that is to say, private arrangements. On the contrary, if this clause is dropped that person will be unable to make a private arrangement with an employer, because the employer will be bound under the act to pay the minimum rate of $1.25.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has put the matter in a similar light and has suggested that a disabled person would be required to work at a rate less than the going rate or the minimum rate prevailing in the plant. The clause says:
(1) For the purpose of enabling a person to be gainfully employed-
This is the important phrase.
-who has a disability that constitutes a handicap in the performance of any work to be done by him for an employer-
-and so on. If such person comes to an employer and it is obvious to the employer that he is handicapped in such a way that he will be unable to perform the duties which would be assigned to him, and the going rate for that work is $1.25 an hour for a certain quota of production, then that handicapped person is unable to become an employee.
I think it has been said that all these civil rehabilitation officials in the provinces and in the department itself have asked that this clause be included, because it is for the protection of handicapped people. It might
Canada Labour Code
be that some other department of the government-the department of health and welfare for instance-is prepared to pay a percentage of the wage of the handicapped person to bring it up to $1.25, but if this clause is not included then no arrangement could be made to enable an employer to pay less than $1.25. The balance being made up by some other body or civil rehabilitation authority. I think it would be quite improper to drop this clause from the bill.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, if the minister is insisting that this clause be left in then I think he should redraft it. First of all, I am sure he is most anxious that handicapped people be employed, as are all of us. Take the concrete example of an employer who has a position vacant for which two persons apply, one of whom is handicapped. The handicapped person may be willing to work for a few cents an hour less than the other applicant so that the employer in turn is ready to hire the handicapped person; he wants to help him and give him a job and enable him to work. Then the employer reads the act and discovers he has to write to the Minister of Labour, get a permit, and substantiate his application with evidence, whereupon the employer says he is not going to go through with all that nonsense and red tape to give the handicapped person a job. In such case the result would be that the handicapped person would go without the job.
If the minister would reverse this situation so the employer would hire the handicapped person and then, after a period of employment, if the handicapped person was not satisfied with his wage he could write the minister and ask to have his case investigated, in this way the handicapped person would be employed, as the minister and I and all other hon. members in this committee would wish.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, one brief comment. With all due respect to the minister I think this situation is going to bury employers under a mountain of red tape. I think the special placement officers who will attempt to find positions for handicapped persons will in the majority of cases discover that the positions available have already been listed with the national employment service. We must realize that an employer is not going to wait indefinitely to fill a position while all this rigmarole of applications and references to consultative officers takes

Canada Labour Code
place. Let us be reasonable about this situation. I think the benefits of this clause will be lost in all this red tape in which you are wrapping them.


Eloise May Jones: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the minister would comment on the points I drew to his attention.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I was unable to hear the hon. lady. I wonder whether she would be kind enough to repeat her point. I will be glad to answer any questions she poses, if I am able to do so.


Eloise May Jones: Mr. Chairman, I will try to remember what I said. I expressed some concern in respect of work situations in relation to severely handicapped individuals who fall within the unemployable category. These people are sitting idle at the present time, unable to earn anything. They are not in a position to fit into the ordinary competitive work field and require special conditions of employment and supervision. Many of them are unable to perform or produce to the point of justifying even the minimum wage prescribed by this bill. Of course the circumstances of these individuals vary, as does their ability to produce, from day to day; therefore a straight across the board minimum wage cannot be applied. The wages payable to these handicapped people must be fixed according to their ability to produce.
Can the minister give us some indication of the treatment which will be accorded the handicapped workers employed in sheltered workshops? I anticipate that the federal government will become involved in the establishment of sheltered workshops for permanently handicapped persons, and I have particularly in mind those individuals who are mentally ill and retarded to the extent they are unable to be employed under normal circumstances. How will this legislation apply to those individuals?
Perhaps the minister would consider adding another subclause to clause 13 exempting this type of employment from the terms of this bill. Will the minister inform us as to the difficulties he foresees in this regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Saskatoon for repeating her points. The gist of her remarks, I think, justifies the rather flexible wage approach we have taken in respect of handicapped persons and sheltered workshops. These cate-

gories will not come under the specific terms of this bill but rather under provincial wage legislation. As the hon. member for Leeds has pointed out, there is provision in all provincial laws in respect of wages, with the exception of those of Prince Edward Island, which allows the wage boards or the ministers to vary the wage rates for handicapped persons, so the problem to which the hon. lady has referred will be taken care of as a result of the flexible approach we have taken.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, it is almost one o'clock. Perhaps we can defer clause 13 until after lunch, allowing the minister time to have a hot bowl of soup, during which time perhaps he can draft a change to this clause in such a way as to meet our criticism. The clause perhaps has the right number; it is not a very lucky clause for the handicapped.


Mr. Kennedy:: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the ideas put forward by the hon. member for Wellington South. I think wage negotiations should be made at the lower level, between the employer and the handicapped employee. Being slightly disabled myself I can say with safety that I have found employers, as well as others, very sympathetic toward the handicapped. I think negotiations should be left to the employer and the handicapped in order that a wage in line with the job in question and the contribution the handicapped person can make can be decided upon, leaving the handicapped person with the right to appeal to the minister if he feels he is being treated improperly. Under those circumstances I think everyone would be happy.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, if we followed the hon. member's suggestion I think we would be placing the handicapped person in a rather exposed position. I do not think we should put the handicapped individual, who already is in a vulnerable position, in the position of having to appeal to the minister against a decision made by his employer who would, by the adoption of this suggestion, have complete freedom to establish rates below the minimum prescribed.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?
Clause 13 agreed to: Yeas, 63; nays, 17.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
On clause 14-Regulations applicable to this part.
Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I have a very-brief comment I wish to make. When I first looked at the clause, subclauses (b) and (c) gave me some concern. Prima facie there is no doubt that the right to pass regulations in respect of fixing the maximum price to be charged for board or the maximum price to be charged for living quarters would appear to trespass on provincial jurisdiction. On the other hand, I assume that the minister has had these provisions vetted by his own legal officials and those in the Department of Justice.
I would assume that this is a fairly important aspect of the bill because, if through any colourable device or arrangement between the employer and the employee the provisions of the legislation can be circumvented by charging an unreasonably high rate for board or lodging or living quarters, regulations should probably be passed to prevent this from happening. In all likelihood there is power to pass regulations and it would seem that the federal government, having once occupied this field, should do all it can to make certain that the legislation is sound.
I am going to make one other point and after that I should like the minister to reassure me that this matter has received consideration and that in the opinion of his officials it is quite clear that in passing regulations of this kind the federal government may properly and legally do so. I think I can see the reason but I should like his assurance. Before I leave this point may I bring it to his attention that if this is the case it might be that by a slight amendment he might be able to fill the gap which might otherwise occur.
In my constituency, a very isolated area, it is a fact that in the case of a great deal of the works carried on there, which in some instances might be works falling within the jurisdiction of the federal government, board and lodging for the employees are not always provided by the employer. It is quite frequently done through a contractual arrangement with a commissary or one of the large catering companies. If this is the case and in order that no loophole will be left by which the provisions of the act and the regulations passed thereunder may be evaded, I suggest
Canada Labour Code
that after the word "employer" in both subclauses (b) and (c) the words "or on behalf of an employer" should be added.
The minister may well say that the latter part of the subclause covers this point, but there is some doubt there. I can very easily envisage circumstances where board and lodging are not furnished by the employer but are furnished by a completely independent catering company under a contractual arrangement with the employer, and in that way the act might be circumvented. I do not want to conjure up circumstances which might arise only very rarely but I think it is our duty to make sure that the legislation is passed in a form which we think will stand up under scrutiny and do the job it is designed to do. I make that suggestion to the minister and perhaps he might like to give it some consideration.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, my advice is that because these regulations have to do with the fixing of prices for board and living quarters in connection with the establishment of a minimum wage it is within our jurisdiction to include such provisions in order to avert the destruction of the minimum wage, and it is only in that respect that we would attempt to exercise that particular authority. I have listened to the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River that we should add an additional saving phrase so that these two clauses would each read "furnished by an employer or on behalf of an employer" and if the hon. member wishes to move an amendment I am quite ready to have that included.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will write it out, Mr. Chairman, and will so move.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, while the amendment is being prepared there is one small matter I should like to raise. It could have been raised under other clauses but it might be dealt with under this clause having to do with the regulations. Suppose certain government contracts were entered into before this legislation comes into effect. What will the result be in so far as wages and hours of work are concerned? I have in mind the thousands of post office contracts covering rural routes across the country which were predicated on a certain situation. Many of them will continue for another three to five years. Has the minister thought about the problem that might be created with regard to people who would be hired under these contracts?

Canada Labour Code


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the hon. member for Saint John-Albert realizes, the control of wage rates and hours in government contracts is exercised under the authority of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. At the present time the standard provision of that act is a 44 hour week with provision for overtime beyond that and the wage rate is established according to the prevailing rate in the area. I have indicated the intention of the government to amend the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act to bring the wages and hours provisions of that act into conformity with this bill, so that government construction contracts will, as far as wages and hours are concerned, be subject to the same principles when that amendment is undertaken. I hope that we will be able to make this amendment cover some additional service contracts where protection may be necessary.


Thomas Miller Bell: In other words, with respect to these post office contracts I have mentioned, there will be some provision either for renegotiation of the contract or protection for the contractor who has entered into an agreement some time before this legislation passed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The government has
stated, or I have stated on behalf of the government, that the standards in this bill will be applicable to federal government employees. Now, it is up to the government departments to establish the standards in their particular operations.


Thomas Miller Bell: I will not press the minister any more on it, except that I want to say I know for a fact some individuals who have these contracts are quite concerned. These are marginal operations in most cases and it would be a tremendous hardship to these contractors to become involved in these extra rates that may be necessary since they tendered on their contracts under the old conditions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate the point, but I think it ought to be kept in mind that this bill will not directly create a difficulty.


Lucien Lamoureux: I now have before me an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River. Is it the intention of the committee that the amendment be proposed by the hon. member or by a minister on behalf of the Minister of Labour?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am willing to move the amendment.


Lucien Lamoureux: For the information of the hon. member I may say that I took the liberty of adding a word or two, as he will recognize, so that the amendment would be clearer.


Gerald William Baldwin: Having in mind the haste with which it was prepared, I am quite willing for the chairman to take that liberty.


