1966-10-27

Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I was questioned with respect to the importation of Volkswagen cars by Studebaker Corporation under the terms of the automotive pact and its predecessor, order in council PC 1963-1/1544. I was asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to table a letter written in this regard by an official of my department.
In so doing let me make it clear that under either of these authorities, and in fact under the authority of the Customs Act and the transfer invoice procedures of very long standing, any person may, before goods are cleared through customs, sell such goods and transfer title to a new owner so that he may become the importer of record. Of course these transactions must be bona fide and supported by the proper customs and other documentation.
In this instance before us inquiries were made by Studebaker as to whether they could carry out such transactions. The answer was "yes", as evidenced by the reply addressed to them by the department, a copy of which, with the consent of the house, I hereby table along with copies of the automotive pact and the related order-in-council, its predecessor order in council and the departmental memorandum and instructions concerning transfer invoices.
The fact that Studebaker could import Volkswagen vehicles free of duty under the automotive pact or its predecessor did not alter this right in any way. Any Canadian manufacturer of motor vehicles who meets the contitions of the relevant tariff items and orders in council has been and is free to import foreign made vehicles of any make.
As hon. members know, the automotive pact is to encourage increased production of motor vehicles and automotive parts in Canada. As part of this plan, which also seeks
rationalization, Canadian manufacturers become entitled to enter vehicles and original equipment parts duty free provided, of course, they meet the conditions under the pact and the related orders in council that entitle them to this free entry.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The house will recall that prior to the automotive pact there was an earlier program which allowed duty free importations of automobiles and parts by a company which earned this right by increasing its exports from Canada of an equivalent value of cars and parts. Studebaker in fact availed itself of the right to import foreign cars on a duty free basis under both the old program and the present program which replaced it.
One of the conditions of the present program which must be met is that the automobile manufacturer in question has to maintain the ratio between his production of automobiles in Canada and his total sales of automobiles in Canada. This condition is spelled out precisely and clearly in a tariff item contained in order in council P.C. 1965-99 dated January 16, 1965 and tabled in the house at the time the automotive pact was under discussion.
This means that if the company chooses to import automobiles from abroad and sell them in Canada it must increase its production in Canada by an amount equivalent to such importations. Studebaker claims to have done this. It can be seen therefore that if Studebaker performed in accordance with the requirements of the relative tariff items it would have raised its total production of cars in Canada, thus creating jobs and providing additional business for Canadian suppliers, which were the central purposes of the automotive program.
Studebaker, a recognized car manufacturer in Canada, which had earned its right to free entry, found itself in the unique position of being unable to import Studebaker cars after the production of their parent company in the United States had ceased. As a result it chose to import other cars, as it was entitled to do because of its greatly expanded manufacturing activities in Canada. It chose to import Volkswagen cars, but before doing so it wrote to the department to ascertain whether it
Oclober 27, 1966

Importation of Volkswagens could purchase and import such cars duty free. As I have pointed out, they were entitled to do so, as any other manufacturer of motor vehicles in Canada would have been, provided they abided by the Customs Tariff, the Customs Act, the relevant orders in council and the established procedures.
The question now is whether or not they in fact did so. This will be established in the course of the departmental audit of their company, to which I have already referred in the house, as it will in the case of all other car manufacturers required to meet not only the terms of the auto pact and related orders in council but also the customs law and established procedures.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that the elaborate explanation given by the minister regarding the transaction cannot be regarded under any circumstances as evidence that jobs in Canada will be provided to Canadians. Let that be perfectly clear. It is very interesting that the investigation into this transaction only began after the latter was revealed, which apparently was only a few days ago.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege-


John George Diefenbaker: The minister can reply afterward.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope we will not get involved in another series of questions of privilege. If the minister thinks he has been misquoted I suggest to him he cannot raise this on a question of privilege, although I do not wish to disqualify him from rising at this time. However, he may consider the wisdom of making the correction later on.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a question of privilege, in that the statement made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is a direct contradiction of what I said in the house and what I said to him privately the day before yesterday. I told him that the investigation was started several months ago.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect to the remark made by the minister, I suggest to him it was not a question of privilege but the type of correction which he is at liberty to make later on.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is very touchy on this. The statement that he made was this, as I remember it although I do not have Hansard before me; that the investigation started before yesterday. This was the statement he made in the house. They waited a long, long while, and the effect of the explanation given to us that the investigation started before yesterday I would regard as an admission that it commenced within very recent days. An investigation that commenced six months ago or longer certainly would not be described in colloquial language as "before yesterday".
I want to refer to the document which was filed, and I thank the minister for filing it. I am in agreement with the terms under which it was filed. These are the words in this letter dated December 3, 1964 from the assistant deputy minister of national revenue to Mr. Grundy, president of Studebaker of Canada Limited:
Dear Mr. Grundy:
I have your letter of November 30, 1964, enclosing a copy of your communication of the same date to Volkswagen (Canada), Limited, Toronto, in connection with the proposed importation of automotive vehicles from Europe.
It is noted therefrom that you contemplate entering into an arrangement whereby your company will import Volkswagen motor vehicles from Germany duty free under the terms of order in council P.C. 1963-1/1544, dated October 22, 1963, and subsequently sell them to Volkswagen (Canada) Limited, Toronto. You request departmental confirmation that the order permits of such customs clearance. In this connection, I would advise that to the extent to which you possess duty free entry privileges as determined under the order, you may import Volkswagen motor vehicles duty free thereunder.
It is noted, too, that you intend to enter the vehicles on the basis of transfer invoices prepared by Volkswagen (Canada) Limited. On the understanding that the documentation presented at customs represents the true transaction, the transfer invoice procedure may be used, provided of course, the terms of departmental memorandum D44-3, copy herewith, are observed.
In accordance with your request, a copy of this letter is being sent to Mr. K. L. Barths, managing director of Volkswagen (Canada) Limited, Toronto.
If this be the offspring of the Canada-U.S. auto agreement, then indeed it is an offspring of which no government can be proud. What this amounts to is that Volkswagen has been able to bring these automobiles into Canada

10,000 of them, I think-through an opening that is provided in the agreement. Does the Canadian consumer benefit as a result? He does not benefit one bit. The tariff of 17 per cent, or whatever the amount is, goes to Studebaker and not to the people of Canada. This thing is wrong and unjustifiable

Oclober 27, 1966	COMMONS
in every sense of the word. Jobs have been lost to Canadians. The Studebaker Company has been permitted to make a large killing at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. It has denied jobs to Canadians, and the minister has the collosal effrontery to say it is good for Canada. This is all I have to say at this point.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Importation of Volkswagens of these companies with respect to this kind of transaction. Because, in spite of what the minister said, this transaction will do nothing to increase jobs for Canadian workers. All it has done so far is deprive the Canadian treasury of $2 million, most of which apparently was taken by Studebaker which was not entitled to that money.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the statement which has just been made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) is indeed contradictory, and I am in full agreement with what has just been said by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), to the effect that this whole transaction, in the final analysis, means only profits for the Studebaker company, which ceased its manufacturing operations in the United States and which the government says still has enough credits to purchase 10,000 Volkswagens and more than 75,000 other automobiles in the future.
The minister tells us also that this authorization given by his department was such as to promote production of cars in Canada. How can production of cars in Canada be promoted when regulations are made and an agreement is signed with the Studebaker company whereby it can, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said a while ago, deprive the federal treasury of a sum of $2 million? They do not do that much for our manufacturers here in Canada. And this agreement with the federal government has no other purpose-it is the only one we can see-than to allow the Studebaker company to continue certain operations in the automobile field in Canada, because Studebaker cars are going off the market.
Now, we allow them to buy cars such as Volkswagens, that Volkswagen dealers could procure before and which brought 17 per cent in customs duties to the federal government, the federal treasury.
Now, we take away that 17 per cent duty from the treasury and put it into the hands of a company to enable its directors or its organization to make profits. This is not even a shadow of action in favour of the Canadian worker and the Canadian taxpayer.
And I also share the views of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). It is shameful to have allowed such a transaction or to have made such an agreement with the Studebaker company. If the minister and the

government really want to increase production and consumption in Canada, instead of allowing a company to make millions of dollars in profits, they should start by cutting taxes for the benefit of the Canadian taxpayers and citizens; the minister and the government could then say: We have truly adopted a piece of legislation or an order in council that will benefit the Canadian citizen.
Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the minister is shameful because the Canadian citizens, the Canadian people are deprived of something that belongs to them. No one has the right to serve the Studebaker company at the expense of the Canadian people, and I maintain that this agreement must be cancelled. If a company no longer exists in Canada or in the United States, it should not be granted credits allowing it to import cars, which leads to some kind of dumping of those cars in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the government to assume its responsibilities and, above all, for the treasury board to recognize that the interests of all Canadians and not those of any company, the Studebaker company or any other, should be the primary concern.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: It seems to us that the whole purpose of the automobile agreement as explained in this house was, first of all, to assist Canada with her balance of payments problem; second, to reduce prices charged to Canadian consumers relative to prices being paid in the United States for similar automobiles

in other words to narrow the differential-and, last, to increase employment in Canada.
If there are loopholes in this agreement, or misuse of the concessions respecting import duties, which would allow a transaction of this kind to be carried out without any of the stated purposes of the agreement being fulfilled, then I think we had better take another hard look at this agreement. I suggest that both Studebaker and Volkswagen must have had some doubts whether a deal of this kind could be made under the agreement and the several orders in council, otherwise they would not have made inquiries of the Department of National Revenue with regard to it.
It seems to me that the government should have assumed responsibility, particularly in the initial stages, for ascertaining whether this transaction fulfilled one or more of the
October 27, 1966
stated purposes of the agreement. If they found that it did not assist Canada in her balance of payments position-and certainly the importation of 10,000 automobiles does not help in that respect; if they found it would not result in lower prices to consumers-and certainly the evidence before us indicates that there was no reduction in price to the consumers at all; and if it did nothing to increase employment in Canada-and surely the importation of 10,000 automobiles does nothing to enhance the prospects of a market for Canadian produced automobiles in Canada, then it seems to me the government should have advised the two companies concerned that a transaction of this kind was not in accordance with the stated purposes which the agreement and the subsequent orders in council were designed to accomplish.
I suggest, therefore, that the government should now take a long, hard second look at this agreement to block loopholes which might allow further transactions of this kind or permit other transactions which would deprive Canada and Canadians of the stated benefits of the agreement.



