1965-02-16

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 16, 1965

Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I take this
moment to direct the attention of hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon of the commissioner of the Northwest Territories, Mr. B. G. Sivertz, and the members of the council of the Northwest Territories.
This important legislative body, which has the responsibility for governing an area of 1J million square miles in Canada's far north, has been in session in Ottawa over the past 10 days. I am sure that the commissioner and his council would want me to express to the house their appreciation that meeting space has been made available on the hill for this twenty ninth session of the parliament of the north.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: May I also take this opportunity to announce certain seat changes both on the government side and on the official opposition side.



THE MINISTRY


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: As hon. members are no doubt aware, there have been certain changes in the ministry since the house last met of which hon. members should be informed officially and immediately.
I deeply regret that personal reasons made it necessary for my esteemed friend and colleague the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont to resign as Minister of Public Works. As the exchange of letters between himself and myself which I shall table when we come to motions will make clear, I tried to prevail on the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont to reconsider and remain a member of the government, but he felt that
personal reasons made this impossible. My regret at his loss as a colleague is exceeded only by the sympathy I extend to him and to Madame Deschatelets in the tragic bereavement they have suffered.
Consequent upon the retirement of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) has assumed the portfolio of public works. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Nicholson) has become Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and his portfolio as Postmaster General has been assumed by the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay).
To replace the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres as Associate Minister of National Defence it was my pleasure to recommend to His Excellency the Governor General the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Cadieux). His experience with the armed forces during the last war will, I am sure, be of great advantage to him in the new responsibilities he assumes in the Department of National Defence. I warmly welcome him as a new colleague in the ministry.
There is one further change on which I must report to the house. Hon. members are aware that since the house last met the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis), submitted his resignation from the government and that it was accepted on Friday, January 22, 1965. When we come to motions I shall table a copy of his letter of resignation and a copy of my reply.
In December of 1964 certain evidence was submitted to me regarding allegations involving the hon. member for St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville. These allegations were in connection with certain transactions in which it was alleged he was a participant during the year 1961. They were not related to his membership of this house or of the government. I saw the hon. member and advised him that the evidence submitted required an investigation. To this he agreed.
I spoke to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville again on Wednesday, January 20, after I had been shown a preliminary report on the investigation into the matters in question. It appeared to me, as a result of having that preliminary report, that

Question of Privilege
it would be best in all circumstances, and without prejudging the conclusion of the matter, for the hon. member to cease to be a member of the government. After discussing the matter with me Mr. Dupuis submitted his resignation, which was accepted.
In the course of the past week the report to which I have referred, which is still incomplete, has been referred to the attorney general of Quebec. I am sure the house would not want me, by anything I might say, to prejudice the position of the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville or to appear to prejudge whatever conclusions the attorney general of Quebec may reach once the inquiry is completed. I do not therefore, Mr. Speaker, think it would be desirable for me to say anything further on this matter at this time.

I should like to table the letters, Mr. Speaker, to which I referred in my earlier statement, between the former minister of public works and myself and the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville and myself. I should like to table also a special edition of the Canada Gazette, dated February 8, which includes the proclamation of the national flag of Canada.



PRIVILEGE


Hon. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, as I told you I would in a letter I sent to you from St. Jean-Iberville on January 29 of this year. It has to do with false interpretations given in certain newspapers after I handed in my resignation as minister without portfolio.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for having tabled the two letters he and I exchanged on January 22, 1965 and which confirm that, after having met the Prime Minister on a few occasions and discussed the situation for some time, I agreed with him that I should resign as minister without portfolio, which I did.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the house that since I resigned as minister without portfolio, I declined to make any comments to the press because I felt it was my duty to wait until my return to Ottawa to state to my colleagues of the House of Com-

mons the reasons which prompted me to hand in my resignation as minister without portfolio.
I kept silent, but the same does not hold true in respect of some newspapers and certain persons who, by setting stories afloat about me, almost succeeded during a certain period in creating an irreversible image of my guilt.
You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that I showed a great of deal of patience by not leaping with indignation and anger when I read certain scurrilous, untrue and tendentious items about me in the papers. I shall not state the names of those newspapers or quote all those false articles, but in order to convince you, Mr. Speaker, if you are not already so convinced, that my question of privilege is well founded, I shall only quote a few excerpts from press reports in order to substantiate my question of privilege.
The newspaper Le Devoir of Monday, January 25, 1965, published, on the front page, an article by Mario Cardinal under the following title:
Yvon Dupuis is alleged to have received from a race track promoter a $10,000 gift.
That article was libellous, untrue and therefore slanderous. The journalist, in the same article, was bold enough to write the following:
One thing is certain: he (Mr. Dupuis) admitted having received the $10,000.
In writing those lines that newspaperman indulges in spiteful scandal-mongering. His writing is a patent and dishonest interference with my privileges as a member of the House of Commons. I say here, before my colleagues, that I have never received the $10,000 referred to by that journalist, let alone that I have confessed receiving such a sum.
One had to read also, Mr. Speaker, the Montreal newspaper La Presse of Saturday, January 23, 1965, to find out how much newspapermen can write on a matter they know nothing about. Since they were completely in the dark, they gave free rein to their vilest prejudices, their most despicable instinct and their most tendentious imagination to ruin my reputation before the public. However, in that issue of January 23 La Presse did not give its readers any evidence of my guilt or any valid explanations of my reasons for leaving the cabinet. After reading the countless articles published in that issue people could ask themselves: "What exactly do they have against Yvon Dupuis?" Only in

later issues did La Presse start publishing rumours and stories gathered here and there during investigations made by a team of newspapermen who had been sent looking for scandals about the former minister without portfolio. I think that can be called a trial by newspapers.
It was then that' appeared in this Montreal daily, the largest French daily in America, big headlines reading as follows:
Deslauriers admitted handing over the $10,000 to minister Yvon Dupuis.
Nobody was grieving yesterday in Quebec city.
Is it Lesage who asked for the head of Yvon Dupuis?
Kierans had sent the Dupuis file to Favreau.
Deslauriers will reveal the whole racket.
The R.C.M.P. acted before Yvon Dupuis.
And so on. It was obvious to any outsider that a well planned press campaign had been staged against me by means of those two French Montreal dailies and of a few other newspapers. It was also plain from those articles that somebody, somewhere, was interested in telling his or perhaps their own version of the story in order to disparage me in the public eye.
Mr. Speaker, I must say here that most papers throughout Canada acted with great prudence and moderation concerning my resignation and the reasons which brought it about. Most of them just asked questions and frankly admitted they could not provide the answers. I am sure that when I am through with my remarks the editors of those newspapers will congratulate themselves for having observed such prudence and objectivity until now. As for those who tried everything to soil my reputation, I hope they will have the honesty and the elementary decency of correcting their mistake. One thing is sure: they will never be able to make up for the wrong they did me and for the injustice they did to my family and to the electors of St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville whom I am proud to represent in this house.
Since I resigned two main questions have remained unanswered. I shall answer them today in the course of my brief comments. I hope my colleagues will understand that it would be impossible for me to summarize in just a few sentences all I will have to say to explain to them the reasons which led me to hand in my resignation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on January 22. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to bear with me if I have to speak longer than I might wish to.
Because of all the gossip and rumours that have been going around since my resignation,
Question of Privilege
I know that the two main questions being asked here and there are the following:
Did Yvon Dupuis exert undue influence concerning a race track in St. Luc, in the county of St. Jean?
Did Yvon Dupuis receive a gift of $10,000 from the hands of Dr. Deslauriers, the promoter of this race track?
I will therefore answer both questions.
I must say, in the first place, that it is true that between April 1961 and February 1962 I helped to carry out a project for the development of a pari mutuel race track which was to be built in St. Luc in the St. Jean constituency. I did so at the request of the promoters, Messrs. Roch Deslauriers, Albert Ariss and Yves Papineau, three St. Jean constituents. I co-operated in the interests of my county as did my colleagues of the Quebec legislature Messrs. Hamel, of Iberville, and Baillargeon, of Napierville. I looked after that important project when my friend and colleague, the member for St. Jean in the Quebec legislature, Mr. Philodor Ouimet, convinced me that I should support his undertaking. I must point out that at that time I consulted Premier Jean Lesage who strongly encouraged me to endorse this project and to co-operate with my former colleague of the Quebec legislature, Hon. Paul Earl, who was then provincial minister of revenue.


An hon. Member:: Co-operative federalism.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Yvon Dupuis: In 1961, I thought, and I still think so, that it would be an excellent thing to build a race track on the south shore of Montreal. I was happy at the thought that such a project might be carried out in my riding. I felt this new industry would contribute to reduce the great number of jobless we had at the time in St. Jean, Iberville, St. Luc and the vicinity. Moreover, and contrary to what certain persons claimed, there was nothing secret about that project. Everyone spoke about it with great interest, including the newspapers, and the idea appealed greatly to the population.
It can be seen by the documents I have before me that very important and very representative people have openly expressed their opinion, as I did, in favour of that of that race track.
Many of them wrote to Mr. Lesage in 1961 to let him know that they were giving unqualified support to the project. I have here copies of letters that were written by the mayor of St. Jean, Mr. Jean Desmarais, lawyer, by the municipal council of St. Luc

Question of Privilege
parish, by the parish priest of St. Luc parish, the Rev. Donatien Donais and his churchwardens, Messrs. Gerard Depelteau, Robert Baillargeon and Raoul Lague. Messrs. Hamel, Ouimet and Baillargeon, members of the legislature as well as myself, had also written to Hon. Jean Lesage and Hon. Paul Earl.
In May 1961, Premier Jean Lesage indicated that he looked disapprovingly upon such a project and that he refused to issue a permit for a new race track in the province of Quebec where, according to him, there were already too many. But it is important to mention to the house that in June of the same year Premier Lesage changed his mind and asked Hon. Bernard Pinard, provincial minister of highways, and Hon. Paul Earl, minister of revenue, to look after the matter. Besides, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Premier Lesage will be the first to vouch for the facts I just related.
Moreover, about June 15, 1961, Mr. Ouimet, member of the legislative assembly for St. Jean, informed us that he had decided to continue his representations in favour of the St. Luc project, of which the principal promoter was Dr. Roch Deslauriers, of St. Jean. He told the latter that the Quebec premier had told him to meet with the minister, Mr. Bernard Pinard, who from now on would look after racing matters in the province. Therefore, Mr. Ouimet was granted an interview by the minister of highways on June 21, 1961. He invited to accompany him the member of the legislative assembly for Iberville, Mr. Laurent Hamel, Dr. Deslauriers, the secretary of the united harness association, Mr. Sebastien Brisson, and myself. As agreed, Mr. Bernard Pinard received us all in his office on June 21, 1961, in Quebec city. He confirmed to us that he had been requested by the premier to look after our St. Luc project. He added that he was himself in favour of that fine project. He told Dr. Deslauriers that he would have to meet Hon. Paul Earl to discuss with him the details concerning the financing of the venture.
In the meantime the member of the legislative assembly gave us the assurance that he would continue to exert pressure in Quebec city to hasten the issuance of a permit.
About January 22, 1962, Hon. Paul Earl asked me if he could meet me at my place in St. Jean, with Mr. Deslauriers and also Mr. Ransen and Mr. Maron, Mr. Deslauriers' new partners. So, the four of them came to my home on a Sunday afternoon. The promoters said they had the funds needed to build the race track, that is to say $4 million.
[Mr. Dupuis.1
Mr. Paul Earl said he was quite satisfied with this meeting and told them he would probably be able to issue the permit within a few days.
But at the end of January 1962, Mr. Earl told us that if Mr. Deslauriers wanted his permit he would have to get new partners. And at the beginning of February he asked him to go and meet Mr. Rene Hebert, who would arrange a meeting for him with those new partners who were ready to invest half the amount required for a race track. They were people by the name of Veilleux, from Drummondville, which is outside the constituency of St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville. In fact, it had been rumoured for some time that those Drummondville businessmen were trying to obtain a race track permit and that powerful friends were seconding their project.
I was surprised at Mr. Earl's suggestion that Mr. Deslauriers should join that group, because they wanted to build a race track outside my riding. I told Mr. Deslauriers that he would simply have to give up his project if he was asked to take part in some other one outside the constituency of St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville. But he was so anxious to build a race track that he was willing to make any concession to that end.
Mr. Earl told me that in order to obtain his permit Mr. Deslauriers would have to change partners. He explained to me that the provincial government was willing to deliver only one race track permit and that both projects would have to be combined.
I agreed to call on Mr. Rene Hebert with Mr. Deslauriers. I knew Mr. Hebert very well because he had always been connected with the financing of the provincial Liberal party. We met him at his office on Galt Street, in Verdun. He told us that Mr. Earl had asked him to do everything he could to merge the Veilleux and Deslauriers groups into a single company and to explain to them the procedure they should follow to obtain a race course permit. Messrs. Hebert and Deslauriers signed a mutual agreement and Mr. Hebert suggested to Mr. Deslauriers that they should go to Drummondville the next day so that he could be introduced to Mr. Veilleux. They wanted me to go along with them, but I turned down the invitation and I told them that I already felt that pressure was being brought to bear to have the project switched to Drummondville instead of St. Luc. Mr. Deslauriers asked me to witness the signing of the "mutual agreement" but I refused to

have my name associated with such a document and you will understand why after I have read it.
I have here a copy of that mutual agreement signed before me on February 5, 1962, in the office of Mr. Hebert who claimed to represent the financial side of the Quebec Liberal party.
I will now read from a photostat copy of that document which I will then table on the clerk's desk.
Mutual Agreement
February 5. 1962
Group Rene Hebert, group Dr. Deslauriers
It is agreed by the two above mentioned groups that a company will be created tor the operation and ownership of a pari mutuel race track at St. Luc, on the property now held by Dr. Deslauriers for his group. It is agreed that Mr. Rene Hebert will receive for his group 10 per cent of the shares of the new above mentioned company and that neither the said group nor Rene Hebert will have to disburse any money for acquiring 10 per cent of the shares.
(Signed) Rene Hebert (agreed)
Dr. Roch Deslauriers (agreed)
And, at the bottom, one finds the English translation: Mutual Agreement-to show you that bilinguism is respected when it comes to mutual agreements.
I table the copy of that document on the clerk's desk.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the filing of this paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Dupuis: So, I have answered the first question.
I exerted no undue influence in a race track matter. I became involved in that project in the interests of my riding of St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville and of St. Luc. In 1961, when I was concerned with that project, I was not a member of the government, but a federal member sitting in the official opposition. Besides, my involvement in the matter came to an end early in 1962.
Indeed, as soon as the project was switched to St. Hubert, in Chambly county, by Mr. Rene Hebert, instead of St. Luc in St. Jean riding, I stopped being concerned with it.
To answer the second question, that is whether I received a gift of $10,000 from Dr. Deslauriers, the promoter of the race track, I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that contrary to what was suggested in certain quarters, I never told anybody that I had 20220-719
Question oj Privilege
received that amount which Mr. Deslauriers pretended he had paid out, for the excellent reason that I never pocketed such an amount and that I never received directly or indirectly any benefit in that matter.
I regret that I must restrict my remarks to the minimum because the right hon. Prime Minister just informed us that the R.C.M.P. investigation in this matter is not yet concluded. I would have much more to say but I shall limit my observations at this time. I am sure, however, that this investigation will establish beyond any doubt that I never received neither directly nor indirectly any favours or gifts from Mr. Deslauriers or from anybody else as regards race track projects.
Because of malicious reports carried by certain papers, I must say at this time that I intend to fight to the very end and that I shall not capitulate before charges or innuendoes, no matter from what quarters they originate.
Mr. Speaker, if I have agreed to send my resignation to the right hon. Prime Minister, it is somewhat because I could foresee that some newspapers were ready to indulge in falsehoods about me, as I have mentioned earlier. I did not want those rumours and aspersions cast upon me to reflect on the cabinet, of which I was a member.
Besides, for some time now my name had spitefully been associated, unsuccessfully I must say, to other so-called scandals concerning my colleagues in the cabinet.
As I said earlier, I personally decided to submit my resignation; no one else had anything to do with it. I can say here that there is somewhere a statement made by an individual, and I know that such a statement started the whole chain of events which led to my resignation and that story was made up about my alleged or so-called interests in that race track.
As I said in a statement given the press the day I resigned, I was informed on my arrival from a trip in Asia and Africa, where I had carried out an official mission for the Canadian government, that an individual had given a minister of the Lesage government a statement to the effect that he had seen Dr. Deslauriers hand me $10,000 in cash for a race track permit. That provincial minister, in all good faith, probably, sent the federal Minister of Justice a photostat of that statement.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I know there is a document-which will be disclosed in due time-in which the person who signed that false document against me or made that charge against me recognizes that he was

Question of Privilege
forced to sign that statement and that it is false. There is also another document somewhere, that I have seen myself and which is in the hands of the R.C.M.P. That one is signed by the instigator of the whole story who confessed that he had asked the first individual to sign a false statement against me. According to him it was a prominent political figure who asked him to make up that statement. The investigation is not up to me but to the R.C.M.P.
The R.C.M.P. also holds a statement sworn before an official of the superior court, in Montreal, and signed by Dr. Roch Deslauriers, which states that I have never directly or indirectly asked him for money.
Mr. Speaker, since that project had absolutely nothing to do with the federal administration, I deemed it advisable to resign from the post I held in the federal cabinet. I considered it my duty to clear my own name, without involving in any way the responsibility of my cabinet colleagues. Since the matter in dispute is a provincial one, and one which also concerns my constituency, today it is in my capacity as member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville and not as a minister that I can rise in this house to state with pride that never, in the course of my political career, in my own riding or elsewhere, have I done anything not in keeping with my duties as an honest servant of the people. I have decided to bring this whole matter completely into the open and this will be done in due course. My conscience is clear, and I am convinced that the results of the inquiry now in progress will bear me out. That is why I shall refrain from saying anything more for the time being. I will merely add, for the benefit of those who claim that my resignation will end my political career, that they do not know me. I will never capitulate under pressure of shameful intrigues.
Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude by saying that when, in the near future, the outcome of the various investigations are made public, it will become obvious that the disgusting schemes of those individuals who tried to attack the reputation of federal politicians have resulted in a dismal failure. I hope that those events will mark the end of a period of disparagement during which the reputation of our parliamentary institutions has suffered pretty badly. One thing is sure. The authors of those scandals will not get off scot-free. Our government is composed of honest men and the people of Canada have confidence in that government which has done 
such great things under our great Prime Minister.