Lucien Lamoureux: The amendment reads:
That clause 14 be amended by adding before the words "an employer", where they appear in line 13 of paragraph (b) and in line 18 of paragraph (c), the words "or on behalf of".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 15-Definitions.
Mr. Brewin:: I have to propose an amendment to clause 15 which also involves an amendment to clause 16. The words of the two clauses have to be read together. The effect, Mr. Chairman, of my proposed amendment, which I will make available, is to add to clause 16-I mention that first because it is the substantive clause-the words at the end of the line "three weeks after three full years of employment". In order to carry out that intent, it is necessary to amend clause 15 by adding the following words, "in the case of his being entitled to two weeks vacation"-that is the 4 per cent, and 6 per cent of such wages in the case of his being entitled to three weeks vacation.
The compass and intent of this amendment is to add to the provisions of the bill and the minimum standards set out therein a proposition that after a person has served continuously in the same employment for a period of three years he should then become entitled to three weeks vacation with pay rather than to the two weeks which is the standard laid down in the bill. I should like to say to the Minister of Labour that I am not making this suggestion as a sort of game of one upmanship or trying to go a little further than the bill does. I am making the proposal in all seriousness. I ask him, and those who support him, to give consideration to this proposal on its merits.
There are a number of reasons, I suggest, why when the parliament of Canada is laying down minimum standards for employees within its jurisdiction it should regard three weeks vacation after three years of service as being a reasonable minimum. The first reason I want to put forward is equity and fairness. Most of the members of

this house have served, I suggest, in managerial or clerical capacities and very few of them, I imagine, throughout the greater part of their working life have enjoyed less than three weeks vacation. I know there are some members who may be in occupations in which a vacation, in that sense of the word, is not reckoned in the same way. They go away for the whole winter to Florida or some place like that.
However, we are dealing here with people in industry. I have never been able to understand why if three weeks are needed for people in managerial or clerical capacities, three weeks are not equally required for people who work in industry under modern conditions. We have all the complicated machinery that is usually part of an industrial occupation today. I appeal to the members of this house to look into their own minds, their own experiences, and see whether or not they do not recognize the fact that a three weeks vacation is far more beneficial to the individual than two weeks, indeed beneficial to their health as well.
I have had discussions about this matter during the course of industrial relations on many occasions. It has always seemed to me to be quite wrong for one class or group to say: We need a reasonable vacation of three weeks but you are doing something different; you are on a lower level and you will only get two weeks vacation. I do not suggest this provision should apply to people with short term service. However, after three years I suggest it is a reasonable minimum. I recall, and I ask the minister to pay attention to this, that when we discussed this matter of vacations it was found that in actual fact they added to the efficiency of the employees, especially when workers got this extra time. I suggest, therefore, it is not a cost factor about which anybody has to worry at all. Strange as it may seem, and contrary to simple mathematics, in most forms of employment a better result is secured from somebody who works 49 weeks a year and gets three weeks vacation, than somebody who works 50 weeks and gets two weeks vacation.
I remind the committee and the minister that we are living in the age of automation. This means two things: one, that we have to extend greater leisure to people to deal with the problem of automation. The other is that the speed of work has advanced and, therefore, more rest is required in order for people to lead reasonable lives. I appeal to all the members of the committee to support this amendment because I believe it would be
Canada Labour Code
of great benefit to Canadians affected by it.
I believe it would be a reasonable and progressive step. 1 believe it would actually aid production rather than the opposite. 1 do not believe the cost factor is involved whatever. It would enable groups of Canadians to enjoy a reasonable vacation in Canada and I suggest that is the minimum right of Canadians in the 1960's. We are making a great mistake to set a standard lower than this reasonable standard suggested in the amendment. 1 have copies of my amendment here in French and in English. I commend it to the committee and the minister and I hope we will not be put off with the argument that we cannot go too far. In one sense this is a minor change, but in another sense it is a major one in what it can do for the happiness of many Canadians and their families.


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


Francis Andrew Brewin: Certainly.


Maurice John Moreau: Has he made a similar appeal to members of his own party so that they might make a better showing on the vote than they did on the $1.50 last night?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am not worrying about the members of my party. They are pretty solid and progressive, but I am a little worried about my hon. friend's party because it is only occasionally they yield to their better instincts.


Maurice John Moreau: I am only pointing out that there was just about 40 per cent of the party which the hon. member represents present to vote last night.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I suppose this is a sort of partisan interjection and I should not reply in kind, but if anybody is to be embarrassed it is not the party which voted in favour of the amendment, rather the party which my hon. friend represents in an industrial area, a party which voted against the minimum wage at a reasonable level. If we are going to take a partisan view I am in a better position than the hon. member for York-Scarborough.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Presumably we are dealing with the two clauses simultaneously.


Lucien Lamoureux: Not necessarily. The only thing the committee has before it is an amendment to clause 15. I understand it is difficult to deal with this amendment without referring in some way to clause 16, but I repeat that

Canada Labour Code
the only amendment proposed by the hon, member-and it can only be moved at this stage-is the one affecting clause 15.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would it be satisfactory if clause 15 stands and we deal with clause 16 which is the substantive one? If clause 16 is dealt with and amended then clause 15 would fall. Vice-versa, if the amendment to clause 16 is defeated then we need not press any issue on the amendment to clause 15 because it would automatically fall. In effect clause 16 is the important, substantive one.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the desire of the committee that we would now have before us the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood to clause 16, along the following terms, "that clause 16 be amended by adding thereto at the end, 'and at least three weeks after three completed years of employment.' "?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I say a brief word or two in connection with this amendment, Mr. Chairman? In 1958 the parliament of Canada provided two weeks vacation after two years of employment. The effect of part III of Bill C-126 is to provide two weeks after one year of employment.
We have already been charged with interfering in this bill unduly with the normal employer-employee relationship. We have been accused of going into the field of collective bargaining and establishing, by law, arrangements that properly ought to be left to the processes of collective bargaining, which we in this party still regard as the most important governing rule and principle in industrial relations.
In this bill we are providing a basic minimum, that is, two weeks after one year. The hon. member asks us to enter further into a field that more properly should be left to collective bargaining, namely making arrangements against this basic minimum. No province in Canada has three weeks vacation legislation except Saskatchewan, which provides for three weeks after five years. Collective agreements that have a three week provision usually provide for this period of vacation after five, 10 or 15 years. Railway agreements entered into by powerful unions provide for three weeks after 15 years.
On the grounds that we are providing a basic minimum of two weeks after a single year of employment, and on the grounds that any further extension by law of this kind would be an undue entry into the field of collective bargaining, I ask the committee to oppose this amendment.
[The Chairman.]


David Orlikow: I am amazed at the argument advanced by the minister because, if we carry his argument to a logical conclusion, then this clause ought not to be in the bill at all. Indeed the whole act probably ought not to be here at all, because if these things can be accomplished better by collective bargaining, then we do not need the bill. But obviously this bill is being introduced by a Liberal government because collective bargaining has not been able to accomplish the purposes set forth in it.
The minister is able to get more detailed information than anybody else and I am sure he knows that not too many people who are covered by collective bargaining agreements will be very much affected by the provisions of this bill. The benefits which it will bring will be for workers who, in the main, have not been able to organize successfully into unions.
I find it amazing that the minister should be proposing, and arguing in effect that it is proper and right for the government to suggest that the legislation should say two weeks holidays are fine and therefore we are not going-


Mr. Munro:: That is not what he said.


David Orlikow: That is right in the legislation.


John Carr Munro: The minister says it is the minimum.


David Orlikow: The hon. member for Hamilton is very good at interjecting. I do not mind; I have a lot of time, but I wish he would get up and put his views on the record so that the people he represents would know what he thinks. A minister who has got such favourable comments from the press should advance a much more reasonable argument.


Mr. Hahn:: Can the hon. member give us any indication of the percentage of contracts, signed with unions, which contain the provisions he advocates?


David Orlikow: Not at the moment but I am sure the Department of Labour has full statistics in this field. But it does not matter about statistics. We are dealing with this in the labour code because there is a need for this kind of legislation spelling out the rights of industrial workers to have holidays with pay, and increasing those rights. All we are proposing is an extension to three weeks, after three years. The principle is a sound one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Orlikow: I wish the members on the government side would understand the principles of the bill which their minister is introducing, which obviously they do not.
Amendment (Mr. Brewin) negatived: Yeas, 21; nays, 86.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 16 carry?


Alfred Dryden Hales: As I read this clause, Mr. Chairman, there is no explanation as to whether an employee is compelled to take his vacation; whether he can take the two weeks extra pay in lieu of his holidays, or whether he can accumulate those weeks for two or three years to, say, take a major trip or some such thing. As I understand it, these provisions are in the civil service employees regulations and I do not see any reason why they should not be incorporated here, to apply the same as they do for federal civil servants.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is perfectly true, Mr. Chairman, as my hon. friend pointed out, that there is no such provision in this particular clause; but when we come to clause 22 I think he will see that there will be an opportunity, by regulation, to provide for the kind of thing he has in mind.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause carry?
Clause 16 agreed to.
On clause 15-Definitions. "Vacation pay".


Lucien Lamoureux: We will return to clause 15. Do I understand that the hon. member for Greenwood has withdrawn his amendment to clause 15?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 21-Transfer of work, undertaking or business.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain the amendment to clause 21 and would ask one of my colleagues to move it for me. The amendment would be to strike out line 35 on page 9 thereof and substitute therefor the following:
"of the work, undertaking or business shall, for the purposes of this part, be deemed to be"
As members of the committee will notice, clause 21 preserves an employee's continuity of employment and right to a vacation if the business changes hands. This provision has
Canada Labour Code
appeared in the Annual Vacations Act since 1958 and it relates only to vacations. The questions that have been raised indicate that it would be well to clarify that it relates only to annual vacations, by inserting after "shall" in the second last line the words "for the purposes of this part". This amendment really is for clarification only.


Mr. MacNaughi:: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill No. 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 35 on page 9 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"of the work, undertaking or business shall, for the purposes of this part, be deemed to be"


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the amendment
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 22-Regulations in relation to annual vacations.
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, would the minister explain where in clause 22 my point is taken care of?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The point raised by my hon. friend is taken care of, in my view, in paragraph (a), which reads as follows:
-defining the circumstances and conditions under which the rights of an employee under this part may be waived or the enjoyment thereof postponed;
As I recollect the instances given by my hon. friend, they related to the postponement of the enjoyment of these vacation rights and whether they could be accumulated or enjoyed in the form of additional compensation. I think this could be made possible by the exercise of the authority of paragraph (a) in clause 22.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 23, 24 and 25 agreed to.
On clause 26-General holiday falling on day off.
Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I have a question in connection with this clause. In connection with the public service of Canada there is, as the minister knows, a regulation which provides that in order to be paid for a general statutory holiday the employee must be at work the day before or the day after the holiday, in order to avoid this sort of skipping. I was wondering just what the minister had in mind in regard to this clause

Canada Labour Code
and whether he was thinking of that sort of regulation. To my mind it is quite wrong for an employee to deliberately absent himself from work, without the permission of his employer, on the eve of a general holiday, for his own facility, and then to claim that he is entitled to pay for that general holiday, in the same way that a man taking the general holiday might deliberately stay at home, perhaps to sober up or that sort of thing.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Edmonton West and assure him that under clause 33 we will have a chance to go into this question, because I am proposing an amendment that I trust will meet with the approval of the committee and which will involve a discussion of the principle the hon. member has raised.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 27-Exemption under collective agreement.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should give the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the opportunity of moving this amendment-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would be very happy to move it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -because it gives effect in this clause to a decision taken earlier by the committee, namely that the number of statutory holidays be increased from seven to eight. It requires a consequential change in this clause because of the amendment made in committee to clause 2 (f).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have much pleasure in moving:
That Bill No. C-126 be amended by striking out line 13 on page 11 and substituting therefor the following:
"agreement that entitles such employees to at least eight"
I hope that this time the vote will be unanimous.


Lucien Lamoureux: The committee has heard the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said amendment?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.