B.C.-TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN DAM CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
Correspondence between the premier of British Columbia and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), dated September 16 and September 23, 1966.-Mr. Chretien.
Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give leave to the parliamentary secretary to table the documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-240, to amend the Criminal Code (control of motor vehicle).
He said: The objective of this bill is to remove an anomaly which presently exists with respect to sections 222 and 223 of the Criminal Code. The purpose of these sections is to provide certain mandatory penalties for drunk driving and impaired driving, respectively.
Inquiries of the Ministry
As a result of judicial decisions concerning these two sections a situation now exists in which a driver who is either drunk or impaired is, in fact, encouraged to drive his vehicle on the highway rather than remove such a traffic hazard from the road.
A similar anomaly existed in the United Kingdom but was remedied by statute about two years ago. This bill proposes to remedy the situation in like manner.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether the government was giving consideration to something in the nature of a memorial to those who died at Aberfan in such tragic circumstances. Would the right hon. gentleman, in giving such consideration, not feel that the building of a school by Canada to take the place of the one which was destroyed would be a fitting memorial to those boys and girls who died, as well as a recognition of the contribution which the people of Wales have made to our country over the years?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I can assure the right hon. gentleman that in the consideration which is being given to this matter his imaginative and appealing suggestion will be kept very much in mind.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: In
view of the great sympathy of the Canadian people for the residents of Aberfan in their tragic loss, may I ask whether the government has given consideration to offering special assistance to any of these persons who may wish to emigrate to Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member was good enough to tell me he intended to ask this question. I do not know whether consideration is being given to this aspect of the matter, but I shall look into it.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: desire to direct a question to the Prime

October 27, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister regarding the negotiations which are going on between the federal government and the provincial governments with respect to the financing of higher education. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether any provision is being made to ensure that institutions of higher learning which have been approved by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada will continue to receive their fair share of the revenue which is being turned over to the provinces for higher education.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as the procedure we are discussing with the provinces represents a transfer of tax resources to the provinces rather than a direct cash grant to the universities or through the university association, the manner in which the money is to be distributed will be the responsibility of the provinces. But I am aware of the problem my hon. friend has brought up, and when we are discussing how this is to be done in detail we will be glad to take up this matter with the provinces even though it is their responsibility.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that many of these private colleges and universities have built up their facilities on the basis of the assistance they have been receiving from the federal government, would the Prime Minister not agree that the federal government has a moral responsibility to see that these particular private institutions of higher learning are not discriminated against in any transfer of payments?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel we have a responsibility except to indicate to the provinces that we hope the procedures which have been followed in the past by which they did benefit will be followed in the future.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: As a
further supplementary question, would the Prime Minister assure the house that the money that is assigned from the federal government to the provinces will go to education, because we had an instance once where instead of going to universities it went to road building.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the money is going to the provinces in the form of a transfer of tax resources, and the amount of that transfer has been calculated on the basis


of educational costs. There is that relationship between our action and education, but the expenditure of the money itself will be in the hands of the provincial governments.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, as a further supplementary question which has been partially covered by the question put by the hon. member for Bow River, is there no requirement that this refund of tax resources, calculated on the basis of educational costs, will be used for the critical purpose of financing post-secondary and higher education?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There has never been any absolute guarantee in the past that the per capita grants would be added to the educational resources of the provinces, and there is no guarantee in the present proposed procedure that this will happen, but that is our intention, and the decisions we have reached are intended to put the provinces in a better position to meet their educational costs.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: As a
further supplementary, will the Prime Minister say there are absolutely no safeguards from the federal level in regard to independent institutions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I have dealt with that question as well as I could, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in reply to a question which I asked him he undertook to inform the house today what is the amount of money which the federal government is proposing to make available for educational purposes, and the amount which would go to each province. Can he now give us that information?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, after my hon. friend asked that question I was asked a similar but a little more comprehensive one by the leader of the N.D.P., who asked me whether in the statement I am to make to the house at the conclusion of this conference I would include these and other figures. Perhaps my hon. friend would agree to wait, because the figures he seeks will be included in the statement I will be making.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When will this statement be made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we expect the conference to conclude tomorrow around one o'clock, but it may continue into the afternoon. I shall make the statement on Monday, on motions.
October 27, 1966



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
The associate minister replied recently to the request made by Ottawa municipal authorities to use the Tri-Service hospital. The hospital is reported to be only about half full. Does the minister of his department consider the advisability or the possibility of enabling the people of Ottawa and Hull to be admitted to that hospital in emergency cases?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, such was not the purpose of the request made by the city of Ottawa. The Department of National Defence has been asked to consider the possibility of turning over to the city of Ottawa the Tri-Service hospital which we operate for our veterans. We replied that it was impossible. With respect to the allegation that the hospital is not filled to capacity, we established that it was from 75 to 80 per cent full. We have never excluded either the possibility of admitting Ottawa people as emergency cases. The latest example is when a certain bridge collapsed not long ago. As a matter of fact, we readily admitted many casualties of that accident.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister state, on the same occasion, that that hospital would be reserved for the future needs of members of parliament and senators, who are not covered by any hospital insurance plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the critical shortage of livestock cars in western Canada, and particularly in southern Alberta, which has come to my attention through a number of phone calls and telegrams I have received, even as late as this morning. Would the minister look into this matter and use his
Inquiries of the Ministry considerable persuasive influence on the railways to get empty livestock cars back to western Canada as quickly as possible, so the shipment of feeder cattle to Ontario and Quebec can be expedited?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the other day in reply to a question from the hon. member for Bow River I indicated that I had made representations to the C.N.R. on this subject. I shall now be glad to make the same representations to the Canadian Pacific.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know that when the minister really tries, when he turns on that balmy smile of his, he will certainly solve this problem; but I would emphasize to him that there are tens of thousands of cattle now ready for shipment east and the situation is serious. Would he not only communicate with the C.N.R. but use his fine persuasive presence to bring about some action on the part of the C.P.R.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman did not hear my reply to the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I said I had already used my persuasive powers on the C.N.R., and promised to use them on the C.P.R., and I would think that with the combined persuasive powers of the right hon. gentleman and myself there will no doubt be the most astonishing results.


John George Diefenbaker: I would direct the minister's attention to the fact that this morning I communicated with the C.P.R., and I am sure if he will join with me we will get action.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, in asking the minister to speed up his representations to the C.P.R. I would point out that this problem in fact only concerns the C.P.R. lines, and also that cattle have been waiting beside the branch lines in very cold weather since last Saturday.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he advise the house of the reasons that the government changed its stand with regard to the transfer of the NATO permanent headquarters from Paris to Brussels?

October 27, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if this is the type of question that the hon. member would want me to accept at this time?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is in the nature of a follow up to the very informative answers the minister did not give us last week.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government had reservations about moving the council from Paris to some other site at this time. However, the council met yesterday and all 13 countries, with France and Canada, took the position developed some days ago that in the interests of the alliance the council should be moved.
In view of this concensus in which France joined yesterday, Canada joined with the others in this decision, which was accompanied by a reaffirmation on the part of the spokesmen for France that they continue to support the principles and purposes of the alliance, and that they joined in the decision as to the relocation of the council.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. However, in his understandable absence I wanted to direct it to his colleague the Minister of National Revenue, who unfortunately has also left the house. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can answer the question or it can be taken as notice.
When may we expect the introduction of legislation, which the minister forecast, to set up a federal deposit insurance corporation? The urgency of this matter arises because the standing committee is dealing with the revision of the Bank Act, and this new legislation will have an important bearing. I believe it is urgent that we should have this legislation before us as soon as possible.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could take this question as notice. I will discuss it with the Minister of Finance who will make a reply perhaps tomorrow or Monday.
[Mr. Lambert.)



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
This very afternoon the christening and launching of the Grande Hermine, replica of Cartier's Grande Hermine takes place in Lauzon; is it the intention of the government to direct the captain of that ship recalling the early days of our history to head for Gaspe, birthplace of Canada, after its stay at Expo '67?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Gaspe wants to ask a similar question, which will probably also be out of order.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the help that is coming from the other side of this house in respect of this situation. I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he will make sure that this ship will be well protected on its way to Montreal, and that once it leaves Expo grounds he will convince his colleagues that she should be directed immediately to Gaspe.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; Bonavista.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as a follow up to the question I asked yesterday. Did an official of the minister's department investigate the report from Port Hope regarding the situation at the Eldorado Mining Company property?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisler of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as is normal in these matters, I was in touch with both the president of the Eldorado Mining and Refining Company and the chairman of the Atomic Energy Control Board. It was on the basis of information I received from them that I gave an answer to the hon. member's question.
October 27, 1966



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie in his capacity as joint chairman of the committee investigating penitentiary conditions. Will he take under advisement the suggestion that during all future visits to penitentiaries the committee be accompanied by members of the press so the general public will know what conditions exist in these institutions?


Mr. Ian Watson (Chaieauguay-Huniingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to accede to that suggestion. I should also like to invite the hon. member for Skeena to accompany the committee on a planned visit to the Kingston complex of penitentiaries next Friday. I will be happy to arrange for him to come along with the members of the committee.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you leave him there?



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
I would like to ask him whether he is still pursuing his studies of the possibility of removing tolls on Champlain bridge during the repair work on Jacques Cartier bridge. I wonder if he will be passing his exams shortly so that we can know the results.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I am such a poor student.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
As the minister admits himself that he is a poor student in that field, could I ask the Prime Minister to appoint a new Minister of Transport who would do a better job?
Inquiries of the Ministry



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary secretary perhaps I should direct my question to the acting minister. Has there been any change in regard to grade standards of milling grades of wheat as applied at country elevators?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While there may be some urgency to the hon. member's question, it is not apparent to the Chair. If the minister is satisfied that there is some urgency, perhaps he will reply.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bruce asked me the following question as it appears in Hansard at page 9130:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works and is related to questions raised in the past few days concerning the Canadian coat of arms. Would the minister inform the house by whose authorization the advertising orders of his department carry the instruction "Coat of arms not to be printed".
I have had an opportunity to look into this matter, and I found that the use of the coat of arms in newspaper advertisements in respect of calls for tender for the Department of Public Works was stopped in the summer of 1959 by the government-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


George James McIlraith: -headed by the right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. While I am on my feet I might also add that last night the right hon. gentleman during a television broadcast made reference to-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if this is a question of privilege-
October 27, 196&

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope what the hon. minister is about to say has reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Bruce.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has a direct reference to that question. Last night the right hon. Leader of the Opposition during a television broadcast made reference to the matter raised by this question, and in his reference he said "In the last few days, advertisements went out to various newspapers from the Department of Public Works. The instructions are that the coat of arms is not to be included". It will be seen that his reference to "in the last few days" is completely incorrect. I hope the right hon. gentleman will correct that reference at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Bruce has received certain information, and I would require more evidence than the generalization of the minister, who on more than one occasion has made similar statements, before agreeing to any request to withdraw anything of that kind.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: What has happened is too much in keeping with the kind of chiselling this government has been doing.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman requires more evidence, since he seems to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister may want to rise on a question of privilege or on a point of order, but I certainly suggest to him that the mere fact that the right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition has negated a statement made by the minister does not allow him to put more evidence on the record. It seems to me that we would be entering a debate, and we are now on the question period.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, my word was questioned as a result of this unusual procedure. I merely claim the identical right given to the Leader of the Official Opposition. Surely I am entitled to that same right. I ask for no more and no less.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO INVITATIONS TO YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would he indicate whether invitations were extended to representatives of the governments of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories to attend the current federal-provincial conference as observers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to look into that matter, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the normal procedure was followed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Are such representatives in attendance at the conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. gentleman that the normal procedure was followed, but I will look into the detail as to how it was followed.