MR. MCILRAITH-COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF ARREST OF MEMBER FOR LAPOINTE

Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege. On February 13, 1965, a number of newspapers carried stories which no doubt all hon. member have seen, describing the circumstances connected with the arrest of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) on the previous day on two warrants for traffic offences.
The substance of these stories related to the arrest of the hon. member while the house was in session and shortly after he had left the centre block of the parliament buildings. The stories also suggested that the police officers involved previously had been refused permission to make an arrest within the centre block.
Questions of the arrest of members of parliament in the past have been regarded as raising issues of the privileges of the house. The basis of such privileges, as Beauchesne in his third edition at page 30 of the introduction has pointed out, is the necessity of enabling members freely to attend to their duties in parliament. It is clear that the service of parliament is paramount to all other claims.
Because the circumstances of the arrest of the hon. member may involve problems of the extent of the privileges of parliament, it is desirable that the standing committee established to consider questions of privileges and elections be seized of this matter. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, if you rule that there is a prima facie question of privilege involved I propose to move, seconded by Mr. MacNaught, that the matter be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege. In view of the fact that a member of parliament was refused more than what was mentioned by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), namely his fundamental right to receive a warrant from the R.C.M.P. in both official languages of the country; also in view of the fact, as stated also by the President of the Privy Council, that the R.C.M.P. seems to have interfered with the privileges of a member of parliament by arresting him on

parliament hill; and also in view of the fact that the R.C.M.P. acted in a shameful and brutal way toward a member of parliament,
I feel that I should give explanations to the house concerning this question of privilege, which, as a matter of fact, I intended to raise today, as you know very well.
In the first place, I would like to mention that it is true that I received two tickets, a traffic ticket and a parking ticket, written in the two official languages of the country.
Second, I received a summons to appear, written in English, with an unofficial French translation, unsigned, not on an official document but on a piece of paper, and in very bad French at that.
Third, I received a payment notice written in English only, with no French translation attached.
Fourth, the warrant for my arrest served on me by the R.C.M.P. on parliament hill was written in English only.
In the fifth place, I was denied all requests to call a lawyer at the time of my arrest and when I arrived at the Carleton county jail.
In the sixth place, I was prevented from getting in touch with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) when there was absolutely no danger that he could help me to escape.
In the seventh place, I suggest that I was brutally arrested, because after refusing to follow the R.C.M.P. officers or to pay as long as the warrant for my arrest was not served on me in French-I made it a matter of principle-and even though I gave that reason, three officers who collectively tipped the scales to at least 600 pounds, when I do not even weigh 130 pounds pounced on me in a way-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: -which foreshadowed some vengefulness. The first constable twisted my right arm behind my back. The second one pulled my left arm strongly enough to break my wrist watch strap, which I can table here in the house. And the third one-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: And the third one pushed me into the car with his knee against the small of my back.
And furthermore, Mr. Speaker, as the final indignity, the R.C.M.P. took me, a Quebec citizen, who had committed an offence while on my way to the federal parliament, while I was on federal government territory, while all proceedings against me had been instituted by the R.C.M.P., to a jail in Ontario.
Question of Privilege
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to quote a statement made by Hon. Lionel Chevrier at the time when he was minister of justice, on June 25, 1963, in answer to a question I put to him in the house. I quote:
For the hon. member's information, I might say that in the case of an offence committed on parliament hill or on the driveways coming under the jurisdiction of the R.C.M.P., it is customary to issue summons in both languages.
That is the statement made by Hon. Lionel Chevrier on June 25, 1963. However, in my case that was not done at all.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the chief commissioner of the R.C.M.P. Mr. George McClellan, and I quote from the Toronto Telegram of February 15, page 2:

He-
-the commissioner-
-also insisted that the R.C.M.P. went out of its way in the French language to accommodate the M.P.

It was for my own convenience that French was used. To his mind, it is not a question of right or privilege but merely a question of accommodation.
On that very day the governor general stated on parliament hill:
Your language is a precious asset, for the French language and the French literature are of great value not only for French Canada but also for English Canada.
But Commissioner McClellan stated that French was used for my convenience; it was only used to accommodate me, that is his opinion, and to confirm this he stated on another occasion:
Outside the normal course of his business, in unusual circumstances. If he used French it was only for the convenience of a member of parliament, while in the normal course of business conducted by the R.C.M.P., French does not exist for citizens as a whole, but simply for the convenience of a member of parliament.
I must say that after reading almost all the remarks sent to me by a large number of citizens and associations throughout Canada, I am seriously thinking of introducing a motion requesting an inquiry concerning the R.C.M.P. chief commissioner. The Prime Minister made an excellent speech yesterday, when he said:

Question of Privilege

-the unity that encourages the equal partnership of two peoples on which this confederation was founded-

But some high government officials are actually undermining the work undertaken by the Prime Minister when they speak in these terms. It is primarily this kind of action that I oppose. And crowning the whole absurd and stupid business, the R.C.M.P. chief commissioner states:

The commissioner accused Mr. Gregoire of trying to obtain some cheap publicity-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: There are some people in this house who can recognize themselves when we speak about "cheap".
-to obtain some cheap publicity by asking the R.C.M.P. to defer arresting him until today, during the flag raising ceremony on parliament hill.

Mr. Speaker, this is utterly false. There never was any question of it between the R.C.M.P. and myself. It is not I who asked this member of the R.C.M.P. to come back on Monday, but the Clerk of the House of Commons. Besides, how could I presume to dictate to the R.C.M.P. at what time they should arrest me? They could do it Monday morning or Monday afternoon if they wished. This is a silly and unsound charge.
Mr. Speaker, another privilege was violated. It is said that I was notified in French. It is true that the first summons was served in my office by two members of the R.C.M.P., but as regards the second one it was a violation of hon. members' immunity; I was in my seat in the House of Commons listening to the house debates when I was summoned to the door, here in the lobby, by means of a small card, saying that it was an urgent matter. As I came to the lobby an R.C.M.P. officer presented me with a summons to appear. This is absolutely against the immunity of members of parliament and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the officers of the R.C.M.P. have a lot to learn as regards law and legality.
Mr. Speaker, it is said:

It was served by a French speaking R.C.M.P. constable.

This is where the accommodation given to me in French is explained.


The warrant was read to him in French. [Translation]
The summons was served to me in English by means of a paper, but to accommodate me, out of the ordinary, I was given oral translation in French, which is again completely abnormal and has no legal effect.
As for the brutal force which is denied by the commissioner, here is what he says later:

The constables radioed R.C.M.P. for further Instructions and were told to use whatever force was necessary to place him in the car.
Note the expression "whatever force was necessary".

Mr. Speaker, I would be most interested to know the name of the person who issued an order at headquarters, advising them to use whatever force was necessary to get me in the car. I entered the automobile and I almost went out the door on the other side. And it is said:

One of the constables then grabbed Mr. Gregoire by the arm and put him in the car.

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of getting into the car of my own free will, but I did not intend to fight the three six-foot officers of the R.C.M.P. I intended to remain passive, at least as a matter of principle. I did not want to get into the car by myself, but if the R.C.M.P. had to take those means they could have done so less brutally. Futhermore, they admit it themselves.

His wrist watch strap was broken while he resisted.

I never tried to resist. The chief commissioner concludes his statement by saying:

The warrants of committal to jail, and all other documents, were translated into French by the justice department to accommodate Mr. Gregoire.

Mr. Speaker, since when is it up to the Department of Justice and its staff to assume R.C.M.P. responsibilities? That is exactly what happened.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think there is more to this than what the President of

the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) intends to ask tor, that is that the arrest be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. In that respect I should like to move an amendment to the motion made by the President of the Privy Council.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I did not have any time to prepare it, but just the same a motion is ready and I think it would be proper to include my part with the motion of the President of the Privy Council. Consequently, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that the following matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.
1.	That a member of parliament or any Canadian citizen who receives a warrant or a summons from the R.C.M.P. should have the right to demand that it be served on him in both official languages of the country.
Now, this is partly covered by the motion moved by the President of the Privy Council.
2.	In what manner did the R.C.M.P. treat the hon. member for Lapointe who tried to defend the principle of bilingualism in Canada on the occasion of his arrest on Monday, February 15, 1965?
3.	Are the parliamentary privileges of an hon. member limited to the parliament buildings only or to the whole of parliament hill?
Mr. Speaker, the third paragraph is quite important, because many hon. members have their offices in the west block.
Assuming that the bell rang for a vote and that the tunnel connecting both buildings was blocked, because of repairs, and that the hon. members located in the west block came to the centre block to record their vote, I imagine they would enjoy the same privileges as those who had their offices in the centre block and that the parliamentary immunity privilege ought to cover the whole hill. Both the privileges are not the same. They can be arrested in the west block while I, who have my office on the sixth floor, in the centre block, cannot be arrested.
Mr. Speaker, we would also like to have some information about the rights of bilingual members of the R.C.M.P. and also about the behaviour of some of its members.
I conclude by saying that during the last three or four days enough facts have been brought to my knowledge to warrant my asking for an investigation into the activities of the chief commissioner of the R.C.M.P., Mr. McClellan.
Mr. Speaker, according to him-and he said so in his own words-bilingualism exists only outside the R.C.M.P. and not in everyday life.
Question of Privilege
The R.C.M.P. commissioner's statement makes him today public enemy No. 1. He is enemy No. 1 of the "equal partnership" advocated by the Prime Minister, of the Canadian good will and of everything dealing with bilingualism.


Mr. Speaker:: The two essential elements I have to decide are first, whether this matter has been raised at the first opportunity-I think it has been raised at the first opportunity-and second, whether there is a prima facie case of privilege.
The hon. member for Lapointe has indicated-I do not think he has officially moved-that he wishes to move either a motion or an amendment to a motion which is actually in my hands now. I do feel that the immunity of members of parliament is a very important matter. There are several ancillary questions, namely to what extent or how far do the precincts of parliament extend, which is a practical question which as far as I know has not been settled so far as it concerns the Canadian houses of parliament. I am well aware that in Westminster the walls of the palace of Westminster define the area within which the immunity applies. But with the addition of the west block, and perhaps the east block and other matters, this is really a practical question that should be studied. In any event, I do feel that the arrest of members of parliament in certain circumstances may be considered, generally speaking, a matter of breach of privilege and therefore should be carefully investigated at all times.
We have before the house a motion moved by the President of the Privy Council, seconded by the Solicitor General, which is quite wide and general, and it does seem to me it includes all the points, if such points are put forward, of the suggested motion of the hon. member for Lapointe. The motion is to the effect that the matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. That is the motion before the house, and I find that in so far as I am concerned it is acceptable. If there is no objection, I should like to put the motion now.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I had indicated in my statement that I would move a formal motion if Your Honour ruled that a prima facie question of privilege was involved. I therefore move, seconded by the Solicitor General:
That the circumstances relating to the arrest on February 12, 1965, of the hon. member for Lapointe be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.

Question of Privilege
In other words, it is for the standing committee to decide whether or not a question of privilege is involved in the circumstances relating to the arrest of the hon. member.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the time has come to put the motion. It has been moved by the President of the Privy Council, seconded by the Solicitor General:
That the circumstances relating to the arrest on February 12, 1965, of the hon. member for Lapointe be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the said motion be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council would not consider making his motion a little broader.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The motion at the moment, as I have heard it, seems to refer only to the circumstances of the arrest that took place last Friday. Should not the committee look into the whole question that Your Honour yourself has raised, namely the extent of the immunity of members of parliament and whether it obtains only in this building or on the whole of parliament hill? I wonder whether a word or two could not be added to the motion. I am not suggesting that all the words of the hon. member for Lapointe need be included in the motion, but it seems to me that a word or two should be added so we would be dealing not just with the circumstances of last Friday, important as they are to the hon. member and to all of us, but with the whole question of parliamentary immunity.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the words I used were "relating to the arrest" and I thought that was the broadest language that could be used. This would permit the committee to make a proper, unhampered investigation of the matter and would at the same time avoid the difficulty that seemed to me to be inherent in the remarks of the hon.

member for Lapointe, in which he was asking the house to prejudge a matter by making many specific references to a great many aspects of the matter.
I would think that the motion is put in the widest appropriate language, bearing in mind what is the concern of this house; that is, the regard for its own privileges and the right of its members to have the uninterrupted opportunity to carry on the business of parliament.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I remind hon. members that this is a question of privilege and discussion should relate to the question of privilege. If we are to discuss broad conditions surrounding immunity and all the rest of it, it would in effect require notice of a substantive motion. The only matter before the house at the moment is this particular question of privilege. It does seem to me that the terms of this motion are wide enough to cover all the facets of the particular question of personal privilege raised by the hon. member for Lapointe.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe to the motion to refer this matter to the committee on privileges and elections, I am of the opinion that the hon. member for Lapointe is right when he wants to broaden the terms of reference of the committee, since he states in his argumentation that he did not like having been imprisoned in an Ontario jail for offences committed on parliament hill.
Perhaps we could suggest to the committee on privileges and elections that a small jail be built on parliament hill for the hon. member for Lapointe or others.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this motion I should like to suggest that the offence, or the charge, that is the basis of the question of privilege is not entirely the result of the scuffle that took place or the background of it, but the fact that we have not defined the extent to which privilege applies. I believe the President of the Privy Council could well include the question of jurisdiction in the motion he has moved, because I believe, as has been pointed out, that with the taking over of the west block and probably some intention in

the near future of taking over some part of the east block, the jurisdiction with regard to the privileges of members of the house is going to have to be defined, and legitimately has been legally defined on several occasions, to be parliament hill.
I think the motion should be broadened to take in the question of jurisdiction and the area in which it applies; otherwise we will not be arriving at a solution to the particular problem with which we are faced today. Any decision reached may not apply specifically to another occasion. I would appeal to the President of the Privy Council to include in his motion the matter of defining the jurisdiction in which privilege applies, so this problem may be settled by the committee on privileges and elections.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the privileges of the house is always one that should command the attention of all members of the house. Indeed, it is of foremost importance that none of our prerogative privileges that have been gained through generations of experience should be petered away in any way, interfered with or abrogated. The manner in which the hon. member for Lapointe presented his case, however, gave to his question of privilege a more humorous turn than otherwise would be the case. He pictured himself as a small Goliath in this situation, fighting the mighty forces of the law.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking of a pocket edition of a Goliath meeting the terrible onslaught of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I hold no brief for them, although throughout the years their reputation has been such that any suggestion of interference with the rights of individuals or tyrannical conduct has not been well based.
The hon. gentleman has raised a question of privilege covering the peculiar circumstances under which he met what appeared for the moment to be an untimely end but which, with the assistance of the Minister of Justice, achieved a degree of equanimity to which I am sure all of us will congratulate both parties for having made their contribution.
As far as the motion is concerned, I think the motion of the President of the Privy Council covers the matter. We are not going to ask this committee to indulge in a lot of obiter dicta as to what the rights of members are, should be or ought to be. We are going to ascertain whether the rights of the hon.
Question of Privilege
member for Lapointe were interfered with. If they were, parliament must assert that such interferences shall not be allowed; but to set up a committee for the purpose of going into all kinds of angles regarding rights is, I think, unnecessary in every way.


Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau).
I have heard my colleagues complaint about the brutality with which the R.C.M.P. made his arrest.
I would suggest to the Minister of Justice to appoint a few women to the R.C.M.P. so that, if necessary, weak men of the House of Commons be put under arrest gently and not with brutality.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, if the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council affords the committee on privileges and elections the opportunity to examine more thoroughly the question raised this afternoon, that is, the range of parliamentary immunity and where it applies, then his suggestion is acceptable. But I cannot agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he says that we should merely consider the time when or the circumstances where the hon. member for Lapointe was put under arrest.
In my opinion we must find out whether the R.C.M.P. has the right to put someone under arrest on parliament hill, inside as well as outside the building. On Wellington street, yes, but as regards parliament hill itself, I feel the matter should be examined by the committee on privileges and elections and a solution found, so that the R.C.M.P. personnel could be advised accordingly and stop making blunders as they did when they arrested the hon. member for Lapointe.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, either the hon. member for Lapointe has a question of privilege or he has not.


David Réal Caouette: He has one.


Guy Favreau: If the hon. member feels that one or more privileges of hon. members has been infringed upon, he should point them out to the committee so that the latter may determine whether there has been an encroachment. It is only if the committee which will be entrusted with this question knows all the facts that it will be able to decide

Question of Privilege
which privileges of the house, if any, have been violated.
As far as I am concerned, if I did not intervene a while ago when the hon. member made his allegations, it was not because I share the views of the hon. gentleman, or because I approve of the fact that he invokes bilingualism here for personal reasons or because I am in sympathy with his feelings toward the behaviour of the R.C.M.P. but because I do not want to prejudge the work that the privileges and elections committee may do or the decisions it may take.
I must say that I fully agree with part of his remarks to the effect that if he had been authorized to call me there would have been, as there will never be, any danger of collusion between us, and I am ready to admit it. For myself, under the circumstances, I am ready to vote in favour of the original motion, even though, in due time and before the committee, I shall state the facts as I know them.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the debate on this matter which has lasted at least half an hour has been long enough-


Gilles Grégoire: If you allow me, Mr. Speaker, I think that there has been an attempt to prevent an individual whose privileges were infringed to state his case.
The President of the Privy Council has risen on a question of privilege when I am the one who was arrested and jailed for four hours.
How is it, Mr. Speaker, that it is the President of the Privy Council who rises on a question of privilege in such circumstances?
It is obvious that this was done to prevent me from introducing a motion and I think that the President of the Privy Council has resorted to some very shabby tactics.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps it is time to recall to the house citation 104(5) of Beau-chesne's fourth edition:
As a motion taken at the time for matters of privilege is thereby given precedence over the prearranged program of public business, the Speaker requires to be satisfied, both that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed, and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity. If he is not so satisfied he may allow the member to make a statement with a view to ascertaining whether or not a prima facie case can be made out. The right of making complaint of a breach of privilege is open to any member of the house, and, even if an
[Mr. Favreau.l
individual member alone is affected, is not confined to that member.
In the circumstances, in view of the discussion we have had and the broad terms of the motion which the President of the Privy Council proposes to move, I shall put the motion now. It is moved by the President of the Privy Council:
That the circumstances relating to the arrest on February 12, 1965 of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would have an amendment to move-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has had more than ample opportunity to explain his case, and it is becoming almost an abuse to continue further. The hon. member will have full opportunity to explain his case before the committee, and it seems to me that the terms of the motion are sufficiently wide to cover any and all circumstances. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Howard:: On division, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, t Translation]
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on another question of privilege concerning the behaviour of the R.C.M.P.
A while ago the house passed a motion to refer to the privileges and elections committee the facts connected with my arrest. Today, I intend to present a motion immediately without further comment. It deals with the same topic but I should like it to be referred to the privileges and elections committee. Consequently: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the following question be referred to the privileges and elections committee: Does a member of parliament or a Canadian citizen who is served with a warrant or a summons by the R.C.M.P. have the right to demand that he be served in both official languages of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened once more with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Lapointe, but the motion which he proposes is in the nature of a substantive motion which requires notice, and under the circumstances I cannot accept it at this time. The

hon. member might perhaps give notice and present his motion at another time.