On clause 28-Substituted holidays.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to propose to clause 28 which is a clarifying amendment to take into account an additional situation which we had not anticipated might arise under the original clause 28. As originally drafted clause 28 was intended to permit a different holiday to be substituted for any of the general holidays named in clause 2 (f). It has been pointed out that the present wording does not cover the situation where a collective agreement is in effect on the coming into force of the act. This amendment adds provision permitting an employer bound by such agreement when the act comes into force to substitute the day named in the agreement for a general holiday named in the act. I think this is a reasonable and sensible change. It protects the eight statutory holidays but it avoids adding an additional holiday in cases where the collective agreement has already provided for eight holidays.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill No. C-126 be amended
(a) by renumbering clause 28 of the said bill as clause 28, subclause (1); and
(b) by adding thereto, immediately after subclause (1) of clause 28 of the said bill, the following:
"(2) Where a collective agreement that is in effect on the day this part comes into force provides for at least eight holidays with pay in each year, exclusive of any annual vacation, the employer who is bound by the collective agreement may designate a holiday specified in the agreement as a holiday in lieu of a specified general holiday under this part and, on notification thereof to the minister, that designated holiday shall, for those employees of the employer who are mentioned in the collective agreement, be a general holiday for the purposes of this act during the period the collective agreement is in effect."


Lucien Lamoureux: The committee has heard the amendment proposed by the minister. Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the passing of this amendment. On the other hand, I feel that the Minister of Labour could have circulated a copy of those amendments before bringing them forward so that we could have a look at them. The way he is now proceeding he moves those amendments as the clauses of the bill are called and we have no opportunity to study them.
It seems to me that the minister could have brought those amendments forward earlier to give us a chance to look at them in relation with this bill, so that we could have an opportunity to make our remarks. As it is now,

we are asked to agree to amendments at the time they are presented before we have any opportunity to study them for at least a minute or two.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to meet the point made by my hon. friend by circulating now further amendments I propose to move today, which I hope will help my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
On clause 31-Holiday work in continuous operation employment.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, as presently drafted clause 31 deals with compensation to an employee employed in a continuous operation who is required to work on a general holiday. As it stands at the moment it is required that he be given time off with pay in lieu of a holiday. Representations have been made by a number of industries classed as continuous operations that there are situations where the custom is to pay premium pay for work performed on a general holiday, rather than granting a day off with pay at some other time. The unions have urged that the premium pay provision be continued, and it is proposed that an employer in a continuous operation should be left free to choose either method, and clause 31 is revised for that purpose.
A continuous operation is defined in another clause of the bill, clause 24. The best examples, of course, are trains, planes, ships, trucks and other vehicles which are in continuous operation, and this amendment provides an optional way of dealing with the compensation provided for in clause 31.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill No. C-126 be amended by striking out clause 31 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"31. An employee employed in a continuous operation who is required to work on a day on which he is entitled under this part to a holiday with pay
(a)	shall be paid, in addition to his regular rate of wages for that day, at a rate at least equal to one and one half times his regular rate of wages for the time worked by him on that day; or
(b)	shall be given a holiday and pay in accordance with section 29 at some other time which may be by way of addition to his annual vacation or granted as a holiday with pay at a time convenient to him and the employer."
Canada Labour Code


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I believe the wording of this amendment is quite clear but perhaps I might just restate the position and get the concurrence of the minister. It is clear, is it not, that if an employer chooses on a statutory holiday to ask an employee to work, then the total pay of that employee would be two and a half times his regular pay? That is to say, he gets a day's pay because it is a holiday-he gets that without working for it-and then he gets one and a half times his pay for actually working, so the total is two and a half times.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought it was clear. I might point out that in connection with my bill on this subject, in which I asked for double time for such work, members on the Liberal side made a great fuss over it and said this was asking for triple time. I did not mind that, but do let us be clear here that what we are now agreeing to is two and a half times normal pay for working on a statutory holiday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
On clause 33-Holiday in non-working week.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, this is the clause which will especially interest the hon. member for Edmonton West. I hope hon. members of the committee have a copy of the proposed amendment, which is a straight substitution for clause 33 of the following:
33. No employee is entitled to be paid for a general holiday on which he does not work when he is not entitled to wages for at least 15 days during the 30 calendar days immediately preceding the general holiday; and no employee who is employed in a continuous operation is entitled to be paid for a general holiday on which he did not report for work after having been called to work on that day.
There are two parts to the amendment to this clause. The first part provides that in order to qualify for a general holiday an employee must have worked at least 15 days in the preceding 30 calendar days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Must the employee have worked for the 15 days or must he be entitled to wages for 15 days of the preceding 30 calendar days? If a man had been on holidays with pay surely he would qualify.

Canada Labour Code


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. friend is correct. I used a very loose expression. If the individual was entitled to wages for at least 15 days during the 30 calendar days immediately preceding the general holiday he would qualify.
The purpose of this limitation is to ensure an attachment to the labour market, and to the employer, for a period of time before an employee may qualify for a statutory holiday. This limitation is also included to ensure that we are not, by statute, giving additional time off to persons who already have had sufficient leisure in a particular calendar period because of their working arrangements. There are not many who fall into this category, but certain classes of employees can complete their monthly work in 10 or 12 days. There are not many who fall into this category, but certain international air lines pilots, for example, might put in their mileage in a relatively short period of time. Generally these people have not bargained for statutory holidays because they do not need them. They do have plenty of time off, as the situation exists, but we think it is reasonable to include that limitation in order to ensure that there is this kind of an attachment made, and so as not to provide unnecessary leisure time.


Norman Platt Lambert: With the greatest respect to the minister, I do not believe he has answered the question I posed, or covered the situation I mentioned, by this amendment. I am wondering whether the minister is setting aside, literally by a stroke of a pen, the rules in effect at this time which govern the personnel of this house. In order for a member of the staff here to qualify for a general holiday that person must work on the working day immediately preceding, as well as the working day immediately subsequent to the general holiday. That is a standard rule in the civil service, and it certainly is applicable to the staff in this house. That situation is not covered by this amendment. What is there in this bill to prevent an employee from saying to himself: Thursday is a general holiday so I will take off Wednesday and Friday? I do not have to work Saturday or Sunday so I will have a five-day week end. Why should an individual who followed that course be entitled to pay for the general holiday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate the point the hon. member is making. The entitlement for a statutory holiday is established only if the employee is entitled to wages for 15 days, which is equivalent to three working weeks,

in the 30 calendar day period immediately preceding the holiday. I agree with the hon. member that this is a different approach, but in order generally to accommodate certain industrial situations we felt that this entitlement qualification was reasonable.


Norman Platt Lambert: I agree with the minister that it is reasonable, but I think if the situation I have outlined is allowed to remain and a person can absent himself from work on the working days prior and subsequent to any general holiday, this will lead to abuses of the rights of employers who should be able to expect their working forces to report to work on those days.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I understand the situation, in drafting the second part of the amendment we took into account continuous operation, and an employee in these circumstances who does not respond to work on the days the hon. member has mentioned would not be entitled to any holiday. That limitation is very important in respect of the class of industry with which we are dealing, namely transportation. In this regard if employees misuse their rights to general holidays by staying away from work, but drawing vacation pay, not only would the employer be penalized but the public would be inconvenienced. Many collective agreements contain this type of provision covering that situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask two or three questions, one, of which I think has been answered. Perhaps the minister will confirm my understanding of his answer in that regard.
The 15 days or three working weeks within the preceding 30 days has reference to days for which an employee is entitled to wages, is that right?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, if an employee had been on annual vacation and received pay for that time he would be entitled to a statutory holiday that fell immediately following his vacation, is that correct?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I also wonder whether the minister and his officials have looked as thoroughly as they might have at the provision in respect of those categories he has cited, namely transportation employees, and specifically international air lines employees, who can do a month's work in ten days. It seems to me that the 15 working day period

within 30 calendar days preceding a statutory holiday might be unfair under certain circumstances. I have not taken the time to reason this out but I should like to know whether the departmental officials have examined this provision carefully and discussed it with some of the people involved. It strikes me that the minister dismissed a little too quickly the idea that anyone who could do a month's work in ten days does not need pay for a statutory holiday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The two principal groups that this provision will cover are railway running trades and air lines operating crews. We have attempted to develop the best statistics possible to determine the portion of the total employees in each category that would be affected. There is a relatively small portion that would be affected by this provision, and would be excluded because of the possibility that they can put in their full month's time, or mileage, in less than 15 days. So we do know that at least within certain limits the effect is to have two groups that are involved. I understand theoretically the kind of question that was going through the hon. member's mind, but I have not been able to spell it out either in order to make a reply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope that if any difficulties arise they can be dealt with in some appropriate way, and the minister's assurance about annual holidays being covered is of some real value. I have one other question. The last few words of the proposed amendment bother me a bit where it says that an employee shall not "be paid for a general holiday on which he did not report for work after having been called to work on that day". How long during a holiday does the employee have to wait around for a call? Take the case of a railway employee. Let us say it is Christmas day or Remembrance day and he thinks he has the day off. He waits around until noon and there is no call so he goes away or goes visiting. The company then calls him at four or five o'clock in the afternoon and he is not at home. Can he be denied holiday pay when he was called to work on that day that late in the 24 hour period?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand the point that one could get the impression that the employee would have to be given the call on that very day or had failed to respond, but the principle is that an employee has failed to assume the responsibility to be at work. In that situation he is not entitled to holiday pay. In clause 50, subclause (g), there is provision by which we are permitted to 20220-730
Canada Labour Code
establish regulations determining calls to work, what is a call to work and so on. I think that carefully drafted regulations under that clause would remove any difficulty which might arise with respect to this particular clause.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister will give the assurance that the intention is to draft such a regulation, that will be helpful. My concern is that the wording of clause 33 seems to leave it open to the employer to call an employee on that day. I take it that the minister is now saying that is not what he has in mind. He means called to work for that day by proper notice, which I take it will be covered by regulations under clause 50, subclause (g)?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister understands my point and gives his assurance about it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


John Watson MacNaught: I move:
That Bill 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 clause 33 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"33. No employee is entitled to be paid for a general holiday on which he does not work when he is not entitled to wages for at least 15 days during the 30 calendar days immediately preceding the general holiday; and no employee who is employed in a continuous operation is entitled to be paid for a general holiday on which he did not report for work after having been called to work on that day".


Norman Platt Lambert: I take it the minister is not prepared to meet the objection I put forward? The amendment does not meet the precise point I put forward.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is not fully met.


Norman Platt Lambert: You can drive a coach and four through the amendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In the modern transportation industries that this bill covers, we have no coaches and fours.


Norman Platt Lambert: Well, I will make it a semitrailer. Let me take the example of a bank, because banks are subject to the legislation. Let us say the November 11 holiday is on a Thursday and an employee absents himself on November 10 and November 12 and takes a holiday from November 10 right through to the following Monday. The minister is saying that is all right, that he will be paid for the 11th of November although he deliberately absents himself on

Canada Labour Code
the day prior and the day following. I put it to the minister that this is not fair to the employer.