HATE LITERATURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could he indicate when we might have on the order paper amendments to the Criminal Code in relation to hate literature and its circulation throughout the country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope before long, Mr. Speaker. I have been discussing the matter with the Solicitor General in the last day or two. I hope we can do it next week.



HISTORIC SITES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the minister, while contemplating the perpetuation of the memory of Jacques Cartier as requested by the hon. member for Gaspe and the hon. member for Bonaventure, take into consideration at the same time assuming the cost of the maintenance of the grave of one Thomas D'Arcy McGee, the most eloquent of the Fathers of Confederation, on the eve of our centennial? This grave is badly in need of repair.
October 27, 1966



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister now advise the house of Canada's position with respect to President Johnson's international conference on Water for Peace in Washington next May? Has Canada agreed to attend the conference?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the United States Congress has now authorized funds necessary to set up this conference on Water for Peace. We may therefore expect to receive a formal invitation in the very near future. The views of the provinces will be ascertained at the coming Canadian council of resource ministers' conference in Montreal.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the interest in this conference and the need for a national water policy, has the minister given any consideration to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture that if we need a national water policy the best agency under which to pursue it would be the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister authorized one walking out uniform similar in pattern, style and colour for all members of the armed forces?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister authorize the chief of defence staff to indicate in a public address that one walking out uniform for all officers and other ranks in Canada's unified armed forces would be made available?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the chief of defence staff indicated that the defence staff were
Inquiries of the Ministry designing one that they thought would appeal to the members of the armed forces. They believed they were in the best position to design it because they would be the people who would be wearing it, and I agree with that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The chief of defence staff is reported in the Winnipeg Tribune as saying that he would be happy to see all members of the armed forces wearing the same type of uniform he was wearing. Will the minister take the necessary disciplinary action in respect of this unauthorized statement?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I feel that the chief of defence staff was perfectly authorized to say anything he did. As a matter of fact the defence staff were not only authorized but were directed to inquire into all the technical detail involved in the implementation of government policy, and this they have been doing with great enthusiasm.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A further supplementary question. Will the minister give a clear indication of what is government policy in this respect, instead of these evasive answers to which we have been subjected for months?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was set out in the white paper in 1964.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was not set out in the white paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. We now have the Minister of National Defence saying that the program to establish a single uniform for all members of the armed forces was set out in the white paper in 1964. This, sir, is not true. Evasive and misleading answers are being given by this minister. I challenge him to substantiate his statement.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot see that this is a question of privilege. The hon. member disputes the statement made by the Minister of National Defence. Certainly that is not a question of privilege.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if a minister gives a misleading statement to the house, is that not a question of privilege?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No.
October 27, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are entitled to know what is happening in this connection. Can we not get the truth from the government?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying, "None are so blind as those that will not see".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MacEwan:: Physician, heal thyself.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport in reference to a petition presented to him by retired railway employees asking the minister to review their pensions since the present high cost of living has reduced the purchasing power of some of these pension cheques by almost 100 per cent. Is the minister making such a review?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter, of course, that would have to be considered in the first instance at least by the board of Canadian National Railways. I have communicated to them the representations that have been made to me.



EXPO '67 PASSENGER TRAFFIC FROM SEAWAY PORTS IN FOREIGN SHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. For Expo '67, and in view of the critical lack of Canadian passenger ships on the seaway, would the minister consider obtaining a suspension under section 673 of the Canada Shipping Act to permit British and foreign ships to carry passengers from seaway ports to Montreal in 1967? I am not thinking of the Grande Hermine.


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be
placed on the order paper.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General before he gets away. Has the minister been made aware of the statements issued today by the former superintendent psychologist and social worker of the prison for women in which they make serious charges about the present administration of that institution? If the minister is aware of these statements, has he any comment to make on them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The way the question is put, I do not think it qualifies for the question period. The hon. member might wish to put it on the order paper or perhaps discuss it later.


David Orlikow: Could I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker, and ask the minister whether he has seen the statements issued today by these former officials of the prison for women?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the same question. I still think it is not in order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I understand that the official from his department who visited Europe in order to investigate the execution of the German prisoners who defected to the allies has returned to the capital. Has the minister any report from this official?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Not yet, Mr. Speaker. I expect that he will be reporting through the Judge Advocate General within a day or two.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
October 27, 1966

Transport. Are the terms of reference for the special Atlantic provinces transportation study as generous and specific as those given by the late Mr. King in the mid-20's to the Duncan royal commission?


John Whitney Pickersgill: At least, if not more so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Following the very important meeting that he chaired last night involving the Prime Minister, important members of the cabinet and a delegation from northern Ontario, has the minister any report or statement to make to the house? Could the minister include in that statement the date on which he expects the tabling of the agreement with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the tabling should take place tomorrow. With respect to the representations made yesterday, I have already said to the people present at the meeting that I would answer each of the points raised in their brief. I think their main arguments had to do with the availability of gas in northwestern Ontario. This morning one of my officials telephoned the distributor in the area and was told that the company has never had to refuse supply of firm gas. The problem lies with interruptible gas. The hon. member is quite aware that a pipe line cannot function economically solely on interruptible gas. It is quite certain that the installation of a second pipe line will help to relieve the pressure on gas going to northern Ontario and consequently make more gas available to local industries.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very important statement read to the minister at the meeting last night by the hon. member for Port Arthur, can the minister inform the house whether he has received similar communications or statements from the hon. members for Kenora-Rainy River, Fort William, Nipissing, Cochrane and Al-goma West?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: No similar statements, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources received submissions from western Canada, from the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and from southern Ontario approving the route that has been followed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. One of those approving the route was the distributor in northwestern Ontario, the Northern and Central Company.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister whether it is his intention, when tabling the agreements tomorrow, to make a statement to the house giving the reasons why the government reversed its previous decision with respect to the building of the pipe line through the U.S.A.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I hope I can convince the hon. member that we did not reverse our decision; the first and second were one and the same, to keep the main line in Canada.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Associate Minister of National Defence for his assurances that there will be no large scale lay-offs at the dockyards and ask him whether the persistent rumours indeed deal with the seasonal lay-offs or cut-backs or else have no foundation at all?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, to my
knowledge there is no foundation for the rumours.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Can he confirm whether or not discussions have taken place between C.M.H.C. and the Ontario Housing Corporation regarding the question of new rental scales for public housing in Windsor and in other parts of Canada?
October 27, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I wonder whether this is a proper question. The hon. member is asking whether there have been discussions, and I do not think this is an urgent question.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that some 14 fishermen in my constituency consider the enforcement of the present government wharves regulations to be so arbitrary and unjust that they have allowed themselves to be sued for wharfage charges, by Her Majesty the Queen in the Exchequer Court, can the minister tell us when proposals for amending the present regulations will be brought to the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is a question I can possibly answer on the orders of the day, but I can assure the hon. member I will look into the matter.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE TO CANADIAN FILM INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State. In view of reports to the contrary, can the minister tell us whether it is still the government's intention to bring forward legislation regarding assistance to the Canadian film industry?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Solicitor General, and I apologize for not having given him notice of my intention to do so. In view of the fact that an R.C.M.P. official saw fit to issue parking tickets this morning to officials of the Auditor General's staff who were waiting for certain members

of the public accounts committee to leave the building on official business, would the Solicitor General use his good offices to see that the civil servants in question are not penalized by being barred from promotions in their respective branches?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the question of the hon. member is not in order. I am sure the Solicitor General has noted the representation.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the discrimination arising out of the freight rate revisions and affecting rapeseed, rapeseed meal and oil in the province of Saskatchewan, and will he use his good offices to try to bring the serious implications to the oil seed industry of Saskatchewan to the attention of the railways?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no. Therefore I have not had any opportunity to decide whether there is any discrimination. If there is any discrimination which is forbidden by law I will do my best to see that it is stopped.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. As the minister knows, the Board of Broadcast Governors has just concluded two days of hearings on the future use of high frequency broadcasting bands in Canada. Is it the government's policy to give priority to educational broadcasting when the high frequency channels are allocated? I ask this question because some private broadcasters have been making applications.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts about the great urgency of this matter.
Ociober 27, 1966



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. A few days ago I understood the minister to say on orders of the day that he and some experts were making a study of the question of blasting and its effects on the parliament buildings. Could the minister report on that matter now?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): Yes, Mr. Speaker. A rather thorough check has been made since the question was raised last week and I was advised that no damage was done and that there was no danger in the blasting. In fact, the blasting experts have gone further and have taken the precaution to make sure of all the instrumentation recording the technical qualities of the blast and the type of charges that are being used as well as of the depth of detonation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the investigation that the minister made did he discover the cause for the falling of the plaster when the hon. member for Vancouver East was in the memorial chamber?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would undoubtedly think it was caused by the blasting, but I should inform the house I have been informed that it was from a crack that had been there before and had been repaired. Plaster fell from this crack on an earlier date, apparently because of the noon-day gun.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 26, consideration in committee of the following	resolution-Mr.	Nicholson-Mr. Batten in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to further encourage the demand for housing by increasing the loan ratio for rental housing from 85 per cent of the lending value to 90 per cent of the lending value; by providing that loans made to persons who intend to purchase, improve and occupy existing housing be Insurable on conditions similar to loans made for new housing; by increasing from eight and one-half billion dollars to nine and one-half billion dollars the aggregate amount of all loans that may be insured under the Act; by increasing from three and one-quarter billion dollars 23033-580
National Housing Act
to four billion dollars the maximum charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund for lending by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation; by authorizing the Corporation, with the approval of the government of the province concerned, to make loans for student housing projects which will not be restricted only to the accommodation of university students; by increasing from two hundred million dollars to three hundred and fifty million dollars the amount that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund as loans for student housing projects or reimbursement for losses sustained on loans for such projects; and by extending for an additional three years the period within which the construction of a sewage treatment project in respect of which a loan has been or is to be made under Part VIB of the Act must be completed if the municipality or municipal sewerage corporation is to be forgiven payment of a part of the principal amount of the loan and of the accrued interest thereon.
The Chairman:: Maybe I should advise the committee that pursuant to provisional standing order 61A the time remaining for this debate is two hours and 15 minutes.