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, Mr. Speaker. In that case I give notice of the motion so that it may be discussed within the next 48 hours.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have to give written notice in accordance with the rules.



PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
Third report of special joint committee on Canada pension plan-Mr. Cameron (High Park).


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that the parliamentary schedule will make it possible for the house to deal with the important revisions of the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act, and amendments to the Bank of Canada Act early in the new session. In the meantime I wish to make a short statement respecting the holding of shares in our chartered and savings banks.
The house will recall that on September 22 last when Bill C-123, an act to amend the insurance, trust and loan companies acts administered by the department of insurance, was introduced I mentioned that provisions similar to those limiting non-resident shareholdings in federally incorporated insurance, trust and loan companies would be contained in amendments to the bank acts which would be introduced later, and that these new provisions would also be effective as from September 23 last.
It was fortunate that the government's intention in this regard was made known at that time because I have reason to believe that if this had not been done, effective control of one of our chartered banks with facilities all across the country would by now have been acquired by non-resident interests.
In recent months there has been considerable discussion concerning possible concentrations of domestic ownership and control of Canadian banks and the ownership of bank shares by provincial governments. Traditionally, share ownership of Canadian banks has been dispersed among a great many investors
Statement on Bank Shares so that no small group of shareholders has had effective control of any of the major Canadian banks. The government feels it is desirable to ensure that this situation will continue. Accordingly there will be included in the proposed amendments to the two bank acts limitations on the number of shares of a bank that may be registered directly or indirectly for the benefit of any one resident as well as for any one non-resident shareholder. The proposed limit applicable to any individual or corporation will be 10 per cent of a bank's total outstanding shares, with special provision for temporary exemptions in the case of a newly formed bank and an exemption for any existing holdings that may be in excess of this 10 per cent.
The British North America Act clearly assigns to parliament exclusive jurisdiction over banking and the incorporation of banks. It is the intention of the government that this responsibility of parliament and of the government under the authority of parliament shall be maintained and not be eroded. Even a limited ownership of shares of a bank by another government, whether it be a foreign government or a provincial government, could place such government in a special position of power or influence in relation to that bank. Such a situation might lead to differences of opinion between this government and another government, and to confusion over who exercises authority in regard to the bank. In order to avoid this danger, the proposed amendments will provide that no shares of a chartered or savings bank may be registered in the name of any government or its agents.
If any transfers of shares of a bank are registered after this date and before the coming into force of the revised bank acts, which would have been required to be refused under the revised acts, it will be provided that such shares not have voting rights.
I should add that the government would welcome more competition in the banking field and is hopeful that private members' bills proposing the incorporation of two new banks might be dealt with expeditiously.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, the statement just made by the Minister of Finance is one of substantial importance and I think it deserves careful consideration. I have not as yet had an opportunity to consider it, but we are told that certain amendments will be brought before us at an early date, so I will defer any comments in this regard until that time.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a

Statement on Bank Shares great deal of interest to the statement by the Minister of Finance. I welcome the first part in reference to his proposal to bring in amendments to the Bank Act to control foreign investment in our banks, although I trust they will be more effective than the controls he proposed in respect of insurance and trust companies, about which the committee pointed out shortcomings.
I take very strong exception to the final part of his statement, which proposes to prohibit investment in chartered banks by any provincial governments. I am surprised that the Minister of Finance should be so obviously ignorant of banking techniques in this country that he would suggest for one moment that the ownership of shares in a bank by a provincial government would raise questions of jurisdiction over monetary policy. That is absolute nonsense, and I am sure the minister is aware of that. It is technically impossible for that to take place, and if he is in doubt in that regard I suggest he consult with the governor of the Bank of Canada, who I am sure will disabuse his mind of this nonsense.
The whole tenor of this proposal is designed to prevent the action of the government of my province, for which I hold no brief whatsoever, but on the other hand I certainly resent very much the idea that this government should allocate to itself power over what a provincial government can do with funds that have been entrusted to it for investment in any enterprise whatsoever, be it in a bank or otherwise. Certainly I shall oppose this measure when it comes before us, and I trust that when the minister introduces it and appears before a committee he will be better briefed on the technical aspects and the possible effects of provincial government ownership of shares in chartered banks.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the Minister of Finance has just suggested will be the policy of the government respecting ownership of shares of chartered banks in this country. I also agree with the first part of his statement wherein he states he is hopeful that amendments will be brought before a committee of this house early in the new session dealing with a review and revision of the Bank Act. It is well known to the members of this house that it is obligatory upon this house to deal with this situation before the end of June of this year, otherwise a special act of this house will be required to extend the existing charters beyond June 30 of 1965.


I agree also to some extent with the contention contained in his statement respecting non-resident interest. However, in respect of the matter of shares of chartered banks in this country held by residents of this country, particularly new banks, I find that I cannot agree with it.
Mr. Speaker, if what the Minister of Finance has suggested is actually happening, that there may be a transfer of some of the authority in respect of monetary policy into the hands of other governments simply by the ownership of shares in the chartered banks, that is tantamount to an admission that the federal government today and the officers of the Bank of Canada do not have full control of monetary policy in this country. Surely that is the kind of admission that is not acceptable.
We believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is a need to have more competition in the banking field, and we have supported that position. We believe also that if there has not been a proper dispersion of banking facilities throughout the country, and it is rather obvious that is the case, there is a valid case to be made before this parliament now that more banks ought to be incorporated and that their main areas of activity should be in some other parts of Canada.
We have just seen a situation in this parliament which may be called a dispute with the other place in holding up the charters of three new banking institutions. So far as we in this party are concerned, we are not ready to accept the fact that the other place shall have the right to stop this house of elected representatives from issuing charters, particularly in a field as important to this country as finance. We do not accept the statement that is contained in the latter part of the minister's statement today. We intend to oppose it vigorously and right down the line.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the Minister of Finance, who has been in office for two years and a few months, should be in a position to realize that he will not always be able to make us believe things which do not exist. He gives us as an excuse that there is a jurisdictional conflict in the field of banking authority, but the idea he has in mind and his purpose in introducing this amendment are contradictory.
There is no doubt that he is trying to prevent the government of British Columbia from

owning shares lor any large amount in a new bank.
Mr. Speaker, if there is a field where the Minister of Finance should see to it that legislation is standardized in this respect, if there is a field where the Minister of Finance should make sure that the government has more control than is the case now, it is the field of banking and credit. It is noted that in all his statements, in his amendments to the Bank Act, the minister has only one purpose: To strengthen the empire of some capitalists and big financiers, the monopoly of credit, the control of money supply and the creation of money.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have not been blinded by the statement he has just made. That is merely another stage by this government in order to centralize in Ottawa the principal controls of the national economy, to prevent more and more the provinces from developing by themselves.



On the orders of the day:


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he consulted with the provinces in the spirit of co-operative federalism prior to today's announcement concerning investment by provinces in the shares of chartered banks.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As the hon. member, of all people in the house, should know, banking is a matter of federal jurisdiction.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Does the statement made by the minister this afternoon mean that the provinces will be prevented from buying shares in a chartered bank before legislation in this regard has been dealt with?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That was covered in my statement.



THE MINISTRY


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of this house in accordance with standing order 26, in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the great public unease which has arisen in all parts of Canada as a result of the allegations and disclosures
Alleged Corruption in Government of widespread corruption, marked by the intrusion of undesirable influences into several federal government offices, including that of the Prime Minister, which have disturbed and shocked the public conscience and called into question the conduct and public morality of those in authority, and the advisability of the immediate constitution of a special committee of parliament for the purpose of making an unrestricted public inquiry into the foregoing.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this proposed motion
seconded by anyone?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The motion that has just been moved is couched in the most general terms. It uses the most extravagant adjectives. It talks about corruption in government offices, and it talks about influence-no doubt corrupt influence is meant-in the office of the Prime Minister. It puts on the record what, no doubt, the hon. gentleman intended to put on the record and then asks, as a matter of immediate urgency and public importance, an unrestricted public inquiry into the foregoing. I suggest to you the very terms of the motion are such that it cannot be considered under standing order 26, and that we should get on with the business of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would have
expected the right hon. gentleman to be less cavalier and nonchalant regarding a matter as serious as that set out in the motion of the hon. member for Ontario. We will have no opportunity of discussing the matters that have exercised the minds of Canadians for the last several weeks, matters that are of daily occurrence now. We had an example today that is difficult to understand. The hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville placed before the house his views and ideas. What has happened here? What is the reason he was dismissed? What is the basis upon which the Prime Minister acted? He has refused to let the Canadian people know. According to reports in the press, he says it is not customary, when a minister is dismissed to give the reasons. Certainly this is a new and quite irregular proposition.
There have been only two cases in history, of which I have any knowledge, when prime ministers have fired their ministers. One of them was when Sir Wilfrid Laurier-


An hon. Member:: What about Courtemanche?
11366	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Alleged Corruption in Government


Mr. Crouse:: Howl him down.


John George Diefenbaker: These are the people who buy furniture; they howl me down. There is something that has arisen, and I should like to know from these ministers who paid the sales tax, and when it was paid, on that furniture?
There were two occasions. One was when Sir Wilfrid Laurier demanded and got the Hon. Israel Tarte's resignation in 1902, and the other was when Sir Robert Borden demanded and got Sir Sam Hughes' resignation in 1916.
Why should parliament not have the information regarding these matters? For the last six weeks parliament has not been sitting.
What did the former hon. minister without portfolio say today? He said he brought these matters to the attention of the federal Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). Well, if he did and if they received the same attention from that hon. gentleman as so many other matters received, they must have been forgotten immediately.
The hon. member said something that is highly significant. The Minister of Justice is good talking outside the house, but he is not very much good when facing a person in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: He can make cowardly attacks outside the House of Commons in statements he would not make in this place.


Guy Favreau: On
a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think it is less cowardly to speak outside the house in certain circumstances than to rely on parliamentary immunity inside the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that if there is any wrongdoing it will certainly not be while he is around, but ever since he has been around these matters have arisen. I say to him in this house that his course of action has been that of endeavouring to conceal rather than to reveal, and the action of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has been to forget to tell parliament.
This afternoon the former minister without portfolio said there was a highly placed political figure who apparently produced a false statement against him. That is the way I took it down, and I ask who is this highly placed political figure? Who is this man who is able to get action on the part of the Minister of Justice by his falsification of documents?

Let us have the information. Let us get this information, something that has been denied to us over and over again and which was denied by the Minister of Justice who, it is said, speaks with such courage. What did the Minister of Justice do in this house last November? He denied to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that any member of his department had ever been implicated, a statement that was completely false, and he knew it when he made it.
We want to know who are these highly placed political figures who moved members of the Canadian government around.
If you think I am exaggerating, Mr. Speaker, let me read from the Winnipeg Free Press of February 1, which says this:
Men who assume the responsibilities of public office and are sworn to uphold and protect our laws must themselves abide by the strictest adherence to both the letter and intent of these laws. This obligation is much greater than that of the average citizen in matters of personal integrity and character.
Then it says this:
There can be no temporizing with chicanery or condoning of questionable or scandalous practices in matters of public trust. When evidence exists of the acceptance of favours, peddling of influence and other intrigue in high places, it cannot be excused or glossed over. Those who tolerate or help conceal such breaches of trust are themselves betraying their office.
I have read from a Liberal newspaper and what was stated there is representative of the views of Canadians in general.
When this matter is brought before the house the Prime Minister cavalierly brushes it aside and says it is exaggeration. I seem to recall that last November he forgot he had been told of wrongdoing in September. He forgot until he became aware of the fact that if the crime report were produced the cat would be out of the bag. Then he suddenly remembered and, as I said a moment ago, the Minister of Justice denied in the house that any member of his staff had been implicated in any way-


George James McIlraith: On a point of order-


John George Diefenbaker: -and he knew that was wrong.


George James McIlraith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to restrict the right hon. gentleman's right of debate here, but I do think the rules of the house should be applied to him when he seeks to rehash a debate that took place several months ago during the course of this session. Such a

procedure is not appropriate. It is not in accordance with the rules, under the guise of debating the need for urgency of debate, as stipulated by standing order 26, for him to go into a general rehashing of previous arguments he made in the House of Commons some three or four months ago, and which were dealt with at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: I would be the first to agree with the amiable minister, but I ask what about the Stonehill case? Let us hear something about that. The Minister of Justice laughs. Did he conceal this too? That is what the country wants to know.
They say we exaggerate but, Mr. Speaker, this motion is one that covers a matter of urgent public importance, the need of assuring that public morality, political morality be upheld by the government, that the Prime Minister act with dispatch, and that he remove all suggestion of wrongdoing as ascertained.
I say that this very day the former minister without portfolio has received gross unfairness at the hands of the Prime Minister. All kinds of innuendos have been spread across the country. Today the former minister made an explanation which was such a mystery that by the time he got through I could only hope he does not try to use it as an explanation in any other place, because it is a complete enigma from beginning to end.
This case alone is sufficient to support the urgency of debate now. We have not had such an opportunity and we will not have any opportunity during the next two, three, four or five weeks that this session continues. Therefore I say to you, sir, that on the basis of the great need for the restoration in the thinking of the Canadian people that honour is being maintained in government, this motion should be accepted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear, at the beginning of my remarks, that I have no intention to stick up for the Liberal party, or to cover up what does not smell good. However, I believe that the motion moved by the official opposition creates confusion about our work as members of parliament, that is as legislators, and the work of the police forces throughout the country.
I believe a distinction should be made between the legislative power and the policing power.
Alleged Corruption in Government
At the present time an investigation is going on, the Dorion inquiry. Besides, the R.C.M.P. is investigating the case of the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville; the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) has resigned the post he held in the government to give a free hand to the Dorion inquiry.
In my opinion, the terms of the motion put forward by the Conservative party are so vague that we could at any time, in this house, speak about sub judice matters, such as those that are being studied by the Dorion inquiry. There might be in the present Liberal administration other cases of possible scandals of which it would be befitting that we be informed, and I believe that these cases are not of such importance that they should delay the business of the house.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I do not personally believe I should vote in favour of a motion whose object is to inquire into cases which the commission is presently examining, a commission which has been suggested by the Conservative party and which is at the present time putting the final touch to its work.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a while ago when I heard the hon. leader of the official opposition tell us that the government should allow the immediate formation of a special parliamentary committee to conduct a public inquiry, without any reservation, on the whole question of these scandals, rumours and statements, true or false, I was wondering whether the leader of the official opposition, who was formerly the prime minister of Canada, remembered the time he was prime minister, when a senator resigned his post in the upper chamber and other ministers had to hand in their resignations, at the end of his mandate as prime minister.
The immediate establishment of a special committee was not suggested at that time.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this means that the two old-line political parties have been faced with the same problems and have been acting exactly the same way for many years.
I do not wish by taking the Leader of the Opposition to task to lessen the responsibility of the government; far from it.
Some serious charges have been laid against certain departments and are discussed during the Dorion inquiry, such as the Rivard case. Other scandals occurred afterwards.
11368	HOUSE OF
Alleged Corruption in Government
The minister without portfolio says he has been treated unfairly. I heard him a while ago complain and mention that the press had been unfair to him. If he would simply remember how unfairly he treated the group which I represent in the province of Quebec, he would perhaps be more cautious today.
Anyhow, as long as it has not been proven that the minister is guilty, he must be given the benefit of the doubt. I grant him the benefit of the doubt with all the freedom I have, and an investigation will be made in his case. As a matter of fact, it has already started.
As for newspapermen being guilty of injustice toward the government, there are scandals which have been revealed in the country and which are not dealt with in the Dorion inquiry. For instance, there is the case of the department of immigration. The Prime Minister just announced transfers and changes of ministers from one post to another.
There should be for instance an inquiry made in the department of immigration in order to know why Hal Banks left Canada, with whose permission or through whose carelessness he went to the United States in order to escape charges brought against him in Canada.
The Rivard case is another question which comes under both the department of immigration and the Department of Justice. Why are such matters not debated here in the House of Commons, since they are not dealt with by the Dorion commission?
Will we have to set up 50 or 60 commissions in order to clearly establish what the government or certain ministers did in the administration of the affairs of the country and what responsibilities have been conferred upon them by this government?
Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Canadian people be given the opportunity to regain confidence in their parliamentary institutions. Today, because of all these rumours and what we read in the press, what we see on television and hear over the radio, the Canadian people are losing confidence in their parliamentary institutions, because instead of working for the common good some people are trying to further their own personal interests.
Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason and not because the Conservatives are right and the Liberals are wrong-the Conservatives themselves had scandals within their own organization when they were in power-and in the
[Mr. Caouette.l

interest of the most elementary justice, in the interest of the whole truth, that we are going to vote in favour of the motion for adjournment of the house in order that we may fully discuss the case of the various departments implicated in scandalous matters across the country.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Under the rules of the house we can, as I understand it, discuss only the urgency of debate and not the substance of the motion which is being made. I wish therefore to confine my remarks to the question of the urgency of debate.
I think there can be no doubt about the accuracy of the remark in this resolution that there is a great deal of public unease and concern about many of the facts which have come to light during the past two or three months and I would have thought the government itself might have welcomed an opportunity to make a statement to clear up some of the doubts which have been raised by recent events. I think the Minister of Justice could to very good purpose have used this or another opportunity to assure the house that prisoners are not moved from one part of Canada to the other at the request of parliamentary secretaries in order to please some person who is himself wanted in another country for very serious crimes; I would think the country generally would welcome some assurance from the Prime Minister that steps are being taken to make absolutely sure that the administration in the various departments, particularly in the Department of Justice and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, is being conducted on the basis of equal treatment for all and special privilege for none, and that any mistakes which have been made in recent times cannot recur, because of the fact that the government has taken the necessary steps to change the procedures which had previously been followed. As I say, I believe the government might have made such a statement. Such a statement would, in my view, be helpful and it may be that even now the Prime Minister is prepared to give some assurance to this house and to the country, because I can assure him that such an assurance is badly needed.
The position of this party is that if the government does not wish to make some statement we are not going to press it at the moment, for two reasons, first because we feel the Dorion inquiry ought to complete its work so that we may have some reliable information on which to operate. I can assure hon.

gentlemen opposite that we shall expect some far reaching action to be taken by the government when that report is received as well as the report of the R.C.M.P. regarding the case to which reference was made this afternoon by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville.
We do not think that pressing for a committee of parliament at this time would serve any good purpose, and would only present the spectacle of a parliamentary circus in attempting to wash dirty linen in public. I think that if there is going to be an investigation it ought to be carried out by the judiciary and by persons who can properly assess evidence, examine witnesses under oath and give to this house and the country an unbiased report.