Mr. Regan:: On that point may I say I have had some experience with collective agreements that did not have this protection in them. What has happened in the past is that if an employee does this sort of thing he usually does it fairly frequently. However, he does not get away with it for very long because the employer can take disciplinary action. Obviously if an employee is making a habit of taking the day before and the day after each holiday or does so even once in a while he leaves himself in a position that he cannot very well justify before an arbitration board. I think this is a matter which should be left to enforcement by the employer and it is not essential to have such a provision in the act.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this point because in ordinary industrial relations we want to keep away from arbitration as much as possible and we want the employer and employee to come to an understanding. I should like to ask my hon. friend, where is the authority of the employer in this regard? What provision is there for the employer to maintain his authority over his employees? The proposal of the minister seems to take away any authority that the employer might have. If the employee has rights the employer also has rights and they should not be denied in the way that this provision, it seems to me, aims to do.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The employer is free to discipline his employee for this type of conduct on a general holiday as if it had happened on any other day in the month or year. The employer-employee relationship is maintained and the prerogative of management is fully preserved and is available to management at all times. We have incorporated a general restriction here of 15 days of work in the preceding 30 calendar days and, combined with the prerogative of management to discipline, this ought to be sufficient.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
On clause 35-Inquiries.
Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question that really does not relate to this

clause but rather to the over-all bill. It has to do with the classifications of labour as between provincial and federal. I believe there are a number of occupations involved in the various clauses we have been considering which are ambiguous so far as classification is concerned. I mention this point at this time because a little while ago a question came to me regarding employees who work for telephone answering services and whether or not they are classified as federal or provincial. Heretofore they have been provincial. Many of the points we are dealing with here may affect them. Is the department planning to clarify the various areas where labour is considered to be federal?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Red Deer will have an opportunity to deal with the coverage of the bill when we return to clause 3 which has been stood. That would be the apt place to go into the very complicated question of coverage.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 43 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 44-Time limit.
Norman Platt Lambert: Does this clause provide the statutory limitation for an offence under the act, two years?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 45-Order to pay arrears of wages.
Alfred Dryden Hales: Paragraph (b) of this clause refers to reinstatement. I feel that instead of making reinstatement of the employee compulsory, an employee should have an opportunity of choosing between reinstatement and the continuation of his salary for two or three weeks in order that he might look for another position. Compulsory reinstatement might not be very satisfactory for either the employee or the employer. The employee should be able to choose between reinstatement and the continuation of his salary for a certain period, which might be a favourable situation for both. Would the minister care to comment on that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This might impose an additional burden on the employer who, having disciplined an employee, was then required to maintain him on the payroll for a period of weeks while the employee was seeking an alternative job. I believe this provision would impose new, additional burdens upon the employer to pay wages while the disciplined em-

ployee, who was given the right to come back to work, was seeking work elsewhere. I feel this is a rather novel idea.


Norman Platt Lambert: Is subclause (4) new in so far as the enforcement of penalties under a labour code is concerned? Where the court finds that there have been inadequate records kept, there is a conclusive presumption that the employee has worked full time. Incidentally, is this the 40 hour week or the 48 hour week? It refers to the maximum number of hours per week allowed under this act. He may be a 40 hour per week employee, but the act does not prohibit 48 hours, so he would be securing a bonus of overtime.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This particular provision, as I understand it, is similar to a provision appearing in the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, in which provision is made that in the absence of the discharge of an obligation on the part of an employer to keep records, the employees' records are accepted.


Norman Platt Lambert: But this is mandatory; the employee affected shall be conclusively presumed to have been employed for the maximum number of hours per week. It says nothing there about the employees computation being used. The clause automatically grants the employee entitlement to the maximum number of hours per week allowed under this act. The maximum number of hours allowed under this act is 48.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Here is a situation where an employer is obliged to keep records. He does not keep records and has thereby failed to live up to an obligation under the act. As a result of this failure, the employee is presumed to have worked the full 48 hours, is presumed to have been employed for the maximum number of hours per week allowed under this act which may be 40 or 48, or, by permit, at overtime rates beyond that.


Norman Platt Lambert: I doubt if you have the authority to make that penalty and add the overtime wages for a man who is not normally entitled to it. A man may be working 40 hours per week. There may be no question of overtime. He may not claim overtime, and yet under this provision you are granting him 48 hours. There is a bonus there or an additional penalty of eight hours of overtime.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I feel the minister should look at the definition of the word "week", and then take a look at the clause which uses the term. I think what is meant is, if an employee has been working 40 hours 20220-730^
Canada Labour Code
a week, that is the penalty. I do not believe a person working 40 hours would be entitled to overtime on top of that. However, the provision is not too clear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sort of consoled in the knowledge that the courts will be dealing with setting the weekly wage.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but with the greatest respect to the minister, I may say that the courts have enough trouble trying to interpret what we do in this house; let us not make their task more difficult. You have a definition of a week, and then you have various kinds of working week. You may have a 40 hour week or a 48 hour week. When you come to apply the penalty, what kind of week are you going to choose, the kind the man has been working or the kind he would have liked to work?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It seems to me that the operative phrase is "maximum number of hours a week allowed under this act." This would mean 48 hours. He is entitled to the full weekly wage.


Norman Platt Lambert: It refers to the maximum number of hours of work per week at standard rates under this act.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It seems to me that there will be a situation where an employee may be working 48 hours, and then beyond 48 hours by special permit according to the provisions of one of the clauses, and the employee affected will be conclusively presumed to be employed for the maximum number of hours allowed under the bill, which will be 48 or beyond 48. Surely in this instance it is a case for the court to make a finding.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 45 carry?


Norman Platt Lambert: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 46 to 50 inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 51-Order of deferment of operation of part I.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, you may recall that earlier in the week I circulated a proposed amendment to clause 51. Following consultations with the hon. member for Ontario and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I have proposed some changes to the amendment which I circulated the other day, and am now circulating a fresh amendment which is the result of these private consultations.

Canada Labour Code
The principal effect of this amended amendment is to provide an additional inquiry in subclause (5). Originally the governor in council was empowered to amend or revoke an order made under clause (2) with or without an inquiry. This amendment provides that the governor in council may from time to time, by order, amend or revoke an order made under subclause (2) if it is made to appear, from a report of an inquiry held pursuant to clause 35, that it is in the public interest or in the interest of any classes of employees to do so.
What it does is restrict the discretionary capacity of the minister and the governor in council, by providing for an inquiry before the governor in council would be empowered to vary these orders. I think that the amended clause 51, which I explained fully earlier in the week, with this additional change meets the difficulties that flexibility imposes upon us and at the same time provides for an inquiry to ensure that discretionary latitude is not too widely used. I would now like my colleague, the Solicitor General, to move the amendment.


John Watson MacNaught: I move:
That Bill 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 the heading immediately before clause 51 and clause 51 thereof and by substituting therefor the following heading and clause:
Special and Transitional Provisions
Order of deferment or suspension of part I by minister
"51. (1) Where upon the submission of any person it is shown to the satisfaction of the minister that the introduction of the standard hours of work or the maximum hours of work under part I in any federal work, undertaking or business
(a)	would be or is unduly prejudicial to the interests of the employees therein or to any class of employees therein, or
(b)	would be or is seriously detrimental to the operation of the federal work, undertaking or business,
the minister may by order defer or suspend the operation of part I in respect of that federal work, undertaking or business or that class of employees therein for such period as may be fixed in the order: but a period of deferment or suspension under this subsection shall not exceed a period of eighteen months from the date of the coming into force of part I, or the date of the order, whichever is the later date.
Order of deferment or suspension of part I by governor in council
(2)	Where it is made to appear from a report *of an inquiry held pursuant to section 35 that, in the case of any federal work, undertaking or business, or of any class of employees therein,
(a) a longer period of deferment or suspension than has been or may be ordered by the minister

under subsection (1) is required in the best interests of the employees or any class of employees therein, or
(b) certain provisions of part I would unduly disturb any employment custom peculiar to the federal work, undertaking or business or any operation therein,
the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister, may by order defer or suspend the operation of part I in respect of that federal work, undertaking or business or that class of employees therein.
Prescribing hours of work
(3)	An order made under subsection (1) may and an order under subsection (2) shall prescribe the hours of work that shall, in respect of the federal work, undertaking or business or class of employees therein to which the order relates, be the hours of work during the deferment or suspension granted by the order; and no employer of any employee in respect of whom the order applies shall require the employee to work in excess of the hours of work prescribed in the order except upon such conditions or in such circumstances or upon the payment of such overtime pay as may be prescribed in the order.
Differing hours of work
(4)	An order made under this section may prescribe different hours of work for different periods of time during the deferment or suspension granted by the order.
(5)	The governor in council, upon the recommendation of the minister, may, from time to time, by order, amend or revoke an order made under subsection (2) if it is made to appear from a report of an inquiry held pursuant to section 35 that it is in the public interest, or in the interest of any class of employees, to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What the minister has said, at least in so far as he referred to me, is quite correct in that he discussed this matter with me and also at a time when he, the hon. member for Ontario and I were all together. He has met one criticism that both the hon. member for Ontario and I presented, and he has met in part the criticism that I offered. But he knows there was still another point of concern which I felt, and which even the revised form of the amendment does not meet.
Before dealing with that may I say I think it is a good change which the minister has made, whereby this ultimate amending of an order is not solely at the discretion of the minister but can only take place after the holding of an inquiry under clause 35. However, I wish the minister would go one step further.
As one reads clause 51 it can be seen there are three possibilities of deferment or suspension. Under subclause (1) there is an 18 month deferment available rather readily under the provisions of the bill. Under subclause (2) there is another deferment available after an inquiry under clause 35. Then under

subclause (5) the determent granted under subclause (2) can be extended still further.
I ask hon. members to note that there is a time limit of 18 months on what can be done under subclause (1), but there is no time limit on the further deferment that is possible under subclause (2), and no time limit with respect to the still further deferment possible under subclause (5). I recognize the pressures that were put on the minister to open the door a bit further to provide for these deferments and suspensions, but I think there should be some point at which we say we mean business and where the 40 hour week must come into effect, or at least the ultimate control for this should remain in the hands of parliament itself.
This amendment, if improved still more, would do away with the alleged rigidity of the first draft and it would also avoid the complete open-endedness of its present form if there could be added another subclause which would put a total time limit on the possibility of deferments.
I have a draft amendment in my hand. A few moments ago the minister had an amendment in his hand and he was good enough to let me move it. I will be good enough to let him move this one in order to make it a reciprocal arrangement. As a matter of fact, if he accepts the principle of the amendment I propose I would not quarrel if he changed the figure that is in it. My amendment would add the following subclause (6), "The total period of deferment or suspension granted under any of the provisions of this section shall not in any case exceed 36 months."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am getting some howls from my friends to my immediate right. It seems to me that two things should be established, one that we mean business about the effort to achieve the 40 hour week, and we do not do that if we leave the end open for deferments and suspensions. The other thing we should establish is the control of parliament on this kind of proposition. It is parliament which is legislating the 40 hour week, but if we leave all these open doors parliament loses its control. The amendment I propose means that if the 36 month period does work the kind of hardship that cannot be overcome, then the government can come back to parliament again. I said a moment ago that if the minister accepts the principle, I will not quarrel if he changes the 36 months to 48 months. I have talked in months rather
Canada Labour Code
than years simply because the minister already has the figure of 18 months at one place in the clause we are now considering.
I believe the minister is serious about trying to establish the standards set out in this bill, the statutory holidays, holidays with pay, the minimum wage and the 40 hour week. I might go on and say parenthetically that I recognize these things ought to be achieved in a way that will avoid undue disturbance, and I recognize that the minister has endeavoured to meet the complaints which have been made to him. However, I have the feeling that clause 51 as drafted meets those complaints too well and leaves the door wide open, and I wish the minister would consider putting in some kind of amendment, some other kind of clause that would fix a final period, so we would eventually really get the 40 hour week asked for under this legislation. If the minister would just put up his hand and say he would like to have this amendment, I would send it over to him. In any event, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to hear his comments.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Originally, when the bill was proposed, the provision was that the 40 hour week would come into effect at the end of 18 months from the passing of the bill itself. That was a cut-off date, permitting no variation in hours beyond the cut-offs. We have heard representations from industries in various parts of Canada urging that in certain instances it would be, in their judgment, impossible at any time to meet the 40 hour week. I think these instances may be small or may ultimately extend only to a small proportion of the total employees being covered. But one illustration that is brought forward is ships' crews, who work a 56 hour week. In order to comply with the standard hours, additional crew members would be required, additional living quarters would be required and new ships would have to be built, I am told.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, if there are unique situations of that kind it would be wrong to put a definite date in the bill upon which the standard hours would apply. But is there not quite a degree of protection here, in that the general momentum of the bill is to establish the 40 hour week and in order to make an exception or a variation beyond the 18 month period there will be a public inquiry, all the facts will be disclosed and public opinion will form among employers, unions, members of parliament, the cabinet, the governor in council; and arising from this inquiry there will be established a regime of hours