Mr. Chatterlon:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks on the proposed amendments to the National Housing Act. The general tenor of the minister's speech yesterday was that the position of house construction in Canada was not too bad this year. I contend that we have arrived at a very serious situation in Canada with regard to house construction. I quote, for instance, from the Monetary Times for October, 1966:
[DOT] (3:50 pm.)
Squeezed by tight money and sharply rising costs, the industry-if their press notices are to be believed-is crumbling at its foundations, and this year will build only 140,000 houses, 110,000 short of the nation's needs. Those that are being built are horrendously costly in terms of the average wage earner's capacity to pay.
The minister himself admitted that this year house construction up to the end of last month has dropped by 23 per cent. I cite the publication Home Building News, September issue, to the effect that July starts were down 27 per cent. The reference is to individual housing. I consider that the position in Canada today with regard to new house construction is similar to what it was in 1956. At that time it was practically impossible to obtain a loan for a new house. In various parts of the country, particularly in British Columbia as I am sure the minister is aware, there are widespread lay-offs in the construction industry. This results in large part from a decreasing demand, as in the United States, but also from the lack of money in Canada to provide new housing.

October 27. 1966
National Housing Act
I realize there is not too much the minister can do by way of providing moneys from conventional sources. I think the minister should consider taking the action we took in 1957 and 1958 and make substantial amounts of government money available for direct loans. It is not good enough for the minister to say-


Mr. Nicholson:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George Louis Chatterton: Certainly.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: How much money did the former government make available in 1958, or in any one year while it was in office? I ask him to compare it with the amount we have made available this year.


George Louis Chatterton: The significant point is that there was a tremendous increase in the amount of money granted by that government compared with what had been available before that. One of the major steps taken by the government to get the country going and out of the recession in which it was when we took office was the stimulation of the construction industry.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member please answer the question? Would he compare the amount of money made available by this government this year with the amount the former government made available in any one year?


George Louis Chatterton: A suggestion might be made that the minister put that question on the order paper, or perhaps he has the answer. I will have the information available. The minister has assured us that direct loans will be available this year for the same number of houses as last year. I contend this is not good enough. Not only are there thousands of Canadians who are unable to obtain loans either directly or from conventional sources, but the shortage of housing is creating a pressure which is increasing the cost of housing. Last year alone, according to figures presented by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the cost of the average house increased by over $900. I do not have any figures for this year, but I understand that in Toronto the cost of the average house has increased by over 20 per cent so far. I feel that the minister should seriously consider making additional moneys available for direct loans.

I turn now for a moment to the question of housing for low income families. The minister takes some apparent satisfaction from the fact that some 1,100 units were built for low income families and another 555 under federal-provincial schemes, making a total so far this year of 1,600 units. In my opinion this is just a drop in a very big bucket. Figures provided by the Senate committee on aging, for instance, show that in 1961 out of 516,000 elderly families 30 per cent to 35 per cent or roughly 180,000 had difficulty in securing housing at a reasonable cost. In that same year, out of 235,000 elderly single people
117.000	had difficulty in finding housing at a reasonable cost. In 1961, therefore, some
300.000	elderly family and non-family households had difficulty in providing housing at a reasonable cost. I am not blaming the present government only. From 1946 to 1963 low dividend housing provided only 8,000 units in the whole of Canada. I contend that the government should take a serious look at the provisions of the National Housing Act and the extent to which it satisfies the tremendous need for housing of families on low incomes.
Certainly raising the interest rate from 5f per cent to 5| per cent was in my opinion completely unwarranted. This is all direct government money and does not come from conventional sources. If anything, the government should have materially dropped the interest rate applicable to money for public and low cost housing. Perhaps I am reading something sinister in the minister's speech, Mr. Chairman, but there certainly was a reference to a continuing review of the National Housing Act interest rate. I recognize that in order to encourage conventional lenders to go into the housing market there must be a satisfactory return. However, may I make a suggestion to the minister? If an increase in the National Housing Act rate is being considered, he may want to study the possibility of having a double interest rate, that is, a lower interest rate on a loan up to a certain amount and then a higher interest rate beyond that. This would tend to help those families on low incomes. This precedent has been accepted in the case of the Veterans Land Act. There is one interest rate applicable on loans up to a certain amount and then a higher interest rate applies beyond that level. The same provision applies to the Farm Credit Board. It might be advisable to consider that on loans of up to $12,000 a rate of 5.5 per cent or 6 per cent would be applicable, and then the interest rate beyond that would
October 27, 1966

be whatever the minister considered necessary to attract conventional lenders.
The minister indicated that accommodation for some 6,000 students has been provided so far this year. This is a nice figure, but it falls short of the requirements of the universities today. I have had first hand experience with the difficulties students have not only in obtaining admission to residences but in finding reasonable accommodation close to university centres. Here again, the government might consider some inducement, perhaps by way of lower interest rates, to encourage the building of student housing.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
One of the factors involved in the increase in the cost of houses is the provision of land suitable for building. The minister may not recall this specific case but I am going to refer it to him. It concerns a subdivision in the Prince George area. Incidentally, I was pleased to note that according to the minister's speech yesterday such money as is available will be allocated to certain areas where the need is greatest, and he mentioned the Prince George area where I know he recognizes the tremendous demand for new housing.
I am wondering to what extent the individual case I am going to describe now is compounding the difficulty. In this particular case Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation refused to approve the Park Ridge Heights subdivision in Prince George for N.H.A. purposes. Before we go into detailed discussion of the bill in committee perhaps the minister would have his officials advise him about this matter, because I have studied this subdivision project and I cannot see why C.M.H.C. should not approve it, particularly in view of the fact that they recently approved another subdivision outside the city which is very close to this one, as well as another one just a short time ago. The point I am trying to make is this. Here is a subdivision offering fully serviced lots at lower cost; yet C.M.H.C. refuses to approve the subdivision, thereby forcing people to buy higher-priced lots, and often lots that are not serviced, inside the city limits.
Naturally I welcome the amendment whereby N.H.A. loans will now be made available for the purchase of existing houses. This was a promise which was made by the Liberal party in 1963 and in 1965 and we welcome the belated appearance of this amendment.
23033-580J
National Housing Act
The minister has not indicated what the amount of such loans is to be but according to some press reports it will be in the order of $10,000. May I suggest to the minister that I do not think an amount of $10,000 is going to do the job the minister has in mind, simply because the type of house that you can buy for $10,000 today in the urban areas in any event is not the type of house that should or could be salvaged. No other money will be available for such purpose except at an exorbitant interest rate, so I would therefore urge the minister to consider an amount of close to the maximum of $18,000 which is now available for the construction of new housing.
Again, Mr. Chairman, the minister might consider the suggestion I made before, that of a double interest rate to help people on lower incomes, charging say 6 per cent on the first $10,000 and on the next $5,000 to $8,000 a higher rate, one that the minister considers appropriate.
tTranslation]


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Chairman, the resolution under consideration deals with amendments to the National Housing Act.
That resolution affects a very important economic and social field, namely that of construction in Canada. Besides it is a field which has known, in the last couple of years, various fluctuations that should lead us to look for ways to improve conditions in that area.
Indeed, according to a well-known statistics firm, and according to the Southam Building Guide, the cumulative value of the construction contracts awarded in Canada during the first eight months of 1966 is more than 4 per cent lower than the record level reached last year.
I must add that the Southam Building Guide bases those statistics on approximately 52.9 per cent of the value of all construction contracts awarded in Canada, including new construction, repairs and renovation, and on almost 83 per cent of the value of new construction.
The decrease of 4 per cent in the value of construction contracts in the country during the first eight months of the year is due to various factors. One of them is the drop in the total value of contracts over $1 million awarded since the beginning of the year. The value of such contracts is in fact 8 per cent lower than in 1965.

October 27, 1966
National Housing Act
Another reason for that 4 per cent drop is the set-back in residential construction which decreased by almost 13 per cent during the first eight months of the current year compared to the same period last year.
Still another factor can be found in the engineering works which also have shown a substantial reduction of over 32 per cent.
To the three factors I have just mentioned, Mr. Chairman, one could also add indirect action or lack of positive intervention from the governments, reflected, for instance, in too heavy a tax burden, the imposition of some special taxes such as the 11 per cent tax on building materials, credit restrictions, high interest rates. Those are other reasons which contributed to that decrease of 4 per cent in the value of construction contracts in the country.
It must be recalled also that the Quebec association of housing contractors, through Mr. Fernand Boisse, president for the fiscal year 1965-66, protested quite often against the various special taxes which were harmful to the construction industry, as well as against interest rates which are too high, and I think that it even submitted to the various governments very judicious briefs on the matter.
Mr. Chairman, the housing field fits very well into the criteria of productivity about which so much is being said with respect to present economic difficulties.
It is a fact that prices are continually going up and that the increase in prices greatly exceeds the Canadian productivity rate. Now, I feel that the best way to fight inflation is to take all the necessary steps to increase Canadian productivity. Increasing Canadian productivity means encouraging production in all fields, including housing projects of all types.
And consideration is being given to implementing this restrictive policy, this behind-the-scenes policy which was started by this government about a year and a half or two years ago and which is paralysing several areas of economy with respect to housing.
If the government really wants to take the means at its disposal to fight increasing prices and inflation, it will not achieve this aim with speeches made by the hon. ministers at various banquet tables; it must take positive action and put the necessary moneys into national productivity. We must not hesitate to increase Canadian production, rather than increase taxes, restrict credit, raise the rate
IMr. Allard.]
of interest up to 6.75 per cent, measures which are responsible for the present productivity standstill and which will in no way check inflation, at least from my own standpoint in dealing with the matter.
This afternoon, I will not comment on each item in the resolution since, as I pointed out to the hon. minister, there could be other explanations and other amendments included in the bill which will probably be introduced some time next week. At that time, I intend to comment on the various provisions of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out to the house this afternoon that one of the provisions in the resolution worries me very much; it provides for encouragement by this government to student housing projects which will not be limited to university students only.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The tentacles of centralization are being extended further. It is always the same old story under our Canadian skies. Years ago, the central government, a Samson in the fields of taxation under its control, which it has repossessed and is ever so reluctant to hand back to the provinces-another example of this is found in the current federal-provincial conference-invaded the field of housing, which rightly belongs to the provinces. Why? Because, the constitution says so. I wonder what purpose that constitution now serves, Mr. Chairman.
I do not know if the hon. minister has read the 1865 debates on Confederation where legislators expressed the spirit and the letter found in the Canadian Constitution of 1867.
The hon. minister will see readily that according to those accounts it was never intended that the central government should set the pattern or control or act in the fields of construction and housing. On the contrary, all those matters of a family, social, local and regional nature, by virtue of Section 92 of the Canadian Constitution, fall under provincial jurisdiction. But it is no longer being complied with. We might as well ask all our university professors of constitutional law to pick it up and throw it in the wastebasket. Why teach our students the respective responsibilities of the central and provincial governments when the central government intervenes in the fields of education, sewers, municipalities and housing, which according to their professors are matters that come under provincial jurisdiction?
October 27. 1966