Mr. Nielsen:: That isn't what you were saying during the recess.


An hon. Member:: Bongo Bob didn't say that, either.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I say, Mr. Speaker, that we will expect the government to give us some explanation as to just what action they intend to take when the evidence of the Dorion commission is before us and the report as to the actions of the R.C.M.P. is available. In the meantime we think that the important thing for the balance of this session is to get on with some very vital legislation, particularly the Canada pension plan and the national labour code, and we would urge that these matters be proceeded with. I can assure the house, however, that the questions that have been raised as a result of the Dorion inquiry are not going to be overlooked and are not going to be allowed to be swept under the rug as far as this party is concerned.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a motion to adjourn the normal proceedings of the house in order to debate a matter of urgent public importance, and I believe that the question before us, as far as concerns our comments at the present time, relates specifically to this motion. I agree with the explanation that has been given of the reason for making the motion at this time, because certainly across the country-and that just does not mean in a part of the country; it is across the entire country'

there is a great deal of concern about what is going on, not only in this parliament but with the government itself, and as to the seriousness of the allegations and the continuing headlines which
Alleged Corruption in Government indicate that all is not right as far as integrity, public morality and the conduct of our governmental affairs. In this regard I believe it is important that this matter should be fully discussed.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I was somewhat confused this afternoon when the former minister without portfolio took up half an hour of the time of this house to give his explanation of why he is not guilty; and how, therefore, the government can expect that it is out of order for us to take up further time to discuss the points which he himself has already raised I do not understand.
Certainly if it was not intended to be discussed in the house, it might have been judicious not to have raised the question in the way it has been raised today.
However, Mr. Speaker, this motion states that its purpose is to consider the setting up of an unrestricted public inquiry into the reasons why we have had all this talk relating to morality and the question of integrity as far as those in public office are concerned, which I think is just a little beyond our scope at the present time, simply because we already have a judicial inquiry, the Dorion commission, investigating many of these charges. To think that we can supersede that commission and discuss the aspects involved in this motion, having regard to the investigation of the Dorion commission, is certainly prejudging the issue, in my opinion, and is beyond the scope of any discussion in the house at this time.
Nevertheless I would agree with the mover of the motion that there is a question of grave national importance, as it relates to those things that are not concerned in the Dorion inquiry and that, because the government has seen fit today to take the lead in initiating this discussion in such a way, certainly other members of the house ought to have an opportunity to speak to it as well. I believe it is in order for us to go on with that discussion at this time, albeit that I fail to understand how we can discuss the setting up of an unrestricted public inquiry while there is a judicial inquiry, such as the Dorion commission, investigating these matters, even as there is an R.C.M.P. investigation with regard to some other charges that have been talked about in public. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this matter should be debated and that the government themselves have asked for this discussion because of the action they have taken today.

Alleged Corruption in Government [Translation]


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). I share their views. We should not waste the valuable time of the house in discussing innuendoes on the part of the opposition.
If members of the opposition want to make charges, let them have the courage to do so, not inside but outside the house. I dare them to do it. By their insinuations in this house we see their lack of courage, and here I would add that the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is himself setting the example through the insinuations he is making against the government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. He does not even have the courage to repeat those charges outside the house.
I want to say right here-and I want the whole country to know it-that not only is the Leader of the Opposition a two-faced man, but one of many faces and, to prove it, I have here pictures taken yesterday during the flag-raising ceremonies-


Mr. Lambert:: Shut up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Grafftey:: Are you a member of the new or the old guard?


Rodolphe Leduc: Today's Ottawa Citizen shows that the Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: These remarks are not relevant to the subject under consideration.


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a motion moved by the Conservative opposition and I should like to prove the lack of sincerity of its members and that they have not the courage to say outside the house what they are saying here and furthermore, that the former prime minister, the present Leader of the Opposition is two-faced. While the new Canadian flag was being raised he averted his eyes.


Gilles Grégoire: In view of the fact that the hon. member has been asleep for eight years, would you consider giving him one hour so that he may wake up?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker-


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the hon. member who claims that I have been asleep for eight years.


An hon. Member:: It is true.


Rodolphe Leduc: If you would just give me two minutes-


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) has already spoken to this motion. I do not think it is in order to speak twice on the same motion.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Find out his name. Where did he come from?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Do any other hon. members desire to address the Chair on this motion?


Mr. Fisher:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: A motion has been made to adjourn the house in accordance with standing order 26. Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 100(3), defines urgency as "urgency of debate". This has been referred to many times during the past few months. If hon. members would also care to look at citation 100(8), in the middle of the paragraph they will see, referring to the remarks of one Speaker:
"-What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs-"
Then if hon. members would look at paragraph (9):
Matters arising out of the debates of the same session, or the term of a bill before the house of lords, matters of privilege or order, or matters debatable only upon a substantive motion, cannot be submitted to the house under this standing order.
Although that refers to the particular standing order of the United Kingdom, nevertheless its terms are similar to our standing order 26.
I should like to remind hon. members, as was stated here a few moments ago, that many of these allegations referred to in this proposed motion to adjourn are under inquiry at the present time. Some are before the courts. I would also refer hon. members to citation 127(2), which reads as follows:
Unless discussion is based upon a substantive motion drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the

sovereign, the heir to the throne or members of the royal family, the Governor General of a dominion, the Speaker, the chairman of ways and means, members of either house of parliament-
This, I take it, includes the members of the cabinet. So that I am forced to come to the conclusion that, interesting though the drafting of this motion is, nevertheless this is more in the nature of vague allegations which are in the nature of a charge, and as such should be dealt with not by way of adjourning under standing order 26 but by way of a substantive motion of which notice has been given. Therefore, in my opinion there is no reason to accept the motion moved by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) and seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler).


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may we appeal against your ruling?
In view of the fact that the rule which forbids us to appeal against a decision from the Chair under standing order 26 was only accepted on a temporary basis, until December 31, 1964, and that this change in procedure is no longer effective after December 31, we shall appeal against your ruling.


Norman Platt Lambert: No. This procedure is valid until the end of the session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is in effect until the end of the session.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to further advice I am of the opinion that it was decided that during the present session there would be no appeal from the decision of the Chair on standing order 26. The present session is still continuing; therefore I would suggest to the hon. member that he keep his remarks in the frigidaire and bring them up at the next session.



DISMISSAL OF MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, the question contained an imputation which is not correct and therefore I do not feel the question has been put to me accurately.']
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, arising out of recent discussions I should now like to ask the Prime Minister whether he did in fact dismiss the minister without portfolio, the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville? Did he dismiss him and, if so, why?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence tabled this afternoon indicates that the hon. member in question resigned from the cabinet.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: At the time this matter took place the Prime Minister stated in an interview, according to the press, that "I asked for his resignation". The asking for a resignation is a dismissal. Does the Prime Minister now say that he did not demand his resignation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman resigned after discussions with me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know whether or not the Prime Minister has forgotten this, but I would ask him: Did he demand his resignation, or did he not?


Some hon. Members:: Yes or no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman resigned. He was not promoted to the Senate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is this the revelation of the attitude of the Prime Minister, that Senate appointments should be made in that way?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, and I
deprecate the Senate appointments made in that way by my right hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the right hon. gentleman say how Senator Gelinas got up there?


An hon. Member:: And Denis.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, is the right hon. gentleman making any charge against Senator Gelinas?


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question. Was it at the request of the Prime Minister that the minister without portfolio has resigned or has tendered his resignation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have nothing to add to what I have just stated. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he read the exchange of letters.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Since the Prime Minister has just stated that the minister without portfolio decided to resign, and since there are strong reasons to believe that such is not the case, I feel that the Prime Minister should make it his duty not to mislead the house and to state what truly happened.
Did the Prime Minister ask the minister without portfolio to resign or did the latter resign without being asked to do so?

Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Yes or no?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If my hon. friend will read the exchange of correspondence and my statement this afternoon, they state the facts.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to lay a charge he has the privilege of doing so.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the serious situation in North and South Viet Nam and the danger that the events of the past few weeks may escalate into a major war, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government would consider approaching the co-chairman of the Geneva conference of 1954, Great Britain and the Soviet union, with a view to reconvening the nations who attended that conference, along with the United States, in an attempt to work out some negotiated settlement in that area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the position which the government has taken in this matter in regard to the situation in Viet Nam has been made known in the past, and it has been reiterated in recent days by members of the government, including myself, as a result of the deterioration of the position in Viet Nam. Our concern with that deterioration and the general situation has been made known to the two governments who provided the cochairmen of the commission, the governments of the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R.
I should like to say-indeed, I should like to repeat what I have said on many occasions, Mr. Speaker-that a conference of some sort may well prove necessary and desirable to work out a more durable settlement for Viet Nam than was worked out at Geneva in 1954. If that settlement has not worked out satisfactorily-and it has not-the major share of responsibility must be directed toward the government of North Viet Nam and those who have supported it. They have not lived up to that agreement from the 

beginning and have done their best to make it unworkable. I do not think that a conference called without careful preparation at this particular time would be able to accomplish what we all have in mind. I think it is desirable to settle this matter by negotiation, and to discuss with the governments concerned and the co-chairmen the conditions which would make a new conference or a resumption of the old conference more successful.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In addition to the representations made to the co-chairman, have any representations been made to the government of the United States to find out whether it would be prepared to sit in at such a conference, since it is perfectly apparent that without its co-operation no negotiated settlement could be reached?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have made our concerns and views known to the government of the United States. I must add that it is our view, and we all share that view that any conference held at this time under existing circumstances would not necessarily have the desired result. We are not in favour of a conference merely because someone wishes to call a conference. We certainly are in favour of a conference if that kind of negotiation will lead to a settlement.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a suplementary question. Will the Prime Minister tell the house whether the government of Canada supports the policy of the government of the United States at this time in respect of Viet Nam?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out before, we should not forget that United States forces are in South Viet Nam at the invitation of the government of South Viet Nam which was established as a result of the conference at Geneva. It should also be remembered that North Viet Nam has been the aggressor since that country was divided. Let us not forget that fact.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the same subject matter and I should like to direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question is in two parts. In view of the request by the government of North Viet Nam in recent days that the observation teams of the international control commission on the Chinese-North Viet Nam border and else-

where in North Viet Nam be withdrawn, can the minister inform the house what action has been taken, and whether Canadian personnel on the international control commission are still at their posts of duty?
My second question, Mr. Speaker, is: In his opinion is this request made because the government of North Viet Nam wishes to cover up the fact that there has been a heavy inflow of troops into North Viet Nam and that more than' 50 per cent of the forces fighting in Viet Nam are actually North Vietnamese forces?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, it is a fact that the government of North Viet Nam has asked the international supervisory commission, composed of Canada, India and Poland, to withdraw its fixed teams. In reply the commission has pointed out that it is prepared to take reasonable risks in discharging its obligations under the Geneva agreement. However, if the government of North Viet Nam insists on the withdrawal of the teams, the commission has suggested that the demands should be put in writing. It may be that the teams will not leave North Viet Nam, but be located at Hanoi.
The reasons for this course being taken by the North Vietnamese government are alleged to be related to the security of the personnel of the teams. At the moment that does not seem to be a well founded argument. Other reasons the government of North Viet Nam may have, need not be commented on until perhaps later this week when we have received a further report from the commission in respect of the incidents that have taken place not only recently but over a period of at least ten years.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, in view of this request to the members of the truce commission to remove these teams, it would seem that now is the time to ask the cochairmen to hold a meeting of the signatories to the Geneva agreement in order that those who gave the authority to that commission may now relieve it of its responsibilities or give their full support in the carrying out of the commission's responsibilities?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: Mr. Speaker, if the teams were to be withdrawn completely and, in addition, if the commission were to be
Inquiries of the Ministry disbanded, this would represent a fundamental breakup of the whole Geneva accord.
Canada is not opposed in principle to a conference, as the Prime Minister has said. If there is a general disposition to hold such a conference we would of course be willing to participate. It is our judgment that what is required at the present time is a period during which military pressure is not being exerted by either side, thus allowing time to encourage relaxation of the increasing tensions. It might be possible for all concerned at that time to take a new look at the situation, and in those circumstances, it might be possible to consider the prospect of a new conference with more sympathy than has been the case in the past. Admittedly this is a very serious situation, but it must be remembered that the means for keeping the peace in Indo-China and Viet Nam were provided by the 1954 accord. The present regrettable situation is that North Viet Nam, the main aggressor, has not faithfully lived up to the arrangements provided in the 1954 agreement. My hon. friend may be assured that we are in consultation with other parties to the 1962 Geneva accord as well as those to the 1954 agreement, in an attempt to bring about some modus vivendi in this situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a further supplementary question. In relation to the minister's suggestion that there are no military pressures, does he not consider that the retaliatory air raids on North Viet Nam and the reports of the movement of Chinese troops into the area constitute very serious military pressure? May I also ask the minister whether the fact that some highly placed individuals in the United States government have said that they are prepared to negotiate but would prefer to negotiate from strength, is the main reason why the Canadian government is not pressing for a conference at an early stage?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, there have been no South Vietnamese forces in North Viet Nam for ten years. When the cataloguing of the various acts that have taken place during the past ten years is made public I am sure my hon. friend will concur in the view that the aggression began as we have stated. The suggestion that a conference should not take place until we can negotiate from strength I think is a misinterpretation of what I said. What is proposed is that a conference take place, and that there be in being a government of South Viet Nam capable of negotiating its own interests. This is a very

Inquiries of the Ministry essential condition it we are going to have a successful conference.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has given a lengthy explanation in which he said, among other things that there should be a diminution of military pressure. He then stated that the main aggressor was North Viet Nam. Will he tell us who the minor aggressor is, or explain what he meant by that statement?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I think what I meant was that the aggressor was clearly North Viet Nam. If I said "main" that was unnecessary. The aggressor clearly has been North Viet Nam.


John George Diefenbaker: This makes very clear, does it not, that the government of Canada considers what the United States is doing is fair and proper, having regard to the provocation and the position of responsibility that rests upon it under the 1954 accord?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I have said that North Viet Nam was the main aggressor.


John George Diefenbaker: There is "main aggressor" again.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I mean, the aggressor. We have noted that the government of the United States has said it proposes not to engage in an expansion of the conflict and that the action it has taken under its authority recently was for a limited purpose.


Mr. Woolliams:: I should like to direct a question-


David Réal Caouette: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; there have been a great number of supplementary questions but perhaps we could finish with the subject by allowing one more from the hon. member for Villeneuve.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian government officially approved the action taken by the United States at the moment of the attack in North Viet Nam?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Naturally, we feel that according to the agreements a country has the right to defend itself.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My
question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and it is of national importance, particularly in western Canada. What effect will the wheat war have on the over-all price of grain in the crop year, and what steps has the government taken to stabilize the price of wheat and keep markets for Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: May I be permitted to answer this question-not in my own words, because the hon. gentleman might not give them quite as much weight as he might the words of the international wheat council or the words of the secretary of agriculture of the United States.
The international wheat council, following its meeting held the other day, made this statement about the recent adjustment in wheat prices. The council noted that in the past fortnight particularly, a major readjustment had taken place in the general level of world prices in response to the marked changes in supply conditions in the current crop year which had by now manifested their full effects. The council concluded that this adjustment had, generally speaking, brought prices back to the level prevailing in mid 1963 before the onset of the exceptional demand circumstances which had marked the first half of the 1963-64 crop year. It expressed confidence that this adjustment had run its course and that prices would now stabilize at the new levels.
The secretary of agriculture of the United States said something similar on February 5, when he said that importers have been anticipating adjustments in world price levels as the result of the exceedingly heavy supplies in exporting countries. These adjustments have now been made.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a supplementary question? I wonder if the minister can advise the house, in view of what he has just said, what the payment will be for the crop year? This is a question that has been put to many members by farmers in western Canada. Now that the minister has made his statement, could he let us have that information?


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps this would be of interest to all members of the house. The hon. member for Medicine Hat has given me notice of a similar question concerning the

final payment of the 1963-64 wheat crop. I have been in communication with the Canadian wheat board and the 1963-64 wheat pool account has been closed. The final accounting is now under way. It is expected the board will announce the amount of the final payment and will be making the payment itself early in March. All I can say at the present time is that it will be a very substantial payment.


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Since he quoted the secretary of agriculture in the United States, I was wondering if the Canadian government was contemplating any action to ensure that the Canadian producer does not bear the full brunt of the lower wheat prices? The producer in the United States gets his full price regardless of the price the government sells his wheat in the world market.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not believe it is appropriate for me to make an announcement of this kind on orders of the day. I would be very glad to discuss it at an appropriate time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce supplementary to the one which he answered a few minutes ago. During the course of his reply he said that the final payment for the 1963-64 wheat crop would be substantial. As the books on that account have been closed for some time I wonder could he tell the house whether the final payment will be equal to or greater than the payment made in the previous year, even though he may not have the exact figures?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I asked the wheat board that precise question and they say the accounting is not sufficiently advanced to give me a figure.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister or the government received any representations from other grain exporting countries regarding the recent price cuts authorized by the Canadian wheat board at the request of the minister?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleinquiries of the Ministry man has been in this house for a long time and I am sure he is one of the great experts in respect of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. He must know that the minister of trade and commerce has no authority to direct the Canadian wheat board as to the prices it charges.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister whether he had received any representations from other countries. He did not answer that question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question contained an imputation which is not correct and therefore I do not feel the question has been put to me accurately.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tisdale):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture which relates to the price fluctuation for eggs. The situation is so serious in Canada that I shall request the minister to immediately set up a royal commission to investigate the deplorable situation of egg pricing in Canada, as well as the importation of eggs from countries where egg prices are subsidized.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: I wonder if the hon. member would ask a question? He made a statement, and if he would ask me a question I would be glad to answer it.