Canada Labour Code
for a period. It may be a period that will at its end see the final adoption of the 40 hour week.
I had a discussion this afternoon with representatives of the trucking industry, who told me that they were looking now within the industry toward the ultimate adoption of the 40 hour week, but they wanted time. However, nobody can be sure how much time is required, and if we put in the 36 months this will provide some degree of inflexibility. We just cannot anticipate industrial situations and provide the necessary flexibility. There is no one more eager than I am to see the 40 hour week established, but we need this flexibility. I had thought at one time that the wage orders that might be issued by governor in council could, at the request of members, be tabled and debated in the house. I thought, however, that this was really turning the House of Commons into something that it was not intended to be. But these orders will be published in the Canada Gazette and will be made public in this way. They can be debated on the estimates of the minister. I would also point out that we still have very strong, active unions in this country which will be creating public opinion-and this applies to many other organizations as well -in the direction of my hon. friend's argument.
What we have created here is a momentum that I think will, over a period of time, do the job. For that reason I would have to oppose the amendment because I do not think it provides the flexibility that is required, even if only for a small segment, or maybe a fairly large segment, of industry. I do not know how soon the trucking industry, for example, can adjust in this respect. Surely the application of the standard hours in the trucking industry is going to require the simultaneous establishment, more or less, of common standards in the provinces. How long this will take, we do not know. We have provided the momentum in this direction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question? Would he give favourable consideration to the principle of this amendment, but with a different figure? I ask that question on this basis: I recognize the minister's desire to have flexibility, but surely flexibility is something that you have within limits. Clause 51, as it stands, has no limit; flexibility can result in an extension in perpetuity. Does not the minister, out of his desire to get the 40 hour week established, feel that there should be some guidepost, some indication of a point at which we are

going to do the job. Would he not consider an amendment of this kind with, if necessary, a longer period of time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have the same difficulty, Mr. Chairman, in that I do not think any of us can tell what the time ought to be, and particularly whether any particular time, no matter how long, would cover unique situations that may arise. But I believe you have something powerful in the clause, aside from the time limit, in this inquiry provision, which is going to disclose facts and create public opinion in support of a reasonable regime of hours. I think this is a pretty powerful provision which will see that the right thing is done.
I realize the desire to have the standard hours apply completely at some point, but I believe we are going to reach the objectives of the legislation and still give ourselves some flexibility by this arrangement. In the spirit of the objectives of the legislation, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would not move that amendment. He has successfully moved one already today.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can do nothing but help attain the objective which the minister says we all want, which is that as soon as possible, without creating undue hardship, people coming under the jurisdiction of this bill shall not work more than 40 hours a week. Unfortunately there are a number of cases, even where there are strong unions, where their collective bargaining has not been able to achieve the aim of a 40 hour week. One of the obvious examples is the sleeping car and dining car departments of the railway unions, which have not been able to achieve this end because they are only part of the railway industry. If in the final negotiations the company say no, they will not agree to a change for this group of employees, the railway unions-I am not being critical here-have not seen fit to say they are prepared to strike the whole railway industry for this relatively small group of employees. So that merely to say that because there are strong unions this aim will be achieved is, I think, incorrect.
I am sure all members of the house have had representations made to them about the difficulties which an immediate application of the 40 hour week provision would create in a particular industry or for a particular group of employees. It is because of this

that there is general agreement that this step cannot be taken right away. I agree with the minister when he says that we will work at this and get to it at some time, but it does seem to me that one of the best things the minister could do would be to say to industries and to unions, and to industries which have no unions, that by accepting this amendment the government is understanding their problems but that they do not want to hear about these problems until one year, two years, three years, five years, possibly even ten years from now. The best way of telling industries that they have to find a solution to the problem and aim for a 40 hour week is to set a deadline. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre proposes a deadline of three years, and it seems to me this is not being very tough with any industry or employer. I hope the Minister of Labour will after further consideration agree to this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I am sure all the members of the committee will agree with the minister that there is need for flexibility in bringing in legislation of this kind. I would point out that there is a good deal of flexibility permitted now. First of all, there is the provision to average hours up to a period of one year. This will cover a great many of the cases referred to by the minister, such as the shipping industry, with a 54 hour week at certain times of the year. It will do much to meet the problem of grain elevators and also the problems of the trucking industry. Furthermore, there is the provision now that the minister may by order exempt an industry or a business undertaking from the operations of part I of this legislation for a period of 18 months. Those two provisions give considerable flexibility.
In addition to that, the minister is now providing that, following an inquiry and on recommendation of the Minister of Labour, the governor general in council may grant a still further suspension of part I as it affects any particular industry or business undertaking. But to have this extension go on indefinitely, it seems to me, is to move from flexibility to providing an escape clause under which the 40 hour week would not apply at all at any conceivable time in the future.
It is true that the minister says that, in his opinion, this will affect a relatively small number of persons. But I would point out that subclause (2) of clause 51 says that
Canada Labour Code
where it is made to appear from a report of an inquiry held pursuant to clause 35 that there should be a deferment, part I does not operate in the case of any federal work, undertaking or business or class of employees therein to which the deferment relates. This means that a whole group could be exempted, and exempted virtually in perpetuity by the cabinet's passing repeated orders extending the exemption or suspension, so that part I of the act would never become effective so far as that particular class of employees was concerned. This might be the very class of employees which most needed the protection provided under part I.
It may not be possible to grant them that protection at the moment. It should be possible to grant them that protection, however, within three or four years. Surely it ought not to be beyond the competence of the Department of Labour to work out in a period of three or four years the means by which compliance can be had with part I of the act. Because even though they must comply with part I of the act, the equalling out of hours of work over a period of up to one year still does not mean that employees are on the 40 hour work week every week in the year.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think a very dangerous principle is being established in the minister asking parliament to pass this legislation, and while doing so to ask parliament to give to the executive council the power to set aside this legislation virtually in perpetuity. I think that this is an escape clause which, if parliament passes it, is negating the whole principle of part I of the act. I think that for his own protection the minister ought to have some cut-off date. If at the end of three or four years it is found impossible for some reason or other to apply the provisions of part I to a particular industry or class of employees, surely the minister can come back and ask that that class of employees be exempted by legislation and not by an order of the governor general in council, extended from time to time. I think the minister is asking for very broad powers which parliament ought to hesitate to grant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons for being concerned about the sudden change from a longer working week to 40 hours was the possibility that some employees would suffer a loss in take home pay. As the minister will recall when we were at an earlier stage of this bill, some time last year I guess it was, we raised with him the question

Canada Labour Code
whether or not provision could be written into the bill providing for the retention of the same take home pay, even with the reduction of hours. I do not recall whether there was any commitment to bring forward such a proposition, but certainly I believe the minister was willing to study the whole question.
I may say that in the meantime I have read with interest a section of a piece of legislation in Saskatchewan, the hours of work act, which is chapter 260 of the revised statutes of Saskatchewan, 1953. Section 5 of that act carries the marginal note, "Maintenance of earnings". I am not going to read the whole of it, simply because it is lengthy, but this section does precisely what the marginal note indicates. It provides that in any case where previously established hours of work exceeded what was required under this law, there was to be no reduction in pay of those who were on a monthly or weekly rate; and in the case of those on an hourly rate there was to be a sufficient increase in that rate so that there would be no loss in take home pay.
I would put this question to the minister. If it is possible under provincial law dealing with employees coming under provincial jurisdiction to pass that kind of legislation, would it not have been possible to cope in this way with the same matter under this federal law? In other words, within a period of time would it not have been possible to require that any reduction in hours would not be accompanied by a reduction in take home pay?


Mr, MacEachen:: We have naturally considered, Mr. Chairman, the problem which would appear if hours were reduced to the standard hours immediately. This is one of the reasons why we have provided for the operation of the 18 month period, so that through the process of collective bargaining adjustments will be made to meet the provisions of the bill without any regulation or compulsion in that regard. It would seem to be beyond the principle of a bill establishing such standards to legislate what in effect would be wage increases beyond the minimum level. If the hours were applied immediately, a provision of that kind, maintaining take home pay, would in certain circumstances involve increases in the rates to the amount of 20 per cent, for example. The better alternative, in our judgment, is a provision making it possible for the processes of collective bargaining to make the adjustments in this connection over a period of time.
It is true that the Saskatchewan act did have the provision my hon. friend has made

reference to, but because of the time element involved in meeting the standard hours, which were 44 in the Saskatchewan act, the impact of this particular provision was greatly lessened. In fact it was possible to include that provision because its effect was lessened by the gradual application of the 44 hour standard.
That is the reason behind our proposal. We believe that over the period of time which is provided by the bill collective bargaining will meet this problem. We believe that a provision such as the one mentioned would involve legislation in respect of wage increases beyond the minimum rates, and certainly much beyond the principle of the bill adopted on second reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the minister should turn us down in respect of every suggestion we make. I appreciate his desire that we be as co-operative as possible, and I hope that we can get this bill passed soon. It does seem to me, however, that all the arguments the minister has advanced about his desire for flexibility do not set aside the need at some point in time to give effect to the purposes of this bill. Therefore I think the house should have before it in a formal way the amendment I suggested a moment ago.
Mr. Chairman, I move:
That the amendment to clause 51 be amended by inserting therein, immediately after subclause (5), the following new subclause:
"(6) The total period of deferment or suspension granted under any of the provisions of this section shall not in any case exceed 36 months."
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived: Yeas, 4; nays, 57.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the
amendment to the amendment lost. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. MacNaught) agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 51 as amended carry?
Clause 51 agreed to.
On clause 52-Deferment of section 11.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, we propose an amendment to clause 52 which rep-

resents a change necessitated by the change of the coming into effect date of the bill.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-126, an act respecting hours of work, minimum wages, annual vacations and holidays with pay in federal works, undertakings and businesses, be amended as to clause 52 of the bill,
(a)	by striking out line 8 on page 20 of the bill and by substituting therefor the following:
"that class of employees therein to the first day of January, 1967"; and
(b)	by striking out subclause (2) thereof on page 20 of the bill and by renumbering subclauses (3) and (4) thereof as subclauses (2) and (3), respectively.
Amendment (Mr. MacNaught) agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the clause as amended carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 53-Submission pending on 1st January, 1965.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, we propose two amendments to clause 53 necessitated by the changes in the dates, and a further amendment consequent upon the changes made to clause 51.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-126, an act respecting hours of work, minimum wages, annual vacations and holidays with pay in federal works, undertakings and businesses, be amended as to clause 53 of the bill,
(a)	by striking out line 28 on page 20 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"the 1st day of July, 1965, compile and publish In the";
(b)	by striking out lines 36 and 37 on page 20 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"mission referred to in such list relates, deferred pending the rejection of the submission or the making of an order under section 51 or 52, as the case may be."; and
(c)	by striking out line 3 on page 21 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"after the 1st day of July, 1965, and the".