Well, the present government will have to act truly fast-it does not usually, but it might surprise us-and amend the constitution if that is the approach it intends to take in 1967. If the government wants to keep the present constitution, it should amend it; otherwise, let us have a new one. To my mind, it is absolutely ridiculous, even illusory, for us legislators in Ottawa to sit in this house, constitution in hand, debating proposed legislation. And this is not the first resolution since January 18 last.
I say that seeking to increase the number of housing projects which will not be restricted only to the accommodation of university students-for, until now, instead of handing enough money to the provincial governments, Ottawa has kept the bulk of the money here, camouflaging it in various fields to build student housing as annexes to Canadian universities. It seems to me they always act in devious ways, but extensively, probably to build all kinds of schools which the minister has not described for us. He mentioned a nursing school, a school for social groups. He did not deny that, in due course, they may build all the high schools and secondary schools in Canada. If Ottawa keeps all the money, why have provincial governments? Poor wards, poor little girls who are no longer considered intelligent enough to have the right to look after their own wardrobe. That, Mr. Chairman, reminds me of the old definition or concept of provinces at the time of the Romans, when provinces had no autonomy whatsoever. They depended exclusively on the central government in Rome in all administrative matters. That is what the present government is doing. It is changing the Canadian provinces into-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Maurice Allard: Yes.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Does the hon. member not realize that any funds that are to be made available for technical and vocational schools in the provinces will represent a loan and not a gift and that the provinces do not have to take advantage of these funds if they do not want to?


Maurice Allard: It is precisely this arrogant attitude, Mr. Chairman, namely that the provinces do not have to take advantage thereof if they do not want to. But we are in a field of provincial "jurisdiction" here.
National Housing Act
Why should the provinces not have the necessary funds to fulfil their obligations? Why should Ottawa pull all the strings and control all the financial levers enabling it to make propositions to the provinces under those terms with the understanding that if the provinces are not satisfied, all they have to do is refuse and then, let them shift for themselves? It is precisely this arrogant attitude that has become unacceptable within the concept of federalism. If we want to do away with federalism, if we want to return to legislative union like in 1840, towards which we seem to be drifting gradually, well then, let us be frank enough to admit it. Then the provinces will know what political and constitutional action to take, under those circumstances. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would very much like to see provisions on the matter included in the bill.
Another point overlooked by the resolution is the fact that there seems to be no provision-maybe the bill will take this fact into account, I hope it does-this government makes no provision for a single-family dwelling program at special rates. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that laws, laws and dollars are all very well, but all this must not be based solely on material considerations, mathematical and geometric calculations, left, right, north and south. The legislative measures that we adopt must be impregnated with a social, moral, human, and family philosophy.
In the field of construction, the government should give serious consideration to the plight of all Canadian family heads.
I am referring to the small wage-earners and the farmers, the small wage-earners in our large and medium-sized cities, who are not able to raise their children in complete freedom, under a roof of their own. I maintain that the head of a family in Canada has a natural right to wish for and to have a house of his own, so as to raise his family decently, free and unhindered.
The government should provide legislation for construction programs, and since it appears to enjoy trespassing into fields of provincial responsibility, it should at least include philosophical, family and social considerations in the bill to be introduced, so as to enable the family administrator to build a home at a special rate, say 5 per cent, because the present rate of interest is too high.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I would also urge the government to eliminate immediately and entirely, in its next

October 27, 1966
National Housing Act
budget, the 11 per cent tax on building materials, to help house-building contractors. If we consider the various causes of bankruptcy in Canada, we note that house-builders come in second place, after business bankruptcies. After attending their convention, and hearing their discussions, we learned that this is not simply due to bad luck or to inefficiency; in general, Mr. Chairman, the reason is that the fiscal burden is too heavy and the interest rates excessive. If we want to increase Canadian productivity, that should be abolished immediately.
A new budget will be brought in but it seems to me that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is planning, not to send us manna, as a snow-storm, on Christmas eve, but to increase taxes, according to his own conception of the fight against inflation, which I find altogether inacceptable. That is a personal opinion. Everyone is entitled to his opinions; that is why our constituents send us here, to express opinions.
I am of the opinion that to fight inflation, we should not pick the taxpayers' pockets; their funds are low, as it is. Look around; most Canadians in any province have not enough money to provide for their needs, but the Minister of Finance hopes to milk further people in financial straits. I do not speak of financiers and companies of whom we heard during the question period, who have just pocketed $2 million-we do not know, they are very clever people-but I speak of Canadians, three quarters of whom are family-heads, workers, farmers, office clerks. We should increase Canadian productivity, and inject in the field of construction and housing vitality instead of oppression.
Some members, whose opinions I respect, spoke in this house, namely the hon. member for St. Paul (Mr. Wahn), from Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso), from York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), from Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), advocating the creation of a department of urban affairs and housing in the future.
That is logical, considering all the interventions and centralization which the central government, in Ottawa, not only this one but also the previous ones, have established. Imagine, Mr. Chairman, that you have, for instance, in section 92 of the constitution, paragraph 10 which gives exclusively-if the word "exclusive" still means something in the twentieth century I ask broad-minded people to understand this-to the provinces all local works and undertakings. Of course,

there are three exceptions, works like the trans-Canada highway which connects one province to another. But this is not the case in the field of local housing. You also have paragraph 13, which places under exclusive provincial jurisdiction property and civil rights in the province. If there is a field which comes within the terms of property, it is that of housing, unless I am narrowminded or unless I am from another century. We also have paragraph 16 of section 92 which gives the provinces jurisdiction over all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.
If this government, or the one which will succeed it-it may be shortly, we do not know, for we hear more about replacing the leaders nowadays than about changing the government-wants to create a department of urban affairs and housing, as is also being mentioned in this house by some members-it would obviously follow centralization, direct and indirect intrusion upon provincial fields.
There is some talk of establishing a department of education. Well, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, no such department should be created, and the central government should honestly, definitely and seriously consider giving back to the provinces-for they are not satisfied, as I realized these last few days

their taxation fields instead of interfering with their responsibilities.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, if one listened to the minister yesterday or read his speech in Hansard one could only reach the conclusion that any relationship between the speech and reality was accidental. From his speech one might think we were really doing a good job in the housing field and beginning to meet the needs of the people of Canada.
I do not know where the minister lives or what newspapers he reads, but one does not have to be the minister in charge of housing, or an official with all the facilities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at his disposal, to know that the facts are otherwise. One can take up the newspapers of almost any city in Canada almost any day and read case after case of people in this affluent Canada, not just in the rural areas or in the poorer provinces of the Atlantic region but in some of our wealthier cities, who are presently living in deplorable and disgraceful conditions. Of this we have heard nothing from the
October 27, 1966

October 27, 1966
National Housing Act
At 81 per cent on a 25-year term, It will cost them $135.22 per month to carry a first mortgage of $17,000.
At 10 per cent on a five-year term, the second mortgage of $5,000 will cost them an additional $105.74 per month.
The editorial goes on to deal with the cost of property taxes and so on and points out that the financing of such a house comes to a total of around $270 monthly. How many people are there in this country who can afford to make that kind of monthly payment unless they sacrifice other basic necessities? Yet, Mr. Chairman, they have no alternative.
In this context I want to use myself as an illustration, and I think I am better off than 90 per cent of the people in this country. I had no intention of buying a house in Ottawa but last month I was informed very curtly that my rent, which I thought to be fairly substantial, was going up by 10 per cent. Even at that I think I was lucky because I know of many cases here in Ottawa where people have had their rent increased by 18 per cent to 20 per cent.
If I am buying a house it is because I have no alternative, and there are tens of thousands of people who have no alternative. The government has not faced up to what is needed in this country, a housing policy which will provide houses for people in the income range of $5,000 to $8,000 a year and which will provide rental accommodation at rents which people who make less than $5,000 a year can afford.
In the Winnipeg Tribune of October 8, 1966, there appeared the first article of a series dealing with housing. It was headed, "Slums-A City's Cancer". It pointed out that several weeks prior to the appearance of the article a delegation of residents of my constituency appeared before the city council of Winnipeg complaining that their area was being turned into a slum. They had a legitimate complaint because their area is being turned into a slum.
One may ask how and why? The answer is that several years ago-we in Winnipeg were long overdue for it and deserve a great deal of criticism on that ground-we started our first urban redevelopment project. Many of the people in that project area, which is situated in the constituency of my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre, were moved into a new housing development and the others remaining had to find alternative accommodation. They moved into the area I have been talking about, and simply because