Reynold Rapp: The minister should know the situation. This matter concerns his department. The farmers 'in the west are receiving such low prices for eggs that they are feeding them to the pigs because it does not pay to sell them. Will the minister set up a royal commission to investigate the pricing of eggs in Canada?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should just take a moment to give the hon. member the egg picture. During the last year the marketing of eggs has been running generally at about 150,000 cases per week. This may be compared with marketings of 142,000 cases during the same time the previous year. Major increases in production have occurred in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba, and during 1964 production in Quebec was 30.6 per cent above that of 1963, while Manitoba was 25.6 per cent above 1963. During 1964 increases were registered also by British

Inquiries of the Ministry Columbia, 9.9 per cent; Alberta, 9.9 per cent; Ontario, 8.8 per cent; Newfoundland, 46.8 per cent, and decreases were registered in Saskatchewan, 5.2 per cent; Nova Scotia, 14.1 per cent and Prince Edward Island, 5.8 per cent. As of January 5, the quoted price to the producer in Winnipeg for grade A large eggs was 16 cents per dozen, and 11 to 12 cents for small or ungraded.
Now, the stabilization board supports eggs at 34 cents per dozen, and this is handled about September 15 each year. The Canadian people eat about three quarters of an egg per capita per day.


Mr. Bell:: That would be scrambled, would it?


Harry William Hays: I can tell the house that we have a big surplus of eggs in Canada and, of course, we have no place to go with them. On January 14, Mr. Speaker, I announced that the Department of Agriculture would purchase about 250,000 pounds of dried eggs as a contribution to the world food program, which relieves the situation somewhat. Then, as I have suggested, we have a stabilization program under which we support eggs at 34 cents per dozen for a maximum of 4,000 dozen. This program we feel is of distinct aid to the producers in Canada. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale knows that there are different classes of eggs. There are small eggs, large eggs-


An hon. Member:: And bad eggs.


Harry William Hays: And what we call cracked eggs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harry William Hays: These all command different prices but the hon. member always mentions eggs which are selling at a lower price. Grade A large eggs are now selling for about 40 cents a dozen and the price for smaller eggs comes down to about 13 cents a dozen. Nevertheless, on weighted average across Canada eggs are supported under the stabilization price program at 34 cents a dozen, and anywhere they drop below this level producers will receive the difference between 34 cents and the price at which they sold their eggs to the wholesalers.


Reynold Rapp: As a supplementary question, the minister has said there are more eggs than the Canadian people use. Why then did he allow eggs to be imported from other countries where their price is subsidized, thus depressing Canadian prices? Could he not take steps to cut off the importation of eggs from other countries?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, a very small quantity of eggs came into Canada a year ago, but I am not familiar with any that came in recently.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harry William Hays: As I say, Mr. Speaker, this is something with which I am not familiar. I shall be glad to take notice of it but I do not believe any eggs came into Canada during the last six or eight months.



STEPS TO ASSIST EASTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a related question to the Minister of Agriculture. During the recess I noticed it had been stated that eastern agriculture was in a tremendously depressed condition. Has the minister noted the situation and has he anything to announce that might improve the economic position of eastern farmers?


An hon. Member:: Six cows and two pigs.


Harry William Hays: Well, Mr. Speaker, the position of agriculture has not been good for the last seven years. The previous government did nothing for agriculture-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harry William Hays: -absolutely nothing for eastern agriculture, but now the president of the national dairy council says the dairy situation is in better shape than it has been for many years. The hon. member's question concerns government policy, which will be announced later, and I think the program we are going to announce will be of interest to all farmers in Canada.


Eric Alfred Winkler: If the minister is correct can he explain why farmers are saying that in the last two years their prices have gone considerably lower than previously?


Joseph Slogan: As a supplementary question can the minister now explain his statement in Calgary where he said the farmers have never had it so good?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. It seems to me we are getting quite far afield.



SUGAR BEETS-REQUEST FOR SUBVENTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture?

Does the hon. gentleman intend to agree to the request of the sugar beet producers association and give them a subsidy of at least $3 per ton?


Harry William Hays: That is a matter of government policy which will be dealt with at the proper time.



DECLINE IN FARM PRICES-SUGGESTED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the serious decline in the prices of farm products such as eggs, poultry and beef, will the Prime Minister refer the operation of the Agricultural Stabilization Act to the agriculture committee for study and recommendation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure that in due course the committee will have an opportunity to discuss these matters and consider them.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would he inquire why hundreds of requests from Canadian collectors for the 1965 Canadian coin series were refused by the royal mint and how it comes about that you can find them being offered for sale across the border by United States collectors?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: To the last part of the question I would reply that I do not think you can find them on sale.


Mr. Gundlock:: Oh yes, you can.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If I may finish my reply, you can find them advertised if, as, and when available. They are advertised for $12 a set, or something like that and I would strongly advise no one to pay that kind of money.


John George Diefenbaker: Eighteen dollars a set.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: People will be able to get them from the mint at $4 a set. Everybody will be able to get them at $4 a set as soon as production catches up with demand.
Inquiries of the Ministry
On the face of it, the only people who are going to lose out on the present policy are the speculators. Somebody had to lose and I think it is just as well that it be the speculators.
In reply to the first part of my hon. friend's question I would point out it was announced last fall that the orders would be dealt with in the order in which they were received. This has been done in accordance with the ruling made at that time. In the orders received on the first day-and those are the only ones that can be dealt with immediately -there was about the same proportion of orders from other countries as was the case in the past.
I would point out to my hon. friend that this business of collecting coins is something that is international in scope and we would probably resent it quite keenly if our collectors were not given the same privileges when they want to buy sets from the United States or other countries.


Raymond Langlois: Can the minister assure the house that the new sets which will be printed will be exactly the same as those printed so far?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I can give my hon. friend the categorical assurance that all the orders which are put in for the 1965 sets will be filled. I think it would be unwise for me to go further than that.


Michael Starr: As a supplementary question, would the minister give instructions to the mint to give priority to those who placed their orders and had their money returned without their envelopes even being opened?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, because of the interest in this subject perhaps I should add something that was set out fully in a press release a couple of weeks ago, a copy of which I will be glad to send my hon. friend. The mint was swamped with something like six million orders. I think that in the whole of the United States last year they had three million orders, and in Canada last year there were less than two million orders. Therefore to get six million orders on the first day was a little more than any ordinary person would have expected the mint to deal with. It was considered unwise to retain on hand these orders, which contained money orders and cash.
It was thought better to return them. I think this was a wise decision because unquestionably some of these orders were from people who perhaps were not as genuine

Inquiries of the Ministry collectors as some others. I doubt very much if a large proportion of these orders will be resubmitted. There is no record of the orders that came in and were returned, and there could not be with the facilities that were available.


Michael Starr: They could have retained the envelopes which had been postmarked and which were returned.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, with the benefit of hindsight the mint could have been three times as big and all orders could have been accepted on January 2. The fact is that the mint was confronted with an impossible situation and, with respect, I think the steps that have been taken to deal with that situation have proven to be satisfactory to the great majority of people, excluding the speculators.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is the
minister aware that I have received numerous complaints from my constituents where it appears that hundreds of letters were turned back by the post office unopened, stamped with the words "The Quota for 1965 is Exhausted"?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That was done because at that time no decision had been taken to expand the production of the 1965 sets so that everybody would be taken care of.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Would the minister indicate whether or not the government makes a profit on these sets? In other words, could we have the exact cost of production?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not sure whether this is the time to answer a question of that kind, Mr. Speaker, but, if it is, the answer is in the affirmative.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: The
minister said earlier that applications would be filled in the order in which they had been received. Does this mean that speculators in foreign countries will be given preference over Canadian applicants?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not know how anybody could tell whether an order came from a genuine collector or from a speculator. I fancy the speculators would like to withdraw their orders if they were able to do so. While it was said a week ago in one or two papers they were advertised for sale at $12 a set-


John George Diefenbaker: Eighteen dollars.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -if, as and when available, nobody is going to pay that price when they

know they can get sets for $4 by waiting a few months.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: My question is directed to the Minister of Labour. It concerns an urgent problem which I know exists throughout the western part of the country in particular, due to the long period of bitter cold weather experienced there this winter.
What consideration has been given to extending the loan period in respect of housing construction under the winter house building incentive program? As the minister knows, in order to qualify for an approved loan house construction must begin within 45 days of the application being made; if construction has not been started within this time, the loan period may be extended for a further 30 days on payment of a small fee. However, if construction has not begun by the end of the renewed time limit the loan cannot be obtained.
In my home city of Red Deer, 12 loans were cancelled during the month of December as a result of the cold weather. Because of continuing cold weather, a further 16 loans will be cancelled. A similar situation exists in other cities, involving hundreds of homes. Since many people use the $500 bonus to assist them in making the necessary down payment, a definite hardship is being worked through no fault of the individuals concerned.
My second question is this: under present regulations, houses which have qualified for the $500 bonus must be completed by March 31 or lose their claim to the bonus. In my own city, some 30 homes which have already been sold and which, because of the inclement weather, will not be completed by that time, will lose the benefit of this bonus. Again, this delay has been caused by the bitter winter weather. What position does the government intend to take with regard to the numerous requests which have been made that the loan period in relation to house construction should be extended, and second, with regard to the postponement of the completion date once construction has started?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I have no comment to make on the loan aspect of the housing industry but I have received representations that the exceptional weather conditions have slowed down the

completion of housing projects in certain parts of Canada. We meet this problem in varying degrees every winter. I think it would be a mistake at this point to agree to an extension of the period, because the immediate effect would be to encourage further delays in housing construction. I have received delegations and I have explained that the purpose of the incentive payment is to encourage construction in the winter months and that it would be unwise in my view to lose sight of that objective.
It is my intention to review the situation later on toward the close of the period to determine whether there is any justification at that time for an extension, a course which was taken last year.


Robert Norman Thompson: There is a certain urgency about this matter because the payments which have already been agreed in respect of home construction are now being cancelled due to the inability of builders to put in basements during this cold weather.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to take another look at this question, especially to consider the special problem with respect to the cancellations the hon. member has mentioned. As a department we have not, of course, cancelled the incentive payment with respect to any home, provided the construction requirements have been met.



RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPORTING TO PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I was intending to address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of his announcement earlier today of changes in the ministry. However, I think the President of the Privy Council might be able to supply the information I should like. Could the President of the Privy Council inform the house which member of the ministry at the present time is responsible to parliament for the operations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the administration of the National Housing Act?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: There has been no change, Mr. Speaker. I am.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-
Inquiries of the Ministry Kings): I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The President of the United States has been quoted as saying that he has received a firm assurance from the Canadian government that the Canadian government would pursue the policies necessary to ease the flow of investment funds into Canada, and I should like to ask the minister if this report is correct. Is the President correctly reported? Has such a definite assurance been given, and if so what was the nature of the assurance and what policies does the Canadian government propose to follow in order to inhibit or reduce the flow of capital into this country?
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Prior to his message to congress the President telephoned the Prime Minister to tell him what was proposed, and he suggested I might confer with Hon. Mr. Dillon, the secretary of the United States treasury. This I did. I was able to give him a renewal of a previous assurance on behalf of the Canadian government that our policies would continue to be directed toward general stability in our foreign exchange reserves.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will add, for the hon. gentleman's information, that the wording I have just used was the wording in the message to which I referred.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS JURISDICTION RESPECTING OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, one which is of urgent national importance especially on the east coast. In view of the fact that four oil companies have taken out exploration permits with respect to 26 million undersea acres off the coast of Nova Scotia, and excitement is mounting over the possibility of underseas oil being discovered, can the Prime Minister give any indication of the date by which the ownership of which these offshore mineral rights will be determined as between the federal and the provincial governments? Will the Prime Minister cause an inquiry to be made to determine when the question of ownership may be finalized?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am afraid I am not able to give a specific answer to the last part of the question con-

Inquiries of the Ministry cerning the finalization of any date. But I will be glad to take the hon. member's question as notice and see whether I can make a statement on the subject tomorrow, or the next day, because I appreciate its importance.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport; it has to do with government procedure relative to the railway bill, Bill No. C-120. Would the minister tell us when he expects to proceed with this bill.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me to do it, perhaps I could say to the whole house that I was hoping to have discussions with hon. gentlemen opposite who were particularly interested in the bill and see if it would be possible by agreement to have, not the bill itself but the subject matter of the bill- because we have no hope of passing it in this session-referred, almost immediately, to the railway committee, so we could use the time of the rest of this session to hear some of the representations that many people are anxious to make about this bill, and thus facilitate its passage by reducing the time that would be required for its consideration at the next session.
I would hope that this course, after discussion with hon. gentlemen opposite about the business of the house, might commend itself to all parties in all quarters of the house. It would involve no one committing himself to the principle of the bill at all, but would merely make the bill available for study so that the committee could do some useful work.



INDIAN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
CLOSING OF INDIAN HOSPITALS On the orders of the day:
Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and is in reference to the reports which came to Ottawa quite recently about the government's projected program to close the Indian hospitals. It would appear to me, sir, that the department has either said too much or too little, and the rather vague statements that emanated from Ottawa have caused a great deal of concern among the 
employees of the Indian hospital in Nanaimo, among the Indian population and also among the authorities of the local regional general hospital who are concerned that they may at some unspecified date be faced with the necessity of accommodating a number of patients from the Indian hospital.
I would like to ask the minister whether her department is now prepared to give a more definitive statement as to this program of closure and to tell the people definitely at what date this hospital is going to be closed. I would also like to ask her whether, before doing that, she is planning to consult with the local provincial authorities of the B.C. hospital insurance service to make sure that they will authorize the necessary expansion of the services of the general hospital to accommodate the Indian patients who will be displaced when her program goes into effect.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is to be regretted that my hon. friend did not give me notice, and I shall take his question as notice.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, can the lady minister not answer my question?


An hon. Member:: She doesn't know anything about it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will take the question as notice.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister. I sent him brief notice of it. My question is this: On November 6 the Prime Minister, in answer to a question of mine, promised to make a statement shortly as to the procedure for bringing before parliament the vitally important question of constitutional amending procedures. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to give this statement to the house and let the house know whether a parliamentary committee will be set up to examine this rather important matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do remember having made that statement and I had hoped to have been in a position before the recess to clear up

some of the points about procedure in this matter, but of course we were at that time waiting for the replies from the provinces to the white paper and the accompanying letter which we had sent to them.
I would like to look into that situation. I think all the replies are in, or all but one perhaps, and I hope my hon. friend will permit the Minister of Justice or myself to make a statement on this matter, as soon as I have had a chance to look into the provincial situation, tomorrow or the next day, I hope.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I wonder whether I can ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Has consideration been given to enlarging the ambit of any inquiry to take into its scope the whole question of constitutional amendment and not just amending procedures?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will look into that matter too, Mr. Speaker; but I hope my hon. friend will agree that the procedure which we should follow in the house in respect of this very important matter must be related to the steps taken by the provinces on the same question. It is a difficult and complicated question, and that is why I am asking for a few hours delay before I reply.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can he advise the house whether the government has received a report from the advisory committee on broadcasting; and if not, can the minister say when this report is expected?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet received the report, but I expect it at the end of March or some time in April.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State advise the house whether the government are considering or will consider providing a special grant to the C.B.C. for the specific purpose of the extension of services, as suggested in the last annual report of the corporation?


Maurice Lamontagne: I do not think the government has as yet finally decided on this matter.
20220-720*
Inquiries of the Ministry



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Could he tell the house why the former chief superintendent of the R.C.M.P. Mr. Rene J. Belec had to hand back the O.B.E. medal given to him in 1953 for commendable services and who ordered that punishment?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his question. However, in spite of his courtesy I think that this is the kind of question which should be put on the order paper. Therefore, I suggest to him to do so and I shall promptly supply him with an answer.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Noting that there are approximately half a million people out of work in this country, which is 6 per cent of the labour force and 10 per cent of the labour force in the maritimes, I wonder whether the minister could make a statement regarding a program to alleviate this situation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make a statement at the appropriate time.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct- [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to choke anyone off, but I should like to break the present log-jam and get on with the business before the house.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Since the province of Quebec has 39 per cent of the unemployed Canadians, could the minister tell us when he will announce the various plans he has in mind to reduce

Inquiries of the Ministry unemployment and when those projects will be initiated?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I assured an hon. member who asked me earlier if I would make a statement in respect of this whole problem that I would do so at the appropriate time, but I do not think it is appropriate for me to deal with a problem of the magnitude mentioned by my hon. friend during orders of the day.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question has wide Canadian interest but is of specific interest to the province of Saskatchewan. I would like to direct it to the Minister of Industry. Could the minister advise the house whether a decision has been taken as to the location of the proposed new heavy water plant; and if not, when will that decision be taken?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the bids, or proposals, have only recently been received. They are now under study, and I would hope that as soon as possible an announcement will be made as to the decision reached.



AUTOMOBILES-POSSIBLE TARIFF ASSISTANCE FOR MANUFACTURERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry.
Could the hon. minister tell us whether it is true that the government has granted some tariff reductions to the big automobile manufacturers without obtaining their undertaking to follow a definite program which would enable the Canadian automobile industry to develop quickly during the next few years, and could he clear up the mystery which still exists in that connection?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any mystery surrounding this particular program; it has been a very successful one. However, if the hon. gentleman or other members of the house feel that a statement is warranted, I shall be glad to make one tomorrow.
[Mr. Ricard.I



NOVA SCOTIA-ASSISTANCE FOR OPENING OF NEW COLLIERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Could he indicate whether any progress has been made in negotiations with the Dominion Coal Company in respect of assistance in the opening of a new colliery.


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: May I take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps tomorrow I will have a proper answer to it.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister of Labour to handle that question because it is apparent, that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys knows nothing about what is going on. Perhaps while the Minister of Labour is dealing with that question he might answer a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce. Does he not think this is an appropriate time to make an announcement as to programs respecting the unemployed?

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour with respect to the question I put to the minister of mines. Is not the Minister of Labour aware of what is the situation, and will he not give some indication of his view so that the situation in Cape Breton-he knows very well what it is- would be somewhat alleviated as a result of a favourable announcement from this government? Would he say something about it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation. I am also aware that the responsibility in this matter rests with the minister of mines, who in accordance with sound parliamentary practice has taken notice of the question and assured my hon. friend of an answer tomorrow.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I may say that I have had no communication during the recess from the hon. member but I will reply tomorrow.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary
question to the minister of mines. Does he not realize that communication with the minister of mines in this house is most difficult?