Norman Platt Lambert: Just for clarification, does this mean that when an industry makes a submission to the minister part I of the act will not apply to that industry until the minister renders a decision either granting or rejecting the submission?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As long as the submission is published in the Canada Gazette.


Norman Platt Lambert: All things being equal to that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Canada Labour Code
On clause 54-Coming into force.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to clause 54 changing the coming into force date of the legislation from the 1st of January, 1965, to the 1st of July, 1965. We need this time prior to the coming into effect of the legislation for the drafting of regulations which will require at times considerable discussion and consultation with industry and labour. This is the earliest possible time that we think that we can bring the act into effect. I regret as much as some other hon. members that the effective date had to be changed.


John Watson MacNaught: I move:
That Bill 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 clause 54 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"54. Parts I to IV of this act shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 1965."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions and I admit that one of them is a very minor one, but I confess that little things sometimes puzzle me. Clause 54 previously read:
Parts I, II, III and IV of this act shall come into force on the 1st day of January, 1965.
Is there any significance in the change of style from this to what is now proposed, or does it just mean that the draftsman had a different cup of tea that morning? Is there any difference at all between the language "Parts I, II, III and IV" and "Parts I to IV"?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All parts are included in both cases?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes. I can read from the Interpretation Act to support the change.


Norman Platt Lambert: It would be better to say "Parts I to IV inclusive".


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We do not need to. We are not obliged to enumerate the parts as we did. It is a matter of style or taste.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not leave it the way it was before? There was no doubt about it when it was "Parts I, II, III and IV".


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is fine with me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not need to move a subamendment. Perhaps the Solicitor General will accept the variation.


John Watson MacNaught: I accept it.

Canada Labour Code


Stanley Howard Knowles: My other question is perhaps also a little one but I should like to be clear on the point. If the operative parts of the act come into effect on the 1st day of July, 1965, does that make it clear that the 1st day of July this year is a statutory and general holiday for the purposes of this act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes. I thought it might be necessary to put in June 30th in order to make that absolutely clear, but it was not necessary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has checked that point and has obtained good legal advice?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Norman Platt Lambert: May I ask a question with reference to clause 53. When the minister rejects a submission so that part I becomes operative with regard to the particular firm, is it operative from the date of the ministerial rejection or from the date of publication in the Canada Gazette as required by subclause 3?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is from the coming into effect of the law with regard to hours of work, if I understand the question properly.


Norman Platt Lambert: I do not think the minister has seized my problem. Under clause 53 a firm makes a submission to the minister for the suspension of part I of the act and notice thereof is published in the Canada Gazette. The minister then conducts an inquiry and ultimately makes a decision. If the minister rejects the submission, then it states in paragraph (a) of subclause (2) of clause 53 that part I operates on and after the date of the rejection by the minister of the submission. But then I go to subclause (3) where I find the following:
Where a submission mentioned in subsection 1 is rejected pursuant to subsection 2, the minister shall, as soon as may be thereafter, cause a notice of such rejection to be published in the Canada Gazette.
Is the effective date of the rejection of a submission the date of publication in the Canada Gazette, which is the official notice, or is it the actual date of the rejection by the minister?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand that the procedure is as follows when a submission is made for the deferment of the operation of the hours of work provisions, and may I say it would be in the interests of industries to make submissions as soon as we are finished with the bill. They ought to reach us before

the 1st of July and be published in the Canada Gazette. The moment they are published in the Canada Gazette the operation of part I is suspended. Suppose after consideration the minister decides that the submission should be rejected; if it is rejected the hours of work provisions go into effect on the date of the rejection.


Norman Platt Lambert: How do you indicate it to the applicant unless you give official notice in the Canada Gazette? Between the date of rejection by the minister and the date of receipt of notice thereof there may be a lapse of time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is an interesting
point. Presumably the hours of work provisions would come into effect on the date of the rejection.


Norman Platt Lambert: I think you had better make it the date of publication in the Canada Gazette.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now revert to clause 3.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could get the consent of the committee for the reopening of clause 2 which has already been passed. Because of the amendment to clause 51 it is necessary to redefine the words "standard hours of work" in paragraph (1).


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amend-tee agree that clause 2 shall be reopened?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 2-Definitions.


John Watson MacNaught: I move:
That Bill No. C-126 be amended by striking out line 28 on page 2 and substituting therefor the following:
"work prescribed in section 5 or prescribed by order made under section 51."


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 3-Application of act.
Alfred Dryden Hales: Is the minister going to give an explanation of clause 3?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 
John Watson MacNaught: I move:
That Bill No. C-126 be amended by striking out line 18 on page 3 and substituting therefor the following:
"(g) any bank,"


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is another amendment to clause 3(l)(i). It is an amendment to the French language version of the bill and relates to the changes necessary in order to make the French version and English version conform. This amendment also conforms to the French version of similar provisions in all the other labour acts. My colleague, the Minister of Justice, will move this amendment.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. C-126 be amended by deleting line 33 on page 3 of the French version of the bill and substituting the following:
pas de la competence exclusive


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the clause as amended carry?
20220-731J
Canada Labour Code


Mr. Loney:: I move the following amendment to clause 3 of Bill No. C-126, seconded by the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Cardiff):
That the following words be inserted in subclause (h) of clause 3 of Bill No. C-126, between the word "provinces" and the word "and", where those words appear in line 24 on page 3 of the bill, "excluding privately owned feed mills, privately owned elevators and privately owned seed cleaning plants in the eastern division as defined in the Canada Grain Act and Canada Wheat Board Act or such similar institutions as may be owned and operated by farmers' co-operatives."


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The effect of the acceptance of this amendment, of course, would be to leave this portion of the working people of Canada completely outside the scope of any legislation. They do not come under provincial jurisdiction. The industry has so stated itself, I understand, when wage orders were being considered recently by the Ontario government. I am informed that representations were made to the effect that these wage orders could not apply because this segment of the industry was under federal jurisdiction. The law is clear. These mills have been declared to be for the general advantage of Canada by statute of this parliament, and by the application of clause 3 of this bill any work declared to be for the general advantage of Canada comes under the legislative competence of this parliament. If we do not include this segment of industry under the bill then it will not be subject to labour law or regulation of any kind. For example, we have certified feed mills and flour mills in eastern Canada under the authority that we are assuming we have in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and that we are taking in this bill.
No one has really brought forward an argument that it would be to the disadvantage of these feed mills to be included in the bill. As a matter of fact, this class of employees will receive the protection that all employees in federal industries have under this bill. No one has come forward in the committee with an argument that the service to the farmers will be hampered or that the operations of these plants will be seriously disrupted by the application of the bill. It would be a step backward to exclude this group from the bill and leave them outside the scope of any labour standards legislation.


Alfred Dryden Hales: The minister has just said that the interpretation of the act is very clear. I remind him that only yesterday he said it was so uncertain that it would have to be tested in the courts. Yesterday it was brought to the attention of the committee that no later

Canada Labour Code
than 1950 the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe said in the House of Commons that these private mills in eastern Canada did not come under the Canada Grain Act and therefore they were not included.
The minister also said that he has had no representations on behalf of the employees. I would remind him that the employees will be affected in this case because in a lot of the small privately owned mills in eastern Canada employees have been working, and have been allowed to work more than 40 hours a week. Now they will be curtailed to 40 or 48 hours at the most and possibly they would like to work longer hours.
This will be a great hardship on the employers because many of them have seed cleaning plants which sometimes have to be worked all day and night during the peak season. The bill states that the average working time can be extended over only two weeks. Am I correct in that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Over as long as a year.


Alfred Dryden Hales: That may work out in some cases but I can think of many small, privately owned mills where this will create a great hardship not only to the employer but to the employee. I cannot be convinced that a privately owned mill should be considered to be under federal jurisdiction.


Mr. Nesbitt:: It may be very clear to the minister what the law is on the matter, but I respectfully submit it is not quite so clear to others. Those who have made some study of the law have learned that when legislation is not clear on occasion one may go behind the statute to see what was the intention of the legislature at the time it was passed. It has been pointed out by the hon. member for Middlesex West and the hon. member for Wellington South that the intention of the legislature was quite clear when the Canada Grain Act was passed. The late C. D. Howe stated it was not intended to include eastern feed mills under the operations of the act.
If the minister's argument is followed to its logical conclusion, then any kind of business in Canada could be deemed to be to the advantage of Canada and brought under federal regulations. With great respect I think he is taking a very dangerous step in the wrong direction by including this kind of operation in the legislation. I know he has pointed out that there is an out under clause 51. I hope this is so, but at the same time I ask him and his legal advisers to give more

thought to what looks to be a very dangerous infringement on provincial rights.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, I think there is too much regimentation in this clause with respect to the feed mills which operate to the advantage of farmers. I believe the minister is going much too far in trying to bring these mills under the terms of the bill. Nobody likes to be told what they have to do or what they cannot do. Most of these feed mills have seed plants in them, and in the spring season a lot of the seed cleaning has to be done between six o'clock at night and two or three o'clock in the morning. This rush period lasts for about two or three weeks. Perhaps the hours can be averaged over the year but the fact remains that there is too much regimentation. I think the minister should accept the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Loney) negatived: yeas, 20; nays 71.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of a problem here, in that we had hoped to get some legislation before the other place. I am wondering, in the light of that hope, whether hon. members would consider giving this bill third reading now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my heart
bleeds for the other place, of course, but I think that when substantial amendments are made to any bill, the house, in order to perform its duty properly, should see the reprinted bill before it is approved. It is only on that ground, really, that I suggest we take third reading of the bill at the next sitting.


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


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the house would be agreeable to devoting this coming hour to the consideration of public business so that we may con-

tinue to deal with some of the items of business that I indicated last night.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, before we do agree may I say that I think this is a most unwise way to proceed with the dispatch of public business. At this stage I am disposed to waive this particular hour, but I think it leaves some members in an awkward position. Some members have expressed-and I know some of my colleagues are in this position-an interest in some of the legislation which was to come after the bill with which we have just dealt, and on the assumption that we would proceed during the five to six hour in the normal way they have arranged to do other things.
I think that if in future the house leader would try to make these suggestions a sufficiently long period of time in advance, so that other arrangements could be made by members who are interested in this legislation, we might be better off; but to come in at the last minute is, I think, most unfair to the house and to members who have a particular interest in some of this legislation.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I accept the reproof of my hon. friend and will try to find some other method of having such a proposal or suggestion communicated to all hon. members sufficiently in advance, so that the difficulty with which the hon. member has concerned himself and mentioned will not arise. I therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, that we go on with public business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA


Guy Favreau: the second reading of Bill No. S-2, respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada.