they do not have the kind of money required to keep the housing they have rented up to any kind of standard, it is becoming a slum like so much of the rest of the old part of Winnipeg.
I wish to quote a description of this area from the article in the Winnipeg Tribune, and may I say I am sure this is something which is also happening in Vancouver and possibly in the constituency of the minister who is in charge of housing.
Near the comer of Jarvis and Andrews is a huge, dilapidated yellow building that extends for nearly a city block. Its front yard is a series of muddy ruts, which run with water when it rains. Its sidewalk is chipped and broken.
According to one middle-aged woman resident, the home contains 85 people. Most of them, of course, are children-children running around in bare feet on a fall day, wading in the rain pools, knocking on doors looking for their mothers, hitting each other, and crying.
One would think that in this kind of accommodation the rents would be low, but the contrary is true. Rents are high. In the main the rents are paid by the people of Canada because the great majority of the tenants who live in this kind of slum are on welfare. They cannot work and they do not earn enough to pay rent in private housing accommodation. The city of Winnipeg cannot enforce its own health regulations because there is no alternative for these people. The city cannot put these people out on the street.
What is true of families is also true of retired people. In Winnipeg-and I give the various community organizations like the Lions, the Kiwanis and the Canadian Legion a great deal of credit for the leadership and initiative they have shown-we have built a number of housing units for elderly people. We built several hundred units, enough, according to figures I saw recently, to accommodate about 1,000 people. But the last survey made, which was four or five years ago, indicated that there was still a need for housing accommodation for 4,200 old people who are retired.
A private builder in Winnipeg recently made plans to build housing accommodations for 200 elderly people, and on the very first day he got requests from almost 1,000 people who wished to move into the units. This is what is happening in my own city of Winnipeg, and what is happening in Winnipeg is being duplicated in Vancouver, in Montreal, and the situation in Toronto is even worse. What has the government to offer for this kind of problem this year? As in past years, nothing, because we still look on housing as a
October 27, 1966

normal business operation which will be met through the methods which are workable in our free enterprise economy.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I suggest to the minister that the proposals he has now made will no more solve the problems in respect of housing in Canada than the proposals he made two years ago when the National Housing Act was amended. The housing problem will not be solved until the government realizes that it and it alone can provide a solution. If housebuilding is left to private industry houses will continue to be built only for people who can afford to buy or rent them. The housing problem will not be solved if interest rates on mortgages are allowed to be fixed on the open market. If the government means business it is obvious it will have to provide money to subsidize interest rates so that the average individual can afford to pay the rate. This may be a revolutionary idea, but I suggest there is nothing wrong with it and a great deal to be said for it. The government should provide money to subsidize interest rates. If we are going to solve the housing problem and clear out slums in this country the government must allocate a much larger amount of money-double, triple or quadruple-than it has been providing up to now.
Surely the minister knows that rental rates at this time in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver range from $175 to $225. In order that the average individual can rent adequate premises we must in some way lower rents to $60, $65 or $70.
I join with my colleagues who have spoken and urged the government to face up to the problems in respect of housing for the average individual. Let me also urge the government to establish a department of urban affairs with responsibility for meeting the housing needs of Canada. The minister of such a department would not consider this as an extra job or one which he could do in his spare time but would spend his full time and effort to find a solution to the major problems of housing, slum clearance, urban redevelopment and the provision of recreational facilities, hospitals and schools in co-operation with provincial and municipal authorities who, after all, have the major responsibility under our constitution.
Let me say again that the program enunciated yesterday by the minister is as ill designed to meet the housing needs of the 23033-581
National Housing Act
people of Canada as the program he announced two years ago which has failed so signally up to now.


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Chairman, we are called upon to study today a resolution to amend the National Housing Act. I do not think that there is in the federal statute books any legislation which over many years allowed the Canadian citizens to benefit more directly from funds put at their disposal by the federal government than the National Housing Act.
In every corner of the country, in all classes of society, there are people who can now live in a single or multiple dwelling only because the federal government, several years ago, that is in 1954, agreed to assume its responsibility with regard to loans to stimulate home ownership in Canada.
The proposed amendments cover many points. But today I would like to deal with only one amendment which will certainly be much discussed. In that respect, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) raised earlier objections, which seemed based on an interpretation of the constitution which I am far from accepting. It is true that the constitution allocates powers to the central government and to the provinces. It is true that the constitution grants to the provincial governments powers in the fields of ownership and civil rights. It is true also that the same constitution recognizes, very clearly and very definitely, the powers of the central government with regard to money and credit. But it is under those undeniable powers that the federal government extends its jurisdiction on all financial institutions which create money and credit. And that is how the federal government created a farm credit board, an industrial development bank and so many boards which spread among all Canadian citizens the benefits of bank credit. Therefore it is an undeniable power that the federal government holds under the constitution and exercises in all fields it deems appropriate.


Maurice Allard: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


René Tremblay: Certainly.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. member if he is aware that the Privy Council in London, in several decisions about colorated legislation, established that the central government could not take action if, in the end, the money spent, the steps

October 27, 1986
National Housing Act
taken, come under a provincial responsibility. That is what the Privy Council called colorated legislation in order to protect provincial rights and responsibilities and prevent the central government from interfering in those fields.


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the federal government cannot use its power to create credit to impose such conditions that there would be interference in fields which do not come under its jurisdiction. But, as a matter of fact, and since the beginning, the federal agency, that is the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has always made sure to lay down conditions which applied only in the field of credit.
This is so true that the municipalities and the provinces have easily been able to establish all sorts of rules concerning housing, safety measures, and the location of those buildings on the various lots. Therefore, property rights were then entirely respected, but the federal government undoubtedly had the right to make available to the citizens the funds, money or credit necessary to reach goals which, ultimately, were those of the provinces.
We see now that co-operation in this field is essential, and it is sought increasingly. Since the member for Sherbrooke states the problem particularly with regard to Quebec, there are two extremely important sectors to which the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation intends to spread its activity. First, say in the field of urban renewal, which involves credit. This urban renewal involves also the implementation of city planning regulations, the development of new lands and so on; therefore, in these circumstances, an urban renewal policy cannot be put in effect by the federal government alone. As far as I am concerned-and this view is shared by many of my colleagues,-I am opposed to the setting up of the federal department of urban renewal, because I feel that if the federal government-and I am now taking its part-has a very definite responsibility in the field of credit to housing, it does not have, under the constitution, all the powers necessary to control an urban redevelopment. These powers belong to the provinces which might have delegated them to towns and cities. It is precisely because of that responsibility that the Quebec provincial government has set up an urban redevelopment agency long awaited, precisely to promote co-operation in that field, and to provide

especially for a use of federal funds in the province of Quebec as efficient as in the other provinces.
I know that there has been an extremely interesting and successful experience in that field of urban renewal, with the Dozois scheme in Montreal, and I know also that my colleagues from the city of Montreal, in cooperation with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation authorities, provincial authorities and Montreal municipal authorities, work very hard to develop a new project of urban renewal known as "La petite Bourgogne" project. Then, the three competent authorities, namely the federal, provincial and municipal authorities within their own field of activity, will accept to set up a joint plan or program for the renewal of that district of Montreal which greatly needs it.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Such an avenue is open to federal-provincial co-operation. It is in such a context, I believe, that the activities of the C.M.H.C. must be contemplated, that is in an atmosphere of continued co-operation with different levels of public administration connected with urban renewal.
I hope that the program to be enforced shortly in Montreal will serve as an example for other urban renewal projects in other cities of the province of Quebec. Under the pretext of false autonomism, the necessary co-operation should not be refused to federal authorities which are willing to provide assistance for the renewal of some districts in cities in such great need of financial help.
There is also a second point I should like to bring up at this time. It raises precisely the problem of jurisdictions with regard to the assistance provided for student housing projects in various fields of education in Canada. With respect to the Laval University project, the province of Quebec used to the best advantage funds provided by the C.M.H.C. for the construction of student housing projects on the university campus.
The amendment before us will enable Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to extend to other levels the funds it made available only to university campus until now. Such action will certainly be appreciated by the various educational institutions of the province of Quebec and I am convinced that the co-operation granted by the provincial education board, before June 5, to C.M.H.C. will continue so that those projects can be carried out in the best interest of the students.
October 27, 1966

Mr. Chairman, the problem raised by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), speaking on the amendment to the act governing C.M.H.C., is one which goes beyond this measure in particular.
Unfortunately, I have not enough time at my disposal to discuss it; I will merely point out that the federal-provincial conference now taking place will certainly enable the various provincial governments to realize that the federal authorities, if they are willing to take into consideration the provincial rights recognized by the constitution, are also conscious of their responsibilities under the present constitution.
If there has temporarily been a trend allowing the establishment of the so-called "opting out" formula, that is a formula enabling all provinces to withdraw from joint programs, and under which we have reached a situation where the province of Quebec is the only one to have a special status within the whole Canadian federation; if, according to the principles set forth at the beginning of this federal-provincial conference by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), we now have a federal government which is increasingly dynamic and powerful within its own jurisdiction but which is increasingly anxious to respect the responsibilities of individual provinces, it will then be possible at the provincial as well as at the federal level-and C-.M.H.C. is an example of that-to co-operate in a way which will be beneficial to all the citizens,


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in rising to make a few brief comments on the resolution I realize I am a fortunate Canadian because I was able many years ago to build a log cabin in the wilderness and be free of debt. I also realize that a great many Canadians who need housing at this time do not enjoy the same fortunate circumstances. I rise to express my support for the amendments suggested in the resolution as a step toward the development of an over-all housing policy that will meet the increasing needs of the Canadian people for satisfactory housing at a reasonable cost. For many years various aspects of housing have concerned my constituents. On that account, on numerous occasions I have discussed these matters and their requests with the present minister and senior officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I have no hesitation in expressing my appreciation of the prompt 23033-5811
National Housing Act
and courteous attention they have paid to any representations I have made on behalf of my constituents with respect to their problems. Naturally I recognize the fact that they are not settled to their satisfaction on all occasions, but I think both the minister and his officials did the best they could under the law and under the regulations in effect at the time.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I must say that I am delighted with the co-operative and constructive attitude of the house on this important legislation. I was very interested to hear the minister quite properly give credit to the former Progressive Conservative government for certain amendments it made to the National Housing Act, and I was interested to hear the hon. member for Kamloops rise in his seat and express his appreciation of and his support for these proposed amendments. I am one of those members in the opposition who do not believe it is the prime and essential function of the opposition on all occasions to act like a lot of fox terriers, snapping at the exposed political underwear of the government. I think it is the responsibility of the opposition to criticize as effectively as they can, and it is also their responsibility to offer alternatives. I think, Mr. Chairman, you will usually find that while the members of this group are often very caustic in their criticisms of some of the aspects of legislation introduced by the government, they try to offer alternatives which they think will be of advantage to the Canadian people.
Housing requirements of various types are rapidly increasing, first, because of the growth of our population, second, because of the development of a new concept of the social responsibility of the state with respect to housing and other measures and, third, because of the effects of related legislation that provides for university and college education and expansion and other legislation that has an effect on the demands placed upon the C.M.H.C.
I was very interested to note that the hon. member for Kamloops said that forecasts and surveys of housing units indicated the need for at least 750,000 new units by 1970 and the possibility that this figure may reach a million units by that date. In my opinion no field of human welfare indicates more strongly the urgent need for over-all planning and programming in co-operation with the provinces, the municipalities and other non-government organizations which I have found from my