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport who

reports to the house on behalf of the Atlantic development board. Is he in a position to relay any information on the possibility of opening a new mine in Cape Breton with the assistance of funds from the Atlantic development board?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very much better to wait until my hon. friend the minister of mines is able to give a thorough answer to this question.



QUEBEC-ESTABLISHMENT OF DESIGNATED AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry.
When I put this question on several occasions last year, I was always told that the matter was under consideration.
Could the minister tell us whether its study is completed and whether he will soon be in a position to inform us of the newly designated areas for economic assistance in the province of Quebec and in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this study was carried on during the Christmas holidays. I am sorry that it is not quite completed but I hope to be soon in a position to announce a new policy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the minister whether the formula which is going to be used would also be made available to the house prior to the designation of these areas? I assume the minister will not use the same formula as last year.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Any changes in formulas
accompanying any possible changes in policy will be announced before they are put into operation.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomption-Monfcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Inquiries of the Ministry Has there been an agreement between the federal government and the Quebec premier about the transfer of the jurisdiction of Eskimo affairs to the province of Quebec?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the considerable amount of concern which is evident at Churchill, Manitoba, as to whether or not the educational program being carried out by northern affairs for the Eskimo children is going to be on a continuing basis, could the minister consider making a statement in the near future to clear up some of this concern? I might say that there are considerable rumours around town that this is just on a very short term experimental basis.


Arthur Laing: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will. TRANSPORT



REQUEST FOR ABOLITION OF THOMPSON COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Does the minister intend to comply with the request of the Quebec premier, Mr. Jean Lesage, and abolish the Thompson commission?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it would be desirable to table in this house in due course the correspondence in this matter.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. I should like to ask the minister whether he was correctly reported as having announced during a visit to British Columbia the intention of the government to introduce commercial licence limitation; and if this report is correct could he tell the house more

Inquiries of the Ministry exactly than was indicated by the rather vague reports which were carried in the British Columbia press what the government has in mind in this connection?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as I announced in my recent visit to British Columbia it is the intention of the Department of Fisheries to exercise some kind of control on the issuing of commercial salmon licences. On that occasion I also made it very clear that the matter was under study by the department and that this control will not be put into effect before we have had full discussions with the interested parties, including the fishermen, the industry, or the organizations in British Columbia which are concerned with the fisheries.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question.
Could the minister indicate what form he has in mind that this consultation should take? Is the minister prepared to put forward specific proposals which can be examined by the marine and fisheries committee and about which representations can be heard from the various segments of the industry?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before acceding to the hon. member's request I think it would be preferable for officials of my department to meet with the parties interested, as I have just mentioned, and then if desirable or if the decision is made to that effect the matter can be brought before the committee on marine and fisheries.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: have a question for the Minister of Transport in connection with his responsibilities for icebreaking in the St. Lawrence. I think the minister may have been expecting a question along this line. Will the minister report on the charge that this continuous icebreaking in the Montreal area is causing a serious run-off of water and thus greatly reducing the low water level in that port?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not the question of which the hon. gentleman gave me notice in his interesting telegram to which I have already replied, but I would have been very disappointed had he not asked a question about this matter and broken the ice in this resumed session.


I may say that the principal reason for the icebreaking below Montreal, as I think the hon. gentleman has been told, every year, he being a faithful and assiduous questioner every year about this matter, is this. The hon. member has been told the same thing every year and it remains equally true every year, and it is that it is necessary to break the ice below Montreal to avoid flooding in the harbour. In that sense I suppose it does reduce the level of the water; but in the sense of reducing the volume of water in lake Ontario, I am advised by my scientific advisers that it has no effect whatever.


Thomas Miller Bell: When these big ships cannot get into Montreal harbour this summer because of the low water level, I would ask the minister to keep in mind the reason he has given today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that the efforts of my hon. friend the minister of northern affairs have been so successful that it is very likely the ships will be able to come in just as well this year as they were last year.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister investigate whether, in view of the low water levels, so much icebreaking at this harbour is necessary? Because if the water levels are already low, then presumably at flood time in the spring the rise would not be sufficiently high to create any danger to the port, and therefore great amounts of money could be saved on icebreaking.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will convey the scientific impressions of the hon. member to the unhappy and beleaguered experts who have to deal with this matter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, October 19, 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 on October 19 clause 5 was under consideration. Clauses 1 and 3 had been allowed to stand.
On clause 5-Standard hours of work.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, it was my intention, with the consent of the members of the committee, to make a preliminary

statement in respect of a number of matters which may be dealt with by way of amendment later in our considerations. It might be well to have this statement in one piece, so perhaps the committee will agree to call it six o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Before we rose at six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I stated that I intended to make a statement, which I shall make now, as to certain general proposals affecting the hours of work provisions of the measure which I intend to move at a later stage in the committee. Perhaps the committee will recall that we left off consideration of Bill No. C-126 clause by clause in committee of the whole last October 19. Members of the government, and no doubt other members of the house, have received representations from a number of industries expressing concern about the effects of the hours of work provision of the bill upon their operations. The transportation industries have been particularly concerned about their operating employees.
Before we resume consideration of clause 5, I should like to speak about those representations and the way we propose to meet them. My colleagues and I have had the benefit of very useful discussions with delegations from industries affected, both employer and employee groups, and some very helpful briefs have been presented. I, myself, have met with various groups across the country. As a result of these discussions, and further consideration, we propose to introduce several amendments which I think will allay the apprehension that has been expressed on the possible adverse effects of the legislation. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I have been impressed by the general support for the bill and its objectives throughout the country.
There is a widely held belief in Canada that the improvement in the conditions of work which our economic development makes possible should be shared by all, and this bill is in keeping with that desire. Our conclusions, based on the representations made to us, are that for a large part of the employment subject to the bill, the provisions of
Canada Labour Code
part I of the bill, dealing with hours of work, will not cause undue dislocation. There is, however, other employment where through practice, and in the absence of any legal regulation, working hours so exceed the standard set by part I that compliance within the adjustment period of 18 months presently provided within the bill is not possible without hardship. There are other cases, ships' crews to mention an example, where working conditions make it difficult to comply with the requirements of part I either now or in the foreseeable future. For some of these industries, the problem can be met by extending the period for adjustment provided by deferment under clause 51. For others, the extension of the time will not provide a solution. It may be necessary to arrive at standards differing from those provided in the act to meet the peculiar conditions of employment.
It would, of course, not be feasible to spell out in the bill the differences in hours of work standards to fit special cases. What is needed is a method of relieving an industry or the operations within an industry from the requirements of part I over an extended period of time where they are shown to be inappropriate, and to prescribe hours standards with which the industry will be required to comply.
The amendment which will be introduced when we come to clause 51 will do two things. It will provide, as is now provided in clause 51, that the application of part I, hours of work, may be stayed for a period of not more than 18 months by order of the Minister of Labour applicable to any federal work, undertaking or business or any class of employees in it, if it is shown that the hours of work provisions would be unduly prejudicial to the employees or seriously detrimental to the operation of the business. If there is reason to believe that the undertakings subject to the order may not be able to comply directly with the provisions of part I in 18 months, an inquiry will be held pursuant to clause 35. The purpose of this inquiry will be to investigate the facts fully, afford an opportunity to the employers and employees affected to be heard, and to recommend whether the deferment period ought to be extended. Following the inquiry the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, may issue an order deferring the operation of part I for a period fixed in the order, and that period may be extended by subsequent orders.
A deferment order issued by the minister, or an extending order made by the governor

Canada Labour Code
in council, may fix hours of work standards for the class of employees to whom it applies. It may require hours of work to be reduced bj stages, prescribing different hours for different periods of time; or, where it has been shown by the inquiry that with respect to certain classes of employees, some provisions of part I are inappropriate because of employment customs peculiar to the industry, it may prescribe hours of work conditions suitable to the situation.
We have received a number of representations that industries should be exempted from the legislation. After a good deal of consideration, I do not believe this is a request to which we can accede. We have already reached agreement in principle that the working conditions of employees in employment which it is the responsibility of parliament to regulate shall be subject to prescribed minimum standards. But wherever industries have raised substantial problems, if they cannot be met by the provisions of part I, we propose to grant them deferment for an 18 month period so that there may be time for an inquiry and further consultation in order to work out acceptable standards. The implementation of the Canada labour code is an ambitious project for industries under federal jurisdiction because it is the first attempt to set general minimum standards in three of the areas covered by the bill, and it is apparent that time is necessary for investigation and further consultation to determine what are practical minimum standards with respect to hours of work for some classes of employees in some industries.
I am confident that the course I have outlined will meet with acceptance because it is based on a regard for the interests of employees who might have their earnings reduced for reduction of hours, and of employers who would find it very difficult to accommodate their operations to the requirements of the legislation. It was for these reasons the government inserted the transitional provisions authorizing postponement of part I in the bill as introduced, and it is apparent from the representations that have been made that continuing flexibility will be needed, and we think this is provided by the proposed amendment.
The amendment also provides for suspension of part I on the same terms as for deferment, where submission is made after part I is in effect. This provision has been considered necessary to avoid the rigidity which would result if no action could be taken under clause 51 after part I was once ap-

plicable, and there may be conditions unforeseen now, for example brought about by automation, where it might be desirable, upon application, to suspend the operation of part I after it has come into effect.
Some of the concern that has been expressed about the effects of the hours of work provisions has come about because the degree of flexibility already provided in the bill has not been fully appreciated. Apart from the transitional provisions contained in clause 51, there is considerable room for adaptation to different conditions in clauses 5 to 10 of part I.
Before we resume consideration of each clause it might be useful for me to review their substance. Briefly, hours of work at regular rates of pay are not to exceed eight in a day or 40 in a week. Eight additional hours may be worked in a week if one and one half times the regular rate is paid. In exceptional circumstances hours in excess of 48 in a week may be worked if a permit is obtained. Hours in excess of 48 may be worked without a permit in cases of emergencies.
There is also provision for calculating overtime and maximum hours over a period longer than a week. Where the nature of the work necessitates irregular distribution of an employee's hours of work the principle of averaging will be permitted. This is intended to cover situations where, because of an uneven flow of work, an employer is not able to schedule regular working hours in a day or in a week. The most obvious example is the transportation industry where the length of trips governs the employee's hours of work. Other examples would be situations where an employer provides employment over a year or other period and within that period, due to seasonal or other factors, the daily or weekly hours fluctuate. The regulations will be drafted either applying generally or to particular industries, setting out the circumstances under which hours may be averaged. The period over which hours may be averaged will obviously have to be determined for each situation and the period may be as long as one full year.
There will be an amendment to part I which I might mention now. It will permit an exception from the general rule of one day's rest in seven. As the bill now stands this rule is too rigid.
Several amendments will also be necessary when we come to part IV dealing with general holidays, but I think these can best be explained when we come to that part.

Because of the time that has elapsed it will be necessary to put forward the date of coming into force of parts I, II, III and IV. I shall therefore be proposing that the date of coming into force of these parts, specified in clause 54, shall be changed from January 1, 1965 to July 1, 1965, and that the dates specified in other clauses be changed accordingly.
In explaining these changes, particularly with respect to hours of work, I would like to point out that the purpose of the hours of work part is still an important and signficant portion of the bill. It is our purpose to have the standard hours met where possible and appropriate, and to have the necessary flexibility for time for reaching these standard hours without seriously affecting the welfare of employees or detrimentally affecting the federal undertaking.
Members of the committee will recall the enthusiasm with which this bill was received by the House of Commons on second reading, and I trust that as we enter into specific discussion of various industries we shall not overlook and lose sight of the general objectives of the legislation and the important contribution it will make to the working conditions of employees under federal jurisdiction.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was first introduced I expressed my complete satisfaction particularly because it was, as I termed it, a good, nice package deal. However, it has been brought to my attention since then that it could have been introduced as four separate bills because any amendments introduced to any particular part of this bill will naturally cause the whole labour code to be thrown open for discussion and observation. Nevertheless I think administration in this area, covering the complete bill, is a better idea; but I am not going to deal with that aspect of it.
I wish to deal in particular with the objections that have been raised, more especially those concerning part I which deals with hours of work. We know the trucking industry has made most strenuous objection to this provision. The grain elevator people, particularly those in western Canada, have also made objection, and the railway running trades, headed by Mr. Frank Hall, have also objected because it would affect them adversely.
I do not know how many other industries have made representations and objections but I believe it would be very satisfactory to members of the committee if the minister would outline all of the industries which will 20220-721
Canada Labour Code
be affected by part I and which have made representations and protests.
The minister has outlined the amendment he proposes to move to clause 51, affecting part I of the bill, but the question which comes to my mind is whether he has communicated to the people who have protested about part I, and ascertained whether his proposed amendment is acceptable to them. As I see it now, any industry or any group of employees affected by the labour code must make two applications or submissions, if these are found necessary. The first submission will have to be made immediately upon the coming into effect of the bill, a submission for a deferment of 18 months. Then during that period of 18 months, if they find they cannot comply properly, profitably or otherwise with the provisions of part I, before the 18 months are up they must apply to the minister under clause 35 to have an inquiry conducted into their particular industry. Should the minister find, having received the report of the commission, that a proper case had been made out, he could by order in council except the application of this part of the bill to the industry concerned either in whole or in part.
I intend tonight to deal with only one of the industries for which this bill has created a great deal of unfair competition, namely the trucking industry, particularly in the province of Ontario. The trucking industry was entirely under federal jurisdiction until 1954 when an act was passed giving the provinces the right to license transport trucks. Of course, transport industry operations wholly within a province came immediately under provincial jurisdiction. The only part of the industry affected by this bill will be that which crosses provincial boundary lines in the course of its operations. This measure affects the entire operation of any particular company even though only 2 per cent of its operations may be interprovincial. As much as 98 per cent of the operation may be wholly within a province, but if only 2 per cent of the traffic crosses provincial boundary lines the whole of the operation of the company is affected by the bill before us. It does not, of course, affect companies which operate strictly within the boundaries of a province. Nor does it affect those trucking companies which hire self-employed owners of tractors who must buy licences to pull these vans across provincial boundary lines. Those who operate such tractors will not be affected.
As I say, there is a great deal of unfair competition in this very industry. That is why I should like to know whether the

Canada Labour Code
trucking industry in particular is satisfied with the amendment which the minister is proposing to clause 51. There is a great deal of difference between the conditions laid down by the provincial government in respect of this industry and what is proposed in the federal bill which we are considering now. For example, this Bill C-126 makes provision for standard weekly hours amounting to 40 hours. The Ontario legislation provides for 48 hours a week. Overtime permitted under the present bill amounts to eight hours whereas Ontario provides for 12 hours. The bill before us provides 48 hours as the maximum permissible number of hours which can be worked each week-40 hours plus eight hours overtime. In Ontario the total comes to 60, a figure which takes account of the competitive aspect of the trucking industry in the United States which, of course, crosses international boundary lines into Canada, particularly into Ontario. There would be no confusion at all if there were uniformity between the provincial legislation and the federal legislation. But such will not be the case. The legislation will not affect everyone concerned in the same industry in the same way.
The Minister of Labour made a speech on November 19 to the Kiwanis club of Toronto at the Seaway Towers motel, and at page eight of the release of his speech he said, referring to the trucking industry:
They have expressed concern regarding their competitive position in relation to trucking Arms operating solely within provincial jurisdictions. I have assured them we will invite the provincial departments of labour to consider jointly practical steps which can be taken to bring about a common approach to the two fields of jurisdiction.
Now, I ask the Minister of Labour this: In view of what he said on November 19, has any approach been made to any of the provincial governments along the lines of this undertaking? Has any assurance been received from any of them that they intend to comply at once or in the very near future with the code which is being proposed here in part I as far as hours of work are concerned? I think this is a vitally important matter and unless it is cleared up there is bound to be a great deal of confusion in the industry.
I should also like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to give the house an assurance that this bill will not apply to the construction industry. If it does, I should like him to tell us what is to be the extent of its application. I believe the Canadian

construction industry has a vital interest in knowing whether or not it is affected and I suggest it would put the minds of those concerned at ease if the house could be given this information before we pass these clauses in part I. Perhaps, before we go any further, the minister could give us a list of the industries which are to be affected; perhaps he could tell us which industries have protested to him in respect of the provisions in part I of this bill. Let him tell us whether or not he has apprised these industries of the proposed amendments. Let him tell us what the reaction of these industries has been to his proposals-whether they are satisfied or not. Here I include also the railway running trades-the employees of the railways. Are they satisfied with these amendments or not?
This is the extent of the comments I wish to make at this point. These are the questions which I feel should be answered by the minister before we proceed to pass these clauses in part I. I know that many of my colleagues have further questions to ask with regard to other industries likely to be affected by this part of the labour code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the minister was correct in saying that when this bill was before us on second reading it received the enthusiastic endorsation of the members of the House of Commons. I believe most of us hoped that when the bill reached us in its final shape it would likewise command our enthusiastic support. After all, this is legislation which has been anticipated in this country for a long time and it is good to get it, even though it is so long overdue.
I remind the minister that when the bill was brought in it had four main parts, aside from the administrative aspects of the measure, and that each of these four main parts, dealing with hours of work, minimum wages, annual vacations and general holidays, was a strong provision. We recognize that although very few complaints were made about the other three parts there were a number of complaints about part I, dealing, as it does, with hours of work. We are not surprised that the minister has come forward with some suggested amendments but he will understand it if we, for our part, would like to take a good look at these amendments before we are asked to decide whether or not they go too far.
I have already indicated that we welcomed the strength of this bill when it first came before us. We are not going to take a rigid position and say that it should not be changed

in any way, but we hope that the kind of changes the minister is now suggesting with respect to part I do not destroy the efflective-ness and the usefulness of that part. I would like to express the hope, therefore, that some way can be found whereby we can have a look in print at the total package that the minister is now proposing. As I understood him, he said there would be government amendments to clause 51 of the bill and that there would be amendments to other clauses later. He said also that there would be amendments to some of the clauses in part I; I think he said between clauses 5 and 9 or 10.
I realize that we are on clause 5 and there is a rule in committee that we have to keep our discussion relevant to the clause; but is there not some way in which the minister can place before us tonight, either by distributing them in mimeograph form or by putting them in Hansard, all the amendments he proposes to make with respect to the hours of work aspect of this bill? He can hardly ask us to deal with one amendment without knowing what is coming later, and it would seem to me to be a good idea if we could have these amendments put before us, even if it means that we let these clauses stand and deal with the other parts of the bill tonight. I gather there are no amendments proposed by the government to the minimum wages part of the bill or to the annual vacations or the general holidays parts of the bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There are amendments in regard to the general holidays part.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At least there are two parts of the bill, minimum wages and annual vacations, to which there are no government amendments. There might be some from this side of the chamber, of course. But I wonder whether it would not be fair to all concerned, because questions have been asked as well by the hon. member for Ontario that deserve attention, for the minister to let us have the text of the amendments to the hours of work part and then let that part stand for tonight while we deal with the parts of the bill which the government does not propose to amend.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, is the suggestion that we allow the whole of part I to stand while we consider the amendments to part I? Actually there is only one amendment to the whole of part I as it stands; part I is to remain, with the exception of one amendment which I am proposing to clause 7. I do not recollect any further amendments to part I. Therefore the rigid section of the 20220-7214
Canada Labour Code
major proposals affecting the hours of work provisions are contained in part I, and any variation in its operation will be provided in clause 51. I have no hesitation in giving all the amendments affecting hours of work and clause 51 tonight, but I would hope we would discuss the hours of work section tonight and would not stand it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could come to some understanding about it if we had the text of the proposed amendments to clauses 7 and 51 laid before us. I just feel that we should not be asked to make a decision on the over-all package until we see what the whole package contains.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have copies that I will try and get down here as quickly as possible.