He said:	Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the establishment of a statute revision commission.
If that commission could be set up early this year, the new revised statutes could be expected to come into force during the year following the confederation centennial, at the latest.
The work of the commission would consist in arranging, revising and consolidating all
Revised Statutes of Canada statutes since the most recent revision, whicfi took place in 1952.
Since confederation the statutes of Canada have been revised first in 1886, again in 1906, then in 1927 and finally in 1952.
It is mainly for the convenience of the public, members of the bar and members of parliament that such a revision is undertaken to reproduce in simple form all the statutes that came into force since 1952, with amendments made thereto since, as well as all new statutes and amendments thereto adopted since 1952.
In view of the amount of legislation now enacted by parliament, I mean the number of public bills-because the revision of the statutes is limited to public bills-we believe that it is imperative from now on that revisions be made at shorter intervals. The period between 1952 and 1967 or 1968 will be long enough. It is to be hoped that later revisions will be made at still shorter intervals.
In order to simplify the business of the house, I think it will suffice to say that the means of revision and consolidation provided in the bill now before the House of Commons are, for all practical purposes, identical to those selected for previous revisions, particularly those of 1952.
Once the commission is set up, it will submit what is known as a roll or a list of acts. The roll will be certified by the governor general and the clerk of the parliaments, then filed with the clerk. Effective on the date of the proclamation, existing statutes which will be replaced by the new revised statutes will be presumed to have been repealed and the new revised statutes to be in force.
I think that this explanation of the objects of the bill and of the general procedure should suffice; however, should some hon. members wish to discuss any clause they could do so when the bill is considered in committee.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have listened with a considerable degree of interest to the explanation of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) with regard to this bill. This is to some extent, shall we say, a formal motion and is in keeping with the practice parliament has followed for many years with regard to the Revised Statutes of Canada; but on the other hand we are revising and consolidating the statutes of Canada and will be creating new volumes of the

Revised Statutes of Canada Revised Statutes of Canada to include all the enactments since the last revision of 1952. The minister has stated that in his opinion it is desirable that these consolidations and revisions should occur more frequently. I think many of us would perhaps agree with that.
As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us does not deal with that matter specifically but simply authorizes the creation of a commission to revise and consolidate the statutes of Canada. As I follow the minister, the practice we are following this afternoon is in keeping with the practice which has been followed on similar occasions when the statutes of Canada have been revised and consolidated every decade, or roughly every decade. This present decade has been rather long, as we are now into 1965, and we are dealing with statutes which should have been revised two or three years ago.
With that understanding, as far as we on this side of the house are concerned there is no point in discussing this matter at any further length. We are prepared to see the enactment of this bill, to have the commission created and the revision and consolidation of the statutes proceeded with as quickly as possible. Certainly as one who has had some experience in practising law and who has [DOT]been somewhat removed from parliamentary assistants, law libraries and so on, having to go through all the statutes over 10, 12, or 14 years to find out what is the law, I am sure it would be of great assistance to my professional confreres throughout the country to have this revision and consolidation take place as quickly as possible. Therefore I hope the minister will be able to proceed with it and that the consolidation can take place before the end of this year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are glad to support this bill and hope that the commission will be able to get on with its work at an early date. I think it is interesting to note that the period of time between the last consolidation and this one is probably the shortest yet. I do not believe revisions have taken place every decade, as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) suggested. I think for the most part they have taken place every 20 or 25 years. In this case the revision is taking place within 13 years, which does reflect the amount of work done by this house and the growing importance of what we are called upon to do for the people of Canada.


In any event, we are glad to facilitate the passing of this bill so that the commission can get on with this important piece of work.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I may say that we are in full agreement with this measure before us. I think it is obvious to anyone who has anything to do with the statutes as they are now that this revision is badly needed. To try and find a particular statute and then follow through all the amendments which have been passed through succeeding years, put them all together and then understand the whole situation is very confusing. Therefore we are very happy that this work is going to be done. I wish it were possible somehow to reduce the number of statutes on the books. It seems we have law upon law upon law until we are pretty well legislated for, right up to the ears. But that is another problem. We support the measure before us.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my support for this measure to that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As someone who has just come from the committee which is dealing with a proposed amendment to the Canada Shipping Act, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if I had been able to have a consolidation of the statute before me instead of having to wade through four or five different amending acts to find out which was the correct and current section of the act it would have been a much simpler and less time consuming procedure in the committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the remarks of the previous speaker, but I am rather curious as to what the cost of the commission in question will amount to when the consolidated statutes are produced.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must admit I have no definite figures as to the estimated cost of the commission. There are no provisions for this in the present act, which is a departure from the act which provided for the establishment of the 1952 commission. There are no provisions in the present act regarding the expenses of the commission. One of the reasons for this is that the intention is that the commission will consist exclusively, if the present intentions are carried

out, of civil servants. Once the commission is appointed, whatever expenses have to be provided for will require an item in the estimates, some kind of appropriation, and at that time there will be full opportunity to discuss the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Statute revision commission established.
Mr, Baldwin:: One very brief comment, Mr. Chairman. I commend the minister on this proposed measure but I would make this suggestion to him, that some particular effort be made regarding the indexing system of the statutes. As one who has spent a long time over this matter, not only as a member of the house but also professionally, this is one of the problems we meet. Somebody made the statement a little while ago that these revisions are now getting to the stage where 12, 15 even 20 years separate them. That may be essentially because it almost takes 20 years to relate the indexing system of the statutes to some of the statutes themselves.
I would strongly suggest that the minister bring to the attention of the commission that particular care should be taken to see that the indices of the statutes will correspond, and be of some value to those who seek to make use of them.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, along the same line I should like to make a brief comment on the inadequacy, if I may call it that, of the present indexing system of the statutes. We all know that in the main volumes there is an index which refers members or anyone looking up a certain part of the act, giving the page number and so on. There are a number of statutes which consist of scores of pages and many different subject matters are dealt with in these acts. There are also marginal notes giving a brief explanation of the particular sections and some guidance as to the subject matter of each. It seems to me it would be an improvement if an index were attached to each act which would give, in essence, the description given by the margin-note so that one would not have to thumb through all these pages.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should just like to ask the minister whether he has any idea what is the average charge which is made for the revised statutes. Has he any idea what amount has been collected in the past from members
Revised Statutes of Canada of the legal profession who I understand have to purchase these volumes?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I would not know what is the charge. I remember that one day I received an account from the queen's printer when I was in practice, but I remember I was always impressed by the minor character of the charge which was made for this very important edition published by the queen's printer. But I cannot tell the hon. member the exact amount.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, can the minister give us some idea as to what will be the cut-off date for the inclusion of new legislation in the new revised statutes if this legislation passes now? In other words, how much of the legislation currently being processed in parliament, and how much of the legislation which will be processed in parliament, will be included in the revision that is to take place? I am wondering how long this process will take and where the cut-off point will be made.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, all the legislation at the present session will be included, as well as all legislation enacted between now and the time of the filing of the roll. This means that not only will the present legislation be included but all legislation enacted during the course of the work of the commission.
There is a provision contained in clause 3(2) whereby, if at the time the roll is deposited with the clerk of the parliament there have been either amendments, repeals or additional statutes which can conveniently be attached to the revised statutes, a supplementary roll can be deposited by the commission which will include all the legislation to be included in the supplementary revised statutes. We observed an example of that when we had the supplement to the revised statutes in 1952. In other words, all legislation up to and including the period when the statutes will be brought forward will be included.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Powers of commission as to alterations.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have just one observation on clause 5.
I see that the commission has the power to make alterations in the language-I do not mean the substance of the legislation

Revised Statutes of Canada itself, but only its language-and I wonder, in this year 1965-for many years, editions of the Revised Statutes of Canada have been published exclusively for the use of lawyers and men of the legal profession-whether we should not ask the commission to publish a more popular edition so that everybody might more readily understand what sometimes is too hard for lawyers to understand.
It is clear that in 1965, 1967 or 1968, the year when those statutes are published, some popular expressions of complicated things will have been useful. But I wonder whether the minister could not publish, besides the edition of the statutes of Canada, some popular edition concerning at least certain acts, namely the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, the Farm Credit Act and some others often used by the people.
When I say a popular edition, I mean an edition that could carry examples, tables and even pictures so that people in general can understand the law. I suggest that it could easily be published together with the revised statutes.
I ask the minister whether he intends to take this suggestion into consideration and recommend to the commission to publish such an edition at the same time as the Revised Statutes of Canada.


Mr. Choquetie:: While commenting on the serious recommendation just made by the hon. member, I should like to say that if our laws become too clear, there will be no work left for lawyers. I appreciate that that does not affect the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) who was not called to the bar but our legislation has to be a bit obscure if we, lawyers, are to explain it to our clients. Needless to say, I am mostly joking-


Gilles Grégoire: All hon. members will feel, I am sure, that the last remark of the hon. member for Lotbiniere was out of place. Indeed, most of his remarks are ill-advised. That is so true that his constituents are anxiously waiting for the next election to replace him.
At any rate, coming back to the subject-


Auguste Choquette: It is not as bad as going to jail.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to emphasize that last sentence. My hon. friend from Lotbiniere will never go to jail for a matter of principle, because he has no principle.
Let us go back to the subject under consideration from which the hon. member for Lotbiniere has caused me to stray.

I shall take the liberty of enlarging on the subject precisely because some lawyers- like the hon. member for Lotbiniere-like to keep the law obscure and do not like the people to become too familiar with it. That is precisely the reason why I ask the minister whether, in his opinion, it would not be advisable to prepare a more popular edition because it is the opinion of too many people that the more obscure the law, the more difficult it is to understand it.
I have seen before in some pieces of legislation sentences covering two pages and a half without any punctuation at all. Which goes to show that a change, a review and a more popular edition are urgently needed.
The remarks of the member for Lotbiniere are exactly in support of what I pointed out a moment ago.
You do not want the public to understand the laws any longer; you want everything to be left in the hands of lawyers, so that members of parliament should vote acts that the public could not understand at all. That is exactly the point just made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
They want to continue keeping the people in ignorance of such things, in order to get rich at their expense. In fact, the hon. member for Lotbiniere has pointed out the problem, and it is exactly for that reason I am asking the minister if some means could not be devised to popularize the various pieces of legislation in a simplified edition, in order to make them understandable to ordinary citizens, without forcing them into exploitation, not by all lawyers, but by some of the same calibre as the hon. member for Lotbiniere-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, and I shall be brief.
I deny that lawyers are exploiters. Moreover, my remark was in a humorous vein; one must joke once in a while, especially when one has to listen to the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) or to the hon. member for Lapointe.
I did not know that the hon. member for Lapointe had lost his sense of humour since he got out of jail. We are not to blame if he made a blunder.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Lotbiniere is making a monumental blunder himself because he has been talking about everything except what concerns us.
As to the blunder I have made, I leave it to the voters of his constituency to determine
1X555

whether I made a blunder in paying a fine or whether the hon. member for Lotbiniere made one in calling a blunder the fact that I have upheld a principle.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, you let the hon. member for Lotbiniere have his say and you should at least let me have mine.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere rose on a question of privilege but I do not think he seriously believed his point was well taken. I would ask him to cooperate with the Chair and if he wants to take part in this debate, I suggest he should confine his remarks to the matter under consideration.
I also ask for the co-operation of the hon. member for Lapointe and I also suggest to him to deal with the matter before the house, namely section 5 of Bill No. S-2.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, you were right. The hon. member for Lotbiniere did not make a serious intervention because he can never be serious.