October 27, 1966
National Housing Act
experience as the member for Kootenay West, are only too willing to co-operate and participate in the satisfactory administration of such programs.
Throughout the years many organizations in my riding have been interested in urban renewal surveys. The city of Rossland is very interested in a proposal to that effect and the city of Trail is now engaged in urban renewal developments much to the advantage of the city itself and of the population that will be affected. They have been interested in housing developments for their growing communities because of the expansion of industry in the area. They have been interested in low rental housing for our senior citizens, and I emphasize that this is a continuing great need. In my opinion these provisions should be applied in the following cities in the riding I have the honour to represent, in Trail, Castlegar, Nelson and Nakusp so that our senior citizens will have the opportunity to enjoy the advantage of low rental housing and yet have the advantage of being visited by the people with whom they have lived for most of their lives.
We have also been interested in the housing for students attending Notre Dame University, Selkirk college, and vocational and trade schools. I am very pleased to note that Notre Dame University is getting substantial assistance in this respect, and I trust that other educational institutions will obtain similar assistance, particularly after the passing of this amending legislation.
We have also been very interested in the particular requirements of the smaller communities which I think have been somewhat overlooked by the conventional lending institutions. It does not always pay them to send people to these communities to inspect the construction and to inspect the buildings after they are completed. Very often the local fire brigade regulations are not quite in line with what they require. I was very interested to hear the hon. member for Kamloops speak on this question because his experience, coming as he does from the interior of B.C., is very similar to mine in Kootenay West. There is a great need for further consideration of these smaller communities.
I must say I am pleased to know that the National Housing Act is to be amended so as to provide for the first time that loans may be made to persons who wish to purchase, occupy and improve existing housing. I have urged this proposal for years as I know of many well built older homes in the cities,
[Mr. Herridge.l
towns and rural communities in my constituency that can be modernized and improved with a loan such as it will be possible to obtain when this legislation is passed. I support this amendment on practical, economic and aesthetic grounds. I think it is most unfortunate to see some of these houses that were built many years ago falling apart. In my constituency there are substantial and well built houses on stone or cement foundations. They offer a change from the standard housing we see today and are a delight to look upon.
I am glad to hear that the $200 million available under the act for university housing projects is to be raised to $350 million. This is a very necessary amendment and I predict that this sum will have to be increased in the very near future because of the great expansion of university, college and vocational school education, the increasing number of students and the need for housing for these students.
I am glad that this legislation will provide for an additional three year period within which the construction of a sewage treatment project must be completed if the municipality concerned is to be forgiven payment of a part of the principal of the loan and of the accrued interest. I am sure this amendment will be of assistance particularly to the smaller municipalities. It gives them more time to repay these loans, to undertake this work and to take advantage of the forgiveness of these payments.
I am also glad that the limit in section 22 of the National Housing Act is to be raised from $3.25 billion to $4 billion for direct lending and that the increase will be used for the purchase and improvement of existing houses and, as the minister indicated, possibly for another 31,500 direct loans next year. I am sure that a good many persons in Canada will be pleased to know they will have the opportunity to borrow under the terms of the provision.
I now have a few suggestions to make. I do not want to speak at great length, but first of all I wish to say that there is a great need for the development of co-operative over-all planning among the federal and provincial governments, the municipalities, and the nongovernmental organizations which are willing to participate. I suggest that there is nothing like getting the participation of local people in programs and getting their understanding, whether it is in the field of housing, in the field of ARDA, or other projects that may be
Ociober 27, 196G

undertaken by federal-provincial co-operation.
I suggest there is a need for a lowering of the interest rate. I think that is one of the reasons that housing has been lagging in Canada. According to a study made by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada is lagging in housing. In 1963 Canada spent only 3.6 per cent of its gross national product on residential construction, ranking eleventh among 15 countries. In 1953 we ranked fifth in residential construction. In 1963 we were ninth in housing completions per capita and over the 10 year period, 1953-1963, we had the slowest proportional increase in housing completion of any country. I do not think we can be proud of that record when we look at the advantages we enjoy in respect of natural resources, industrial equipment and so on.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In my opinion and in the opinion of other members of this party, this has been influenced to a great extent by high interest rates. In that connection I should like to quote briefly from an editorial in the Toronto Star for Wednesday, October 26, a newspaper which I understand normally supports the Liberal party:
Ottawa's tight money scourges the weak.
The tight money policy of the federal government is ruthlessly denying people a chance to get decent family housing.
In the Metro area, interest rates on conventional first mortgages have crept as high as 8J per cent in some cases. Rates on second mortgages commonly range from 9 to 11 per cent.
Consider what this means to a family without savings seeking an average price ($22,000) older house to buy.
Then the editorial goes on to deal with the amount of interest to be paid, the property taxes to be paid, and reads as follows:
Since housing authorities say it is unwise to spend more than 27 per cent of family income on housing, this family would need an income of $1,000 a month or $12,000 a year in order to comfortably afford that average house.
The article concludes with this paragraph:
There is something viciously wrong with a monetary policy that denies families housing at prices and rents they can afford, while allowing commercial construction to proceed full blast.
I agree with that.
And there is something wrong with the social conscience of a government

I would say the social conscience of all of us.
-that will lean so heavily on tight money to fight inflation, disregarding the human consequences.
National Housing Act
It may bring in national contributory pensions. It may (tardily) raise old age security payments to those in need. It may promise medicare for the 'nth time.
But the government shows a callous heart when it shuts the door to shelter on middle and low income people unless they can pay usurious interest rates.
How many Canadian families must sacrifice their comfort, peace of mind, and decent living standards to the demands of "sound" money?
I recognize that the minister personally is not directly responsible for fiscal policy or for high interest rates, but in my opinion there is something more necessary. I believe that every family should have decent housing and should be entitled to the privacy that goes with a decent home. Every person in the home is entitled to live in a house that provides the privacy of having a room to oneself. This is necessary for the proper development of personality within a democracy.
I believe that housing is also lagging because of the tremendous increase in real estate values. I have seen this happen in the constituency I have the honour to represent. I might refer to a little village within six miles of where my home is at the moment. When I came to the house you could buy a lot 25 feet by 115 feet in that village for $25. At the present time these lots are selling for no less than $1,250. A person who is going to build a home requires at least four of these lots under these circumstances. This imposes an added burden on those who wish to build houses. I am wondering if the minister could give some consideration to a scheme for the purchase of land along the lines of that undertaken by the Veterans Land Act administration some years ago? Under this scheme land was purchased well ahead of immediate requirements.
I was going to Vancouver recently and I listened to two men who were talking in the lounge car of the train. One of them was a very prominent supporter of the Social Credit government in British Columbia. He came from Kelowna. He had heard about a housing development taking place around Kelowna. He offered a farmer $20,000 for a 30-acre farm on the outskirts of Kelowna. Evidently he had advance notice of this housing development. He said he had sold five quarter acre lots, I think, for $4,000 each so he had already obtained the return of his capital. I think the federal and provincial governments must exercise some judgment with respect to possible housing developments and the land
9X82

October 27, 1968
National Housing Act
required, not just next month or next year but even 10 or 15 years from now. In this way speculation at the expense of those who can least afford it could be prevented.
As I have said before, I believe further consideration should be given to the needs of smaller communities because they have been overlooked by conventional lenders. I usually try to speak from experience, so I mention again in the little village of Nakusp which is about six miles from my home. There are some persons in that village who borrowed money under the auspices of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at a time when the village was unincorporated. The village has since been incorporated, so people can borrow from the corporation as the former builders did although there is no sewage system and septic tanks have to be used. The community is on a sandy bar overlooking the lake, so there is no difficulty about that. The people in adjacent communities, in which houses costing up to $25,000 are being built, are not permitted to borrow under the auspices of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation because they are adjacent. The corporation gives these loans to the old community, although adjacent communities situated on benches of land 100 to 250 feet higher than the main community are not permitted to borrow from the corporation.
I suggest that the minister give some consideration to such situations and to the needs of these smaller communities, not necessarily to farmers living on farms but to those who wish to live in smaller communities and commute to their employment. There is a lot of that around Trail, Nelson and the little village of Nakusp which I used as an illustration.
As I said before, I feel we must get the participation of the non-government organizations in all these communities. I give the corporation credit for what it has done in this respect. Some of the officials of the corporation have gone to various meetings of chambers of commerce, labour organizations, farmers institutes and farm organizations to explain the act and its operation. I suggest that further efforts should be made in this direction to give adequate information and publicity to the vast problems of housing and problems related to housing. This can be done through the press and periodicals as well as by the distribution of literature through the corporation.

I give the corporation credit for publishing some very informative literature on the various aspects of housing, types of housing, the possibilities under the act and the interpretation of the act. I suggest that even that program should be stepped up and that wherever possible officials of the corporation should be sent to these regions to take advantage of the opportunity to inform local organizations, which means informing the local people, of the problems involved. We could seek their co-operation in making this act a success. In this way, within a few years we will have a housing policy in Canada, as the result of over-all planning between all levels of government and participation by non-government organizations, that will provide the housing so necessary for the Canadian people at this time.
* (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Eihier:: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before the house is extremely important, for this amendment to the National Housing Act is thought of highly in our rural districts, and particularly the second recommendation of the resolution which says:
-by providing that loans made to persons who intend to purchase, improve and occupy existing housing be insurable on conditions similar to loans made tor new housing,
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, that improvement to the act will be of great help to rural areas, for those regions have been discriminated against since the National Housing Act was passed in 1954.


An hon. Member:: 1934.