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief because I, too, have found that we were not very well informed about the government's intentions concerning the amendments to be brought to certain clauses of Bill No. C-126.
It has been interesting to note the reactions of commercial and industrial concerns in this country when the bill was introduced and since then.
I should like to point out in passing that it might have been better to refer the bill beforehand to our committee on industrial relations. If I am not mistaken, that committee has not been given too much to do during the first part of the present session. In my opinion, it would have been a good thing to have the committee examine the matter and hear the claims of the various companies.
Anyway, it is never too late, even at this late date, to hear the recriminations or the suggestions of the various Canadian economic organizations.
Is this bill, the so-called labour code, really a labour code? Personally, I have the impression that it is a praiseworthy attempt to adopt a labour code in Canada. It was obviously necessary to start somewhere and I feel that the minister should be commended for having the courage to take the lead.
It is obvious that throughout the years, the legislation will have to be amended. But to those who at the present time are inclined to consider the critical or negative aspect of the situation, I would say that it is obviously easier to criticize than to make proposals.
As for the proposed minimum wages of $1.25 an hour, several members have already said it was not enough and that it might be

Canada Labour Code
advisable to ask for $1.50, which would seem more reasonable in the present economic situation with regard to the wages paid generally in industry.
I feel that a significant fact should be taken into consideration. In the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, minimum wages of $1.25 would not affect a great many people, since I can say that 99 per cent of organized workers in Quebec earn much more than $1.25 an hour. At any rate, from a practical point of view this would not affect anybody.
On the other hand, in view of the situation prevailing in the maritimes, it will not be possible to apply this legislation in the same way, because it will cause problems and difficulties. That is why, discretion must be used.
The minister proposes $1.25 an hour. I think this initial proposal should be accepted, unless the majority of the house feels that it would be advisable to do better, even if it is necessary to review it in a year or two, after the industry as such has adapted itself to those new basic regulations, since we must admit that, on the federal level, there has never been any clear legislation on hours of work, labour conditions, wages and other requirements. Therefore, if that is the first definite undertaking, I think we must be indulgent and understand that following the implementation of that new act a number of suggestions can be made by various organizations throughout the country. In the light of those suggestions, after the act has been in force for some time, we will be able then to judge what was of a temporary nature and what changes are necessary to meet actual needs.
However, something in this bill is a matter of concern. I note that many decisions are left to the minister's discretion under various clauses, namely certain conditions and hours of work in a given week. We must of course trust the administration; however, I think it would be better to put or write into the statute the conditions to be met by the company to benefit from, let us say, an exemption from a section of the act.
We see in clause 9 namely, that at the minister's discretion any concern upon an application might be exempted from that clause in particular. If I were mean I could suggest that this might allow a minister in particular to indulge in a certain amount of patronage, but I shall not do so on this occasion since the minister who holds that position at present is unbiased. Unfortunately, one must consider that he will not always hold this office.
[Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John).!
There is also something I should like to point out, that is the apparent consultation that could exist between the federal Department of Labour and that of the various provinces of Canada. I do not know whether there was consultation behind the scenes but, officially speaking, there does not seem to have been any. The Minister of Labour did not undertake the introduction of this bill without taking certain precautionary measures, as he is a realistic man. He must have had consultations with his colleagues in the various provinces in order to ascertain their views in regard to this proposal which he intends to have carried by the house.
It is interesting to note the objection that was raised by the trucking business throughout this country.
Naturally one wonders how much the trucking industry will be affected by this bill. Personally, I feel that very few truckers will come under it and even in their case, I doubt very much that they will be affected seriously enough for their business to suffer.
From my own observations most of the companies I consulted would not be seriously affected by this legislation because most of their business is carried on within the limits of the province where they operate. I think we should listen to their representation but, on the other hand, we should not systematically oppose this bill on the sole basis of the objections raised by certain truckers. I think the minister would be well advised to introduce amendments in order to meet the needs of the trucking business.
I believe the arguments raised were mostly concerned with working hours. Wages did not appear to be the main problem. It was working conditions that seemed most difficult and almost unapplicable.
And lastly, I feel sure the minister has some suggestions to make, and we will be very happy to listen to what he has to suggest in order to give satisfaction to all concerned.
There are, of course, other proposals in this bill. Another I find quite sound is the one providing work for the handicapped at a minimum wage lower than that prescribed by the legislation, after special authority has been granted. I understand the point of view of the minister, who wanted to allow the handicapped to have part time employment or to do light work, as they say in industry. I think the minister was considerate, since at the present time a number of persons affected by some disability can be assigned to a job,

which under normal conditions, would call lor someone physically fit.
In any event, I shall conclude my remarks, since it is my belief that, on the whole, the bill is good, and should generally meet our approval; we might put forward some amendments when we examine the various clauses, so as to make light changes in this bill.
I hope, after all these explanations, that we may, in a year or two, see the possibility of amending the bill in the light of the experience gained.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, after taking a look at clause 5 and at some other clauses of this Bill No. C-126, I wonder whether the principles set forth in this bill are not basically unsound. It seems to me that the federal government is interfering in a field that should be left to the judgment of private enterprise and of recognized unions existing in this country. If the government would propose legislation to give more power to the labour movement, I think this would give better results than would be achieved by the bill under scrutiny.
Here we are faced with legislation dealing with working hours which it is intended to restrict to 40, with minimum wages which are to be set at $1.25, with annual holidays in federal works, undertakings an businesses. Now, federal undertakings and businesses do not concern only what is happening on parliament hill and do not involve only civil servants, but they deal with many other things, for instance the railways and the trucking employees of the C.N.R., the C.P.R., etc, etc. Those are government businesses, government undertakings.
As was pointed out a while ago, by the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard), this legislation seriously affects the trucking industry or private trucking companies, not only in the province of Quebec, but also in other provinces, I am sure. Why create difficulties, not only through this legislation, but also through the grants given government corporations but denied to private enterprises?
Mr. Chairman, are winter works considered as federal undertakings or businesses? In this field, there are unincorporated communities in certain regions-my region is one of them-where the federal government allows people to be paid 85 or 90 cents per hour.
Under the new act will those performing winter works be guaranteed $1.25 an hour? The minister gives no such assurance, nor does the bill.
Canada Labour Code
Some will say that winter works concern the province and the federal government and that they are joint programs. Now, can we say that joint programs, to which the federal government contributes the larger share, come under the federal government? Many questions could be put to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen).
As a matter of fact, here is a question related to Bill No. C-126. Clause 5 which we are now considering deals with hours of work and states that an employee shall not work more than eight hours a day or 40 hours a week.
Today, in many parts of the country, and thanks to the work of labour unions, agreement was reached on the 40 hour week.
For example, in my constituency the steel workers of America union leaders entered into a contract with representatives of No-randa mine. Th,e contract stipulates that employees shall not work more than 40 hours in any given week. Therefore, this does not require the intervention of the federal government nor the adoption of Bill No. C-126.
In many other areas and in other economic sectors of the province and the country, those hours of work are already in force under contracts entered into between employers and employees. But why adopt a labour code and thus create confusion and embarrassment, for instance, to private industry and more particularly to the trucking industry, as I said earlier?
The Minister of Labour is perfectly aware of the cases submitted to our attention.
In any case, we will no doubt have the opportunity until tomorrow to submit official representations from the truckers association of the province of Quebec and other parts of the country.
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, it seems to me that this bill and its principles are basically wrong. Personally, I have more confidence in an agreement entered into between free labour unions and free industries than in a piece of legislation or an act whereby everybody is forced into what I would qualify as disloyal competition, in many fields.
As a matter of fact, when this bill becomes law, everybody will insist on a 40 hour week or an eight-hour working day, because the federal government will grant that to all firms coming under its jurisdiction.
But this will create other difficulties for those who are not bound to the federal government. For instance, there are the small businessmen, those who operate service sta-

Canada Labour Code
tions, the comer grocers, to whom this piece of legislation will be detrimental.
There are still places where it is financially and physically impossible to grant the 40 hour week or the eight-hour working day. Will not Bill No. C-126 create more difficulties for these people, these small businessmen, the owners of corner stores? Is this legislation likely to preserve or safeguard the rights of the numerous small businessmen there are throughout the country? Mr. Chairman, those are the few remarks I wanted to make concerning clause 5 governing hours of work.
Until we finish considering the bill we will come back to other specific points, especially the matter of transportation, trucking companies and competition with which private industry is faced under the pretext that the government must absorb more and more deficits, while we make good these deficits with the money collected from private companies.
Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should consider very seriously, not only the clause concerning minimum wages, but also that concerning hours of work, to see whether it would not be preferable to let unions and employers discuss this matter of hours between themselves.
It seems to me that by so doing, we would respect the freedom of the employee, the freedom of the employer, the freedom of the union. A strait-jacket would not be imposed in any way on anybody.
As for minimum wages, I should like the minister to answer the question I asked him a little while ago; that is, whether winter works are considered as undertakings of the federal government and whether those who will take part in the carrying out of winter works in unincorporated parishes will enjoy the same benefits and the same advantages and will get $1.25 an hour?


Mr. Temple:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to direct my remarks to subclause 1 of clause 5 of the bill in so far as this part affects railroaders, and when I refer to railroaders I have particularly in mind the running trades including engineers, firemen, trainmen and conductors.
The men in these trades are paid on a mileage basis rather than by the hour. There is a good reason for this arrangement. It is very difficult to estimate how long it will take a train to run from a certain point to another point, because this depends on whether it is a passenger, an express or a
[Mr. Caouette.l
manifest train. All of these factors must be taken into consideration to understand the difficulty, if not impossibility, of applying the provisions of clause 5 to the railway running trades.
What might often happen is that a freight train, not being a manifest train, travelling from Belleville to Scarborough, a distance of 100 miles, may take eight, nine or ten hours because of the amount of traffic on that main line, whereas a fast passenger train might make the same trip in two hours. Of course I realize that this time factor is averaged out during the course of the year because crews on freight trains will sometimes be operating fast through freights, but it is very difficult to state when the averaging out process will take place.
What could happen under the terms of this clause, although I am sure it will not, is that a crew operating a train on its way from Montreal to Brockville, for example, would use up the allotted time before completing the trip and under the terms of this legislation would then have to stop operating. As I have suggested, this will not happen because we will not allow our transportation systems to be tied up.
Perhaps I should not skip ahead, but I must state that I have had the opportunity of considering the amendments to clause 5, and feel very sure that the minister in his wisdom will not impose these hours of work when it is obvious that such an imposition would be prejudicial to the employees.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring these facts to the attention of this committee because I feel sure that the railroad running trades merit consideration in respect of the application of the terms of clause 5 of this bill.


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the purposes of this bill, which I understand is to spread more equitably the wealth of this country arising from our national productivity. However, I do feel we should approach this matter with caution because it will interfere somewhat with the status quo, and whenever we interfere with things of this kind we are bound to create some hardships, as well as afford some benefits.
Now, the act sets forth the standard hours and wages that shall apply to federal works, undertakings and businesses. On behalf of the feed dealers in our area, the local feed mills and elevator operators, I wish to raise a point. I assume in doing so, Mr. Chairman, that these people know what they are talking about. They feel that they are included

in the hours of work provision contained in this Bill No. C-126. I do not know how, by any stretch of the imagination, local elevators and feed mills could be considered to come within these classifications. I can understand how the large grain elevators situated along our lakes and rivers, and through which pass the flow of grain from the prairies, could come under the act. However, I do not understand how a feed mill in one of the villages in our area, which buys its grain from elevators at Goderich or Sarnia and brings it in carloads or truckloads to the mill, mixes the feed and sells it to the local community, could be considered as a federal work, undertaking or business. It is purely local.
These people have submitted to their local representatives in this house their views in this regard. They say the following:
Through announced decision of the federal Minister of Labour all feed mills and grain elevators in Ontario will become subject to the provisions of the proposed Canada labour (standards) code. With stated applicability to "federal works, undertakings and businesses" it was surprising to learn that feed and grain elevator operations of all kinds were being so classified for purposes of this labour legislation. Inability to obtain any explanation for declaring local feed mills and elevators to be "works for the general advantage of Canada" it can only be assumed that such businesses were accidentally grouped with terminal and western elevators licensed under the Canada Grain Act.
I hope the minister will clear up this situation for us. These people go on to say this:
Opposition to enforced involvement under this legislation is not based on any wish or desire to restrict the earning power of employees of member firms. The operation of an average feed mill or local grain elevator does not lend to shift work or the employment of casual labour at peak production periods or seasonal pressures that occur during harvesting seasons. Operational skills that are only gained through training and experience are required for successful plant performance and customer servicing. Key employees cannot be relieved by inexperienced labour during rush periods nor can plants afford anything less than the fullest utilization of available manpower.
The situation is quite understandable. There are only one or two men around such a mill and they have to be credit managers, salesmen, buyers and do whatever else there is to be done around the mill. Casual labour cannot be brought in to do this sort of thing. These people go on to say:
Another point to be borne in mind is that this is the initial step taken toward government control over payrolls and working conditions on a national basis. Before the act has been approved by parliament, powerful labour organizations are clamouring for higher minimum rates of pay than provided for under the present bill. Largely situated in rural areas-
Canada Labour Code
I think this is very important.
-or among the less populated centres of the province, local feed mills and grain elevators are not required to compete with large industrial centres for their labour requirements. If forced to operate under jurisdiction of the federal labour code, mills and elevators so situated would be automatically deprived of an opportunity to take advantage of labour pay rates that prevail locally.
Perhaps the most unreasonable feature of the minister's ruling to this section of the industry is that members of the local feed and grain trade are being placed under federal labour jurisdiction, while unrelated business operations of local character are subject only to provincial labour regulations.
We strongly urge that local feed mills and grain elevators be defined as other than federal works.
One certain effect of bringing these local feed mills-I am not saying so much about grain elevators-under this legislation will be an increase in farm costs at a time when farmers all across this country are complaining of the serious cost-price squeeze. I think the minister and the government, Mr. Chairman, should take a close look at this situation as it relates to local feed mills and grain elevators. I hope the minister will explain to us, for the benefit of these people, why they are included. Perhaps he will tell us whether or not they were intended to be included. Perhaps he could tell us if he will give serious consideration to exempting these local feed mills and grain elevators from the provisions of this legislation.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, tonight I have a few remarks to make respecting Bill No. C-126, but I believe this piece of legislation as a whole is acceptable if it tends to improve workmen's lot. Surely any measure tending to improve workers' conditions in life must be supported. I for one intend to make only remarks likely to further improve, if possible, that piece of legislation.
I think the minister should be told to improve the bill, especially clause 5, which could bring about conflicts of authority between the federal and provincial governments.
That is why I feel the minister, with the help of his assistants, should thoroughly examine this legislation in every detail to make it as adequate as possible.
The main reason I rose to speak was to mention also that we have received numerous complaints, particularly from trucking companies. In my opinion, those complaints should be studied and examined closely in order not to antagonize or annoy this sector of our industry with useless problems.

Canada Labour Code
Since I am using the French version of the bill and have received only the English version of the amendments, I wonder if the minister has a French version of the amendments in question. Such a translation would enable us to follow the debate more closely because we often discover discrepancies between the French and English versions when we compare them one with the other. Consequently, I should like to know whether the minister has a French version of the amendments.


Mr, Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, in common with other hon. members I think this legislation is very commendable. However, it is my opinion that the particular clause we are discussing is rather restrictive. I do not think it is proper that parliament should legislate that a person unfortunate enough to be employed at the minimum wage rate of $1.25 be restricted to earnings of $50 a week or, as is the case under clause 8, $65 a week.
The fourth line in clause 5(1) reads:
-no employer shall cause or permit an employee to work longer hours than eight hours in any day or forty hours in any week.
This is very restrictive. Labour unions and organizations have worked long and hard to bring about the eight hour day and 40 hour week, but we all realize that on industrial contracts, when unions are engaged in wage negotiations, provisions are made so that workers be paid time and a half for overtime, double time for Sundays and holidays, and so forth. It is restrictive to legislate anything on hours of work which would deprive an ambitious person of working overtime if the opportunity be presented him.
This is something which could easily be governed by strengthening the legislation in respect to overtime. On the other hand, this is a protection for the worker. If a man chooses not to work more than 40 hours a week or eight hours a day there is no way in which an employer could discriminate against him.
I realize this legislation will cause improvement in a great number of cases, but I believe it essential that a worker who wants the opportunity should be permitted to earn more than $50 a week, or as is the case under clause 8, $65 a week.


Mr. Hales:: I shall be brief, Mr. Chairman. I am in sympathy with the general intent and purpose of the bill but it has such wide ramifications, and I believe the minister should hesitate before seeking to have it passed. I
[Mr. Ricard.l
first refer to the household goods moving business, these people who have a unique problem in that their busiest season is a short one, from June to September. They have to move goods from one given point to another in the quickest possible time in order to please their customers, and therefore this legislation will be a great burden to them. I ask the minister to consider excluding the furniture moving industry from the provisions of this bill because I believe that it is entirely different from any other type of transportation business.
I am also concerned about interprovincial transportation firms and the hardship this will cause when moving agricultural products to eastern Canada. Eastern farmers have great difficulty securing adequate returns from their farms, and the provisions of this bill will add insult to injury by imposing additional cost on the haulage of grain and cattle by motor transport to eastern Canada. In conclusion, I feel this is legislation by regulation rather than by an act of parliament, which was the minister's original intention.