Auguste Choquette: You are even less serious than he is.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to continue my remarks-


Auguste Choquette: I am serious enough to avoid ever going to jail.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Lotbiniere will never be serious enough to uphold any principle whatever.


Auguste Choquette: We stand up for them honestly.


Gilles Grégoire: You will never be able to do that.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. If I may, I would suggest to the two hon. members who seem inclined to pursue a quarrel which is perhaps of little interest to the other members of the committee that they come back to the matter now before us.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for calling to order the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
Before being interrupted, I was asking the minister a question. I shall repeat it to refresh his memory.
Now that the hon. member for Lotbiniere seems willing to keep quiet, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he would not contemplate-
Revised Statutes of Canada


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege and raise a point of order.
My question of privilege is related to the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe.
My point of order is to the effect that under standing order 12, proprieties must be observed in this house and I suggest it is against the standing orders to allow a member just out of jail to speak.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have your ruling about this point of order, because, as far as I know, there is no standing order to that effect. In addition, if such were the case, the hon. member for Lotbiniere might never speak at all during his lifetime.
With all the scandals happening within the Liberal party, one never knows if he will not get involved in one.
Coming back to the matter under discussion and leaving the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I would like to ask the minister the same question and I hope that this time I will not be interrupted by remarks as irrelevant as those made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
Does the Minister of Justice intend to publish a popular edition of the statutes of Canada, at least the legislation to which the Canadian people may have to refer quite often, namely the acts I mentioned a while ago including the Central Mortgage and Housing Act, the Farm Credit Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and other similar ones.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, needless to say I understand the hon. member's point of view and I must say that especially in the past and in spite of the new way of writing legislation, lawyers often wondered, whenever they did not understand at first sight, if it was because they were not intelligent or because the wording was not always clear.
Over the years, and I am proud of mentioning the work performed in the Department of Justice-a uniform technique is increasingly used in the preparation and drafting of legislation.
In fact, in clause 5 of the bill before us, mention is made of amendments in the legal language to bring out more clearly the purpose of the statutes.
I remember, at the time I was practising, having discovered in an old statute the words "power of attorney" in the English version, which in the French version, was stupidly translated by "pouvoir d'avocat".

Penitentiary Act
This is one oi the things which could be corrected during revision. Obviously, the revised term would be "procuration".
The correction of texts is also important enough to make it easier to understand and sometimes to better express the apparent intention of the legislator.
However, I must say that this bill provides only for the revision of statutes of Canada and their amendments; it does not provide for the publication of a popular edition.
In recent years-and at this stage I can give credit for this situation to both our predecessors and this government, and I think that this practice should be more widespread and better used-the governments have got into the habit of publishing, not popular editions, but pamphlets explaining not only some statutes, in popular language, but giving examples of their practical application.
Perhaps the hon. member for Lapointe has something like that in mind, because it must be recognized that the publication of the complete edition of all statutes, in popular style, would hardly be practical, and besides it would be too expensive for those who would like to get it. Moreover, I think that no matter how popular the style might be, the number of copies in circulation would never be very great, even in the case of a piece of legislation which would be of interest to a large part of the population.
In my opinion, it would be a good thing to find at last a means of distributing or publishing explanatory circulars in order to make not only the text but especially the meaning of the law available to those for whom, after all, it was passed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Gilles Grégoire: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



PENITENTIARY ACT


Guy Favreau: the second reading of Bill No. C-145, to amend the Penitentiary Act.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is what I could call one of clarification. There appears to be some kind of gap in the present Penitentiary Act in so far as the provisions relating to dealing with prisoners who have been sentenced to two years or more of imprisonment are concerned.
Under section 17 of the present act, which came into force on April 1, 1962, it is provided that a person who has been sentenced to penitentiary shall not be received there pending the determination of his right of appeal. Under section 49 of the previous Penitentiary Act it was provided that pending disposal of his right of appeal a person sentenced to penitentiary "shall be confined in any jail or other place of confinement wherein he may be lawfully kept after sentence while awaiting removal to the penitentiary". For some reason or other this provision was omitted from the present Penitentiary Act.
While this issue has only been raised under section 17 of the Penitentiary Act, a somewhat similar situation arises under section 18 with which it is intended to deal at the same time. Section 18 provides, generally speaking, that the officer in charge of a penitentiary is not required to accept a prisoner unless he is accompanied by a medical certificate to the effect that he is free from dangerous, contagious or infectious disease.
Although the Department of Justice takes the view that the temporary detention of such persons in provincial prisons and jails is legal under the existing law, it is desirable, in order to prevent any question being raised, that there be express provision to this effect. The bill proposed will, therefore, amend the Penitentiary Act to provide, in effect, that any prisoner who is sentenced to a penitentiary but who, by force of section 17 or section 18 is denied admission thereto, shall be detained in a prison, common jail or other place, other than a penitentiary, that is a provincial institution, until he is transferred to the penitentiary or discharged by reason of his appeal being allowed or otherwise.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Custody pending appeal or medical certificate.
George Clyde Nowlan: I should like to ask the minister when the sentence starts to run, in case a prisoner is detained or is kept in confinement in a common jail or provincial institu-

tion. Does his sentence run during that period or does it only start to run after he has been transferred to the penitentiary?


Guy Favreau: No, it runs while he is in the common jail.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time, now?


Gilles Grégoire: At the next sitting of the house.


George James McIlraith: Since there are no amendments and it is not usual to ask for bills to stand over for third reading when there are no amendments, I wonder if we could have third reading now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Next sitting of the house.



COAL PRODUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Coal Production Assistance Act to extend until the 31st day of October, 1969, the period during which agreements may be made under section 3 of the said act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


William Moore Benidickson: This involves no change from a policy adopted by parliament in 1949, except that it extends the right of the minister until October 31, 1969, to make coal assistance loans under this provision.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Benidickson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-147, to amend the Coal Production Assistance Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, and reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Norman Platt Lambert: By leave, now.


Gilles Grégoire: Next sitting of the house.
Legislation



GENEVA CONVENTIONS


George James McIlraith: the second reading of Bill No. S-25, respecting the Geneva conventions, 1949.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Would the parliamentary secretary indicate if there is more than one schedule?


Mr. Haidasz:: This bill, No. S-25, has been given complete study by the Senate and the external affairs committee, and was approved in the Senate on June 3, 1964.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


George Clyde Nowlan: By leave now.


George James McIlraith: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES (UNITED NATIONS) ACT AMENDMENTS CHANGING TITLE, EXTENDING APPLICATION, ETC.

George James McIlraith: the second reading of Bill No. S-24, to amend the Privileges and Immunities (United Nations) Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: By leave now.


George James McIlraith: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Legislation



CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS RETURNS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-35, to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act-Mr. Sharp-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Relieving provision.
Norman Platt Lambert: All I have to say on this, Mr. Chairman, is that I think the purpose of the original act has been emasculated by some of the amendments put in at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the title carry?


George Clyde Nowlan: Before the title carries I wish to reinforce what the hon. member for Edmonton West said. The Minister of Trade and Commerce will remember the discussion which took place before the committee when I objected as strongly as I could to the fact that certain sections had been dropped from the original act. The minister said, and the committee of course accepted it, that it was a matter of good policy to do so. He said that in his opinion the bill could operate just as efficiently without the section in question. I then expressed the opinion, which the hon. member for Edmonton West and other hon. members in the opposition have, that this would not be the case.
There is no point in arguing the matter further here. I simply reinforce the statement that we disapprove entirely of the amendment made to the bill in committee at that time with respect to the omission of the section in question.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Norman Platt Lambert: By leave now.


Mitchell William Sharp: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the third time and passed.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. C-123 to amend certain acts administered in the department of insurance-Mr. Mcllraith (for Mr. Gordon)-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Provisions applicable to all companies.
George Clyde Nowlan: I think we have gone far enough, Mr. Chairman.


George James McIlraith: I understand it is the view that we have gone far enough. We have had excellent co-operation and I would move, Mr. Chairman, that you rise, report progress on this bill and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house. In the meantime I would ask hon. members to take a look at item 92 to see if it would be convenient to refer it to committee. It is something that should be examined.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 stands.
Progress reported.



COMPANIES ACT

John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. S-22, to amend the Companies Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank hon. members for their excellent co-operation during the last hour and to express my appreciation for it. I should now like to ask that we revert to motions for the purpose of giving some information that there was an undertaking would be given.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



HARBOURS


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. FEBRUARY 19, 1965
Davis) asked me this morning about the situation on the north side of Vancouver harbour, and the Prime Minister and I both indicated we hoped to make a statement at the beginning of next week.
In view of the urgency of the problem, and because the government has been able during the afternoon to reach a decision on this matter, I would like to communicate it to the house because even the week end might make a difference in this particular situation.
The government has given further consideration to the request for assistance in relocation made by and on behalf of four industries on the north shore of Burrard inlet, Vancouver, which will be displaced as a result of the construction of a new grain elevator by Saskatchewan wheat pool on the site presently occupied by these industries.
It has been decided that, though the industries had the notice required by law and therefore no formal legal claim to any compensation, an effort should be made to ensure that no loss of work will be suffered by their employees as a result of any misunderstanding by their employers of their position under the leases they had from the national harbours board.
Solely, therefore, in order to protect the workers employed by the companies from becoming unemployed as a result of this move, the government has agreed to set aside a sum up to $250,000 to be available to the four industries, to be pro-rated among them, to assist them in relocating their operations, provided each of the industries will assure continued employment for at least 90 per cent of their work force for a period of one year. This will be administered by the national harbours board, and it is for that reason that I am making this announcement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to express my personal thanks to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) for the statement he has made regarding the industries which have to be moved from the north shore of Burrard inlet. I am sure the British Columbia members of parliament, both from this side of the house and from the government side, who after their meetings wired the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), will be equally grateful that action has been taken in this regard.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the min-
Business of the House
ister for the prompt manner in which he and the government have dealt with this matter.



TRANSPORT


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be permitted to table the correspondence regarding the Thompson commission, about which the hon. member for Quebec-Montmo-rency (Mr. Marcoux) asked a question the other day. This is the correspondence with the government of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what is the business for Monday?


George James McIlraith: Subject to meeting with the house leaders, I propose to bring forward third reading of several bills that were dealt with today, and then item No. 80 on today's order paper, which is house in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-136, the Canada pension plan bill. When the pension part is completed, we will come to the old age assistance part and will take the item that appears in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) under government notices of motions.


Mr. Monteith:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader, in view of the fact that when Bill No. C-136 was dealt with prior to Christmas and we had an agreed time for second reading, which was adhered to, would it be possible to have general speeches when we deal with this bill on Monday?


George James McIlraith: I suppose that is a matter which falls within the provisions of the rule book, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what I can do about it. I have considered the point, but I do not know that I can say anything that will be helpful at this stage.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I suppose that under those conditions all we can do is ask the chairman of the committee to be lenient.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 22, 1965