Denis Éthier: I should like to give a few examples. There are very good properties in all our rural towns, but the owners find it impossible to sell properties valued at $10,000 to $30,000 because the prospective buyers cannot find the money to mortgage them. The latter are forced to build new houses, because they can borrow approximately 90 per cent of the value. The people in rural areas, therefore will greatly appreciate this amendment to the act when, for some reason or other, one of them has to sell existing property.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. minister and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for their decision, for this amendment to the act, which will prove very helpful to our small rural villages.
October 27, 1966

There is another point I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. minister. This year, the government discontinued payment of the $500 bonus to house builders during winter months. I am quite prepared to admit that this program has greatly contributed to the promotion of winter building, and to a decrease in unemployment during the slack period in the building industry.
But I think that the $500 bonus has benefited much more the contractors than the working man. At this point, I would ask the minister to re-examine with his officials this bonus project and to restore it, but only for those who want to build their own homes and not to duplexes, triplexes or quad-ruplexes as it was possible under the act, because, instead of assisting the small wage-earner, the act in the past benefited the building trade instead. I do not think that the government can justify, as in the past, its subsidizing the trades in Canada with the tax money collected from all the Canadian people.
Therefore, I would urge the minister to take this recommendation into consideration and to restore the winter $500 bonus for single dwellings only.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, just a few words at the resolution stage, since I do not usually make a very long speech when a resolution is introduced. I prefer to wait until the bill is in our hands. But I am pleased to say to the house that, in general and under the present circumstances, under the present parliamentary conditions, this resolution will certainly contribute toward improvement of the National Housing Act, which was implemented in 1954 and has not been amended much since then. To be sure, all Canadians will benefit from those few amendments.
Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting to listen to speakers one after the other, because after four, five or six speakers have had their turn, one is inclined to believe that Canada is a strange country indeed. The Canadian parliament, to my mind, is a multiplicity of oppositions, a multiplicity of contradictions. For instance, I was listening to the Conservative members who, true to tradition, were blaming the government for not giving enough, for taking belated action, telling the house that more is needed. They may be right, up to a point. However, I do not entirely agree with them on other points.
National Housing Act
Then, I heard a socialist, attacking private enterprise as always, saying that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should not lend money to private industry, that it should make these funds available to crown corporations, so that the money might be returned to the taxpayers, thus keeping prices down. Suppose the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would lend only to major government agencies, one can imagine first of all the patronage there would be and the cost of such buildings, considering that under state enterprise, the cost is three times that of private enterprise.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I listened to the independent member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) who dealt with very definite points in the constitution, saying that it is another proof of stubbornness on the part of the federal government, saying that the federal government keeps pushing forward in this labyrinth of crafty legislation to penetrate deeper into provincial fields. In that respect, I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
On the other hand, we heard this afternoon the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) who tries to explain the situation or refute, in a way, what the hon. member for Sherbrooke said. In my opinion, he did nothing more than confuse the issues among the general public, because if they take his word, I think that there is no need for us to ask why the people are so confused today when we see hon. members, like the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane, who is very competent, give such incomprehensible explanations, I would say, about the constitution and the National Housing Act.
The hon. member for Matapedia-Matane was only saying-


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I will finish my speech and then you can ask me questions. The hon. member for Matapedia-Matane was only saying that the central government was fully within its right to issue new credit to make loans either to the provinces or to extragovernmental bodies. I am not denying that right but I will only say that such credit is not new credit. If only it were new credit, created by the national bank, we would not raise any objection and the central government would be fully within its rights, would not in any way infringe upon the rights of the provinces, would not interfere in provincial

October 27, 196S
National Housing Act
fields by offering such credit. But what is that proposed increase? Where will that money really come from? It will certainly not come from new credit issued by the central bank. If it did, as in the case of the underdeveloped countries, there would not be anything to say. But what is that credit? New taxes, not new credit, but new taxes which will be levied on Canadian citizens. That money was taken from the consolidated revenue for loans. Here is what I am blaming the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane for-I am not saying that he did it intentionally-trying to confuse the issues, not telling the people the truth. And I want to say it here publicly, it is not new credit in spite of what the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane said. This is a new tax or a tax increase for a greater loan availability to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That is the truth and it is for that reason that we object. We simply say that the tax will be taken from the taxpayer's income and since housing is a provincial responsibility, and the provinces are just as smart as the federal government, they are able to collect their own taxes, they do not need a federal agency to do so and to give them back afterwards 30 per cent of the amounts collected.
We support the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) when he says that this is another case of interference by the central government into provincial matters.
Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset, we accept this situation under the present circumstances, because as long as the people of Canada, like the people of Quebec, do not decide to do their house cleaning, we will have operate within the present framework. But within this framework, the increase proposed in the resolution and set out in the bill, will, of course, improve the operation of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which will then be better equipped to meet the people's needs.
I find it surprising that, in our area, we should have so much trouble getting those loans. If we figure that this year, in our area, we will have a decrease of over 22 per cent in house building, because the banks do not want to advance the amounts necessary, I think that the minister would be well advised to consider a small amendment to the bill, because this is one of the reasons the banks refuse to finance the building contractor. Central Mortgage and Housing does not pay out a cent as long as the house is not completed, and the owner in possession

of the key. It does not give a cent before the whole thing is completed and often for five, six and even seven months afterwards. This means that the contractor must borrow ten, twelve or fifteen or sixteen thousand dollars at 8 or 84 per cent for a year to finance these construction projects.
The minister should consider that situation. It would be a great advantage even for someone who is buying a new house, because I have seen some of those houses cost the builder two thousand and two thousand two hundred dollars in interest alone, while waiting for the corporation to pay him back.
If Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation paid back the loan as the work progresses -let us say the first payment at 25 per cent, the second at 50, so that when the house is completed, there is only 25 per cent to pay back-that way, the builder would save one thousand to fifteen hundred dollars-when I say builder, I always refer to the future home owner.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Since the interest would be included in the cost of the house, I believe such an amendment would be appreciated by the public at large. There is also some talk of an amendment concerning loans. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be able to make loans with respect to the repurchase of a house. Personally, I am very pleased with such an amendment, but I wish the hon. minister would also give some attention to low-cost housing.
Mr. Chairman, heads of families cannot all afford the luxury of living in $12,000, $15,000 or $20,000 homes like the ones we see nowadays. So many defaults result from those houses.'Why does the C.H.M.C. have to liquidate so many houses? Because a head of family earning $4,500 or $5,000 a year is surely unable to pay $14,000 or $15,000 for a house. It is impossible.
I feel the minister would be most welcome if he moved an amendment providing for low-cost housing.
Through the C.H.M.C., a head of family should be able to build his house himself and if he wants to save on labour costs, he should be granted a loan of $4,000, $5,000 or $5,500 to buy building materials. That is what is known as low cost housing. After having inquired of those who have so far taken advantage of the C.M.H.C. plan, I think that builders of apartment houses especially have
October 27, 1966


Paul Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I should now like to put a question to the hon. member. He referred several times in his speech to infringements by the federal government in fields coming under provincial jurisdiction. Could he tell us, with regard to the National Housing Act, what section of the constitution we are now violating?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I did not refer to violations but to infringements. I clearly made the difference, I believe, and I am under the impression that all other members understood when I dealt with the matter of
National Housing Act
credit and indebtedness. Distinguishing between indebtedness and credit, I said that credit came under federal jurisdiction, while indebtedness, in a field belonging to the provinces, came under provincial jurisdiction.
The provinces are free to go into debt or not. Let us allow them at least to put a halter round their own necks. Of all the members, only the member for Chicoutimi did not understand, and that is nothing new.


Paul Langlois: Mr. Chairman, the member for Roberval may believe that I did not understand anything, but he understands nothing about the constitution. If he cannot tell me which section we are violating, he could perhaps tell me under which section we are guilty of intrusion?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I told earlier the hon. member that it was not a violation but an intrusion in the field of housing. Is it not clear? The field of housing comes under provincial jurisdiction. Will the member for Chicoutimi understand that? What comes under provincial jurisdiction? I do not have the legislation before me. I do not have any statute book. I think that the hon. member is dumber than I expected. And now I am beginning to be convinced that it is useless to speak any longer; it rolls off him like water off a duck's back.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, first I want to say: Three cheers for federal intrusions in housing.

I have listened with great interest to the debate between the Quebec members on the constitution and the federal role in housing. I rather liked the speech of the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane. Without getting into the constitutional argument may I say that had it not been for the benefits of the National Housing Act over many years we would have far fewer houses in Canada than we have at the present time. It may be argued that this field is primarily a provincial responsibility, but the provinces just would not have done the job. I think of this too in connection with the conference on university financing. Our universities would have far fewer buildings today had the federal government not taken an interest. The provinces just did not do the job.

October 27, 1966
National Housing Act
Other speakers have made reference to the name "Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation". They have said they would prefer the corporation to be called the department of housing or the department of housing and urban affairs. This is not a new idea. Others have suggested it in the past and I too should like to see this done. I suppose the reason for the present title is the sensitivity of the federal government to the use of the word "housing" in the light of the provincial responsibility. The fact remains that the corporation is involved in housing and in urban redevelopment and I believe that notwithstanding some provincial objections the body should be renamed and called the department of housing.
I support the remarks made by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North who suggested that housing and redevelopment activities are sufficiently important to justify the setting up of a separate department under a separate minister. I cast no reflection on the present minister, but he has other very important things to do and I suggest his primary portfolio as Minister of Labour is big enough without the added responsibility of housing matters.
Many speakers have pointed out during this debate that there is a severe housing shortage. Everybody knows it. We have had a housing shortage ever since the second world war because we have never caught up with the demand. At this particular time the situation in our larger metropolitan centres is serious. Maybe it is in some of the smaller ones; I do not know. The minister mentioned that the number of housing starts had not fallen to the extent he had anticipated. However, the fact that there has been a decrease is serious enough.
It seems to me that family formations must be increasing in numbers at this time, though I do not have figures with me at the moment to prove this contention. At any rate, the number of births, the increase in school enrolments and so on all indicate this to be a fact. Yet at a time when more families are being formed the supply of housing is declining. I should like to illustrate the shortage of housing by a quotation from the Vancouver Sun of October 8, 1966. I am sure the minister has read it but I put it on record because it illustrates the seriousness of the situation. The article is by Moira Farrow and it reads:
Some get mad, some allege discrimination and some break down and cry.
This is how people are reacting to the citywide shortage of rental accommodation' for low and middle-income families.

[DOT] (5:50 pjn.)
It is a shortage which has gone from serious to critical in the last three or four months, according to housing authorities.
City planning director Bill Graham said Thursday there is little the city can do to relieve the shortage.
"I suspect the situation will be with us for some time," said Graham. "It has been brought about by tight money."
The gravity of the problem was underlined by a Sun poll of several city rental agencies.
They also blamed partly the tight money situation, which they said has put a brake on construction.
And they said increasing population and demolition of many old houses have contributed to the problem.	1
None of the agencies could see any immediate solution.
"We have desperate people phoning us every day," said Margaret