Maurice Côté: Mr. Chairman,
while we are considering clause 5 of Bill No. C-126, I should like to call the attention of the house to certain remarks made to me by one of my former fellow citizens, Mr. Robert Auclair, now a resident of Quebec city, who, moreover, addressed the same remarks to the Minister of Labour.
I must point out to the minister that Mr. Auclair is a prominent expert in labour legislation and, in addition, has a thorough knowledge of the French language. When he sent his brief to the Minister of Labour about clause 5 and several others, he stressed the importance of wording this bill in international French, that is, by using the same French terms used by the International Labour Organization and throughout the French speaking world.
Therefore, it is most important that the bill should be in excellent French.
In this case, for instance, the words "heures de travail" are used whereas, according to international French, the expression "duree du travail" would be called for. On another point, section 5 speaks of "jours de conge payes" whereas it should refer to "jours feries".
Such is the case for a number of words that have been translated.
Of course, all the acts proposed to the house were first thought out in English and

then translated into French. It is a serious drawback for French, and international French should be used.
That is why I point out to the Minister of Labour the importance of a good French text and I urge him to review the remarks made by Mr. Robert Auclair who is one of the greatest experts in labour law that I know of in the province of Quebec.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the minister's remarks when he endeavoured to explain how this bill and how he and his department would deal, by way of regulations, with a number of matters that have been brought to the attention of members of the committee by employees and employers. However, I think he will have to be considerably clearer in his explanations before many employees and employers know just where they stand. I know that both employees and employers are extremely interested in this legislation. They have studied it carefully. As I said, many of our members have had representations made to them by grain elevator operators, by railway employees and by employees as well as employers in the trucking industry. I have had many representations made to me by people engaged in the aircraft industry as well as by those in the tractor freight hauling industry who operate interprovincially.
There is also a special case which arises within the mining industry. Many of the operations I have in mind involve a great deal of work in outlying areas-bush work, in other words-and the employees themselves, in these circumstances, have a strong and understandable desire to work for longer than eight hours. They cannot see the sense of going in to areas where there is nothing much to do except work and sleep, and still be limited to an eight hour day. I believe this has been pointed out to the minister. I am speaking now for the employees themselves, although a longer working day does make for a much more economic operation on the part of the employers. These arrangements can be worked out satisfactorily between employer and employee. The men can go into the bush and work for much longer hours than eight; they can get the job finished much more quickly, to the satisfaction both of themselves and of their employers.
In all the cases which have been brought to my attention the employees are just as much interested in the legislation we are considering now as are the employers. I believe
Canada Labour Code
some of the things which the minister said need to be made much clearer. We have an amendment before us which deals directly with the clause we are now discussing. It is an amendment to clause 7 and it contains the words "except as may be otherwise prescribed by the regulations, hours of work in a week shall be so scheduled". When are these regulations to be drawn up and how are they to be drawn up? I know we are obliged to be relevant to the clause under consideration at the present time, but may I refer briefly to another amendment which has been handed to us? The amendment to clause 51 ends with the words-
-the governor in council, upon the recommendation of the minister and with or without an inquiry pursuant to section 35 may, by order, vary or amend from time to time any order made under such section (2) or extend from time to time any period fixed in any such order, or revoke any such order-
And so on. I am wondering whether these regulations are likely to cover some of the points I have specifically brought to the minister's attention. Consider, for example, the case of tractor trailor operators hauling goods interprovincially. It is impossible for them to confine their work to eight hours a day. How can they have stations throughout their haul so as to provide for new crews taking over these jobs at the end of eight hours? Then men must work around the clock to get the job completed. I wonder whether there is to be an exception made in such cases as these. The minister told us there would be deferment of the regulations with respect to certain industries or categories of work covered by this legislation. What does he mean by "deferment"? Will deferment take place only upon an application from the industry concerned or is there to be a definite deferment granted in respect of certain industries when the bill takes effect? I should like to have a fuller explanation of this aspect of the measure.
The minister also said that situations such as I have brought to the attention of the committee could probably be rectified by the issuing of permits. Would a special application have to be made in respect of each and every job or is there to be a "blanket" permit issued to particular industries covering their employees? I hope the minister can answer these questions before we are asked to vote on the clause before us.
On a number of occasions the bill uses the words "an industry in continuous operation". Can the minister asure us that the bill will spell out just what is considered to be continuous operation?

Canada Labour Code
That is about all I have to say at this time. I should particularly like the minister to inform me whether certain industries which would normally fall under the provisions of this bill are to be granted deferment and if so, whether this will be consequent upon application or not.


Mr, Barnett:: Subclause 1 of clause 5 of the bill says that the working hours of an employee shall not exceed eight hours in a day and 40 hours in a week. Listening to some of the members of this committee who have taken part in the discussion I found myself wondering whether they assumed that this was all clause 5 said. As I read it, however, the very first line of the clause states: "except as otherwise provided". My impression is that, far from being a restrictive and rigid clause, the provision as the minister has put it forward errs on the side of being too fluid. In other words, it is likely to depend a great deal on the approach taken by a particular minister of labour in a particular administration whether the provision of a 40 hour week and an eight hour day really means anything, or not.
However, I did not rise to discuss the broader aspects of this bill. Rather, it is my intention to consider one or two specific questions. The first is one which has been posed to me, namely "what is work"? There is a definition clause included in the bill. We are told what a day is. We are told what an employer is. We are told what wages are and what trade unions are. But nowhere does the clause define what "work" is. I think this is an important consideration in relation to the point made in clause 5-
-no employer shall cause or permit an employee to work longer hours than eight hours in any day or 40 hours in any week.
I may say that this particular question was raised with me by those who are concerned with the nature of employment in the airline industry, particularly. It has been explained to me that theoretically, at least, certain employees can be at the call of the employer for as long as 24 hours and for a period of 20 days a month, though they are not actually called upon to do any flying.
Here is a case where the question of what constitutes work becomes important. Are those employees being employed by the employer inasmuch as they have to remain at his call, at least by a telephone, for 24 hours a day? Are they working for those 24 hours, or are they not? I think this is a rather important question and certainly as far as I am concerned the minister should be prepared to

give us an indication as to whether this kind of thing, if it is not going to be specifically defined in the definitions section of the bill, is going to be set out in a detailed and understandable way in the regulations so that there will be no doubt whatever as to what constitutes work and when an employee is working for his employer and when he is not.
The minister is probably aware of the fact that in many trade union agreements in various jurisdictions within the country there have been negotiated provisions for what is normally referred to as call time, or some variation of that term, and that employees in many cases under those agreements are eligible to receive certain payments or wages from the employer even though they may not actually be physically or mentally working the hours that are provided for under those agreements. This is one of the very important aspects of this bill that I would like to see further clarified by the minister either now or at least at some time before we complete the consideration of this clause.
I, like other hon. members, was interested in the outline of certain suggested amendments which the minister intends to propose to this part and to the related provisions of clause 51. Undoubtedly the impact of his proposals in this connection will have to receive rather careful consideration; but on this particular point I would like, as I say, to have some real clarification from the minister on his views as to whether a definition could be included within the terms of the bill or whether it is a matter which it is intended to define by regulation in its relationship to different industries; and if this is the case, I would ask the minister what kind of definitions he has in mind.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, in connection with clause 5(1) I have a few comments to offer. First I would like to ask the minister, is this Bill C-126 applicable to small, independent, local retail feed mills? I ask what has been the minister's attitude and response to the representations made by small, local retail feed merchants across this country, particularly in eastern Canada.
The local retail feed mill is a valuable and indispensable entity in the local economy in each village and surrounding rural area which it serves. These mills are usually privately operated and even the owner has to wear overalls and work along with his staff to make a living. They usually give employment to village residents who work variable hours as the needs of seasonal fluctuations of the local trade require.

These establishments, though usually sufficiently financed for and geared to the local economy, cannot afford to waste any money or time. They operate without frills and are devoid of any fringes of extravagance or pretension. Usually the remuneration of employees is commensurate with the amount of business that the mill does per week, and with the tonnage output sometimes a governing factor. I do not see any excuse for the long fingers of federal authority to suddenly grasp and strangle the frugal economy of the local, independent feed mill. I have here a communication from one family operated mill in my area and I wish to put the remarks of the owner on the record at this time. He says:
We feel that this bill should not apply to local feed mills, which in most cases 50 per cent or better of our business is retail. Some feed businesses in Ontario do not have any machinery. In this case I suppose they would come under the province instead of the dominion government.
I would suppose so, too:
We are definitely opposed to a 40 hour work week and opposed to being under federal labour jurisdiction while other places of business in our area are under provincial. I think we must have been grouped in with terminal and western elevators accidentally.
The communication that he sends from the Ontario retail feed dealers association also raises various points which I should like to place on the record at this time. They are as follows:
Through announced decision of the federal Minister of Labour all feed mills and grain elevators in Ontario will become subject to provisions of the proposed Canada labour (standards) code. With stated applicability to "federal works, undertakings and businesses" it was surprising to learn that feed and grain elevator operations of all kinds were being so classified for purposes of this labour legislation. Inability to obtain any explanation for declaring local feed mills and elevators to be "works for the general advantage of Canada" it can only be assumed that such businesses were accidentally grouped with terminal and western elevators licensed under the Canada Grain Act.
Then they say:
Opposition to enforced involvement under this legislation is not based on any wish or desire to restrict the earning power of employees of member firms.
I know that many of these firms pay far more than what would accrue from a 40 hour week at $1.25 an hour:
The operation of an average feed mill or local grain elevator does not lend to shift work or the employment of casual labour at peak production periods or seasonal pressures that occur during harvesting seasons. Operational skills that are only gained through training and experience are required for successful plant performance and customer servicing. Key employees cannot be relieved
Canada Labour Code
by inexperienced labour during rush periods nor can plants afford anything less than the fullest utilization of available manpower.
They go on with another point:
Another point to be borne in mind is that this is the initial step taken toward government control over payrolls and working conditions on a national basis. Before the act has been approved by parliament, powerful labour organizations are clamouring for higher minimum rate of pay than that provided for under the present bill.
Largely situated in rural areas or among the less populated centres of the province, local feed mills and grain elevators are not required to compete with large industrial centres for their labour requirements. If forced to operate under jurisdiction of the federal labour code, mills and elevators so situated would be automatically deprived of an opportunity to take advantage of labour pay rates that prevail locally.
Perhaps the most unreasonable feature of the minister's ruling to this section of industry is that members of the local feed and grain trade are being placed under federal labour jurisdiction, while unrelated business operations of local character are subject only to provincial labour regulations.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that type of local, independently operated feed mill should be in a similar category to the general store across the road or any other small village retail outlet.
Regarding the trucking industry I have received another communication from an independent trucker and mover in my area which I should like to put before the committee. He says:
I am most concerned about Bill C-126 introduced before the House of Commons in the month of October. Certain proposals incorporated in this bill can only result in serious and costly delays for many thousands of citizens moving household effects.
I strongly urge that suitable amendments be made in this bill, which incidentally has already received its second reading. I present the following economic facts for your consideration:
(a)	The limitation of 40 hours per week will seriously affect the economic welfare of our employees due to the short, concentrated moving season, June to September.
(b)	The limitation of 40 hours per week will be highly injurious and discriminatory to operators of interprovincial van services, (not all companies operate interprovincially) and discrimination is contrary in the principles of Canadian civil rights.
(c)	The economic use of manpower would be seriously hampered by the restriction of an eight hour day thus increasing substantial amount and thereby increase the cost of living.
(d)	Speed of transportation is a necessary factor in today's economy; if this bill is passed it will prolong the time taken from point to point at the inconvenience of the public.
(e)	The restrictions to the hours of employment would result in higher costs for the movement of armed forces personnel, a cost that would undoubtedly fall upon the taxpayers.
(f)	Many moves, even local removals, entail hours of work in excess of an eight hour day.

Canada Labour Code
Other countries have recognized the importance of this factor. Any restrictions to such moves would be contrary to the public's interest.
May we urge you, sir, to recommend that an amendment is incorporated into Bill C-126 before it becomes law, to exclude the household goods moving industry.
Then, Mr. Chairman, another person from my area who is in the same type of business writes as follows:
I am an employee and shareholder in an inter-provincially licensed household goods mover. The legislation before the house would seriously restrict the operation of my company if it were to become law. We would be unable to operate competitively from coast to coast or from Ontario to either coast.
Our business is very seasonal: for example, the Department of National Defence gives us most of their business between July and August and are themselves committed to a policy of summer moving. This, being a branch of the federal government, it would appear that the proposed bill and government policy are at cross purposes.
I also feel rather strongly that I now will have to bring up my children in a country where it appears the willingness to work long and hard will have no benefit and where their work will be restricted to 2,000 hours per year. Surely you, nor no member of parliament, could do your duties inside of 2,000 hours per year. Why then must we be restricted to this figure?
I would point out to you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the vital economic concern of these two branches, you might say, of the retail service and industry, the small feed mill and the local mover; and I would respectfully ask the minister to govern himself accordingly in the final promulgation of this bill.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, before the Christmas recess some of us asked questions about this legislation and expressed the fears and apprehensions which were being felt by certain sections of industry as they examined the legislation more closely. I refer in particular to clause 5, which I agree is very important to the entire piece of legislation.
The minister has given us this evening the benefit of his new thinking and has proposed at least two new amendments which seem to be an improvement to the bill. However, as the former minister of labour has outlined on behalf of the trucking industry, I think there will still be some fears and apprehensions about the bill. I think that further assurances will be needed and I want to put forward very briefly the plight of the longshoremen who have a very seasonal type of occupation. I refer to those in the port of Saint John, and I think the situation is about the same at Halifax. These workers have a few precious months of activity, and some of

them might put in 70 hours a week. They must not be penalized, Mr. Chairman, by this legislation.
As I understand the bill, Mr. Chairman, there are three ways in which their problem could be dealt with, and the minister referred to them in Halifax. As I understand it, the averaging section of the bill could be of some use to them. Under clause 35, as the minister has mentioned, their case could be referred for further consideration. Similarly clause 51 could provide a method for dealing with the longshoremen. However, I think that clause 51-we can, of course, ask detailed questions later-might be of only temporary assistance and would have the effect of making the longshoremen think that by agreeing to this someone might be getting a foot in the door of their industry. I think something more definite must come from the minister regarding their situation.
I realize that the minister cannot usurp his authority under these sections of the bill and tell us in advance how some sections of industry are going to be treated, but I do feel that definite assurances will have to be given to the longshoremen and that they should have particular consideration. When the time comes for the minister to reply, either now or later when these clauses come up, I think he should in all fairness be more specific than he has so far. He is on the right track but he just has not gone far enough yet.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, just a few words. First of all I would like to thank the minister for sending me a French copy of the amendment to clause 7 of the bill. The minister did not have time to answer me a while ago, but I presume that the amendment to that particular clause was not yet ready in French. Since I have before me a copy, which seems to have been typewritten rather quickly, of an amendment to clause 7 of the bill, it seems obvious that the amendments are not ready in French. I would like the minister to tell us if we will get tomorrow a French copy of the amendments to clause 5.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 5 carry?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, quite a number of questions have been asked which I think should be answered before any part of this bill is passed. We have had an opportunity of considering the proposed amendments to clause 7 of part I, and clause 51. I asked a number of questions regarding these proposed

amendments which I think should be answered by the minister, and I am not prepared to allow this clause to pass unless we have the assurance of the minister that these questions will be satisfactorily answered.
One of the questions I asked related to whether any industries had made representations in respect of this bill. I should like to receive a list of those industries which have made representations, as well as a list of the labour unions which have made representations. Have these industries and labour unions been apprised of the proposed amendments, and have they indicated that they appropriately cover their peculiar problems and situations.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any point in passing these clauses if the result of this legislation will create chaos and dissatisfaction in various industries, and among their employees.
I also asked whether the terms of this bill will apply to the construction industry, and I should like to have an answer to that question. Another important aspect of this situation relates to uniformity of labour legislation between the federal government and the provinces. Have the provinces been approached in this regard and have they agreed to pass uniform legislation in order to bring about uniformity in this area?
Those are just some of the questions that have been asked which I feel the minister this bill. Surely there is no point in passing the hours of work portion of it before receiving appropriate answers to our questions.
I should also like to make a comment in respect of the proposed amendment to clause 51. I feel that this clause gives the governor in council and the minister great powers to amend from time to time, with or without any inquiry, any part of part II. This gives tremendous power to the minister and there is no provision for an appeal by individuals who may be affected. I am not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will pass, with or without inquiry, certain amendments which will affect an entire industry, but he might pass something, with or without inquiry, by amendment or amendments to the regulations applicable to one business or one part of an industry. Certainly this situation needs further study before we pass this hours of work portion of the bill and before we accept these proposed amendments.
Perhaps the minister can commence his answers before ten o'clock, though I am sure he cannot complete them in the remaining three minutes. I might suggest to the
Business of the House
minister that in order that we may scrutinize these amendments more thoroughly we now call it ten o'clock and continue our consideration tomorrow.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I would like also to receive answers to the questions I have asked before agreeing to pass any part of this bill. I want to know how the minister relates the inclusion of local feed mills to federal works, undertakings and business. Surely the minister should answer that question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, naturally I expect to answer as many questions as I can, and I thank hon. members for their interest in this particular part of the bill. I think perhaps we should wait until tomorrow before I begin to do so, so I am quite agreeable that we now call it ten o'clock. I will attempt to deal with all the questions that have been asked when we return to our consideration of this bill tomorrow.


Michael Starr: Perhaps I might also ask the minister whether he will consider allowing the committee more time to thoroughly study this bill by proceeding with other less controversial parts which may be passed without too much difficulty, and without the necessity for so many questions, and then come back to these proposed amendments. Would the minister consider that suggestion?


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the desire of the committee to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue our consideration of the bill now before us. When that consideration has been completed, the government proposes to call item No. 76 on today's order paper to be followed by items Nos. 54, 92, 48 and 52.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw one other matter to the attention of the house. The order paper as it now stands contains items 44A and 44B, which are flag resolutions. In view of the action which has been taken, and was completed yesterday, I think it would be in order to ask this house to drop those two items from the order paper. With the consent of the house, that will be done.

Business of the House Mr. Speaker: Is the suggestion of the hon. minister agreed to by the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the house leader can tell us what the program is for Thursday?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not able to do so at the moment, but I hope to consult with the house leaders of the other parties tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 17, 1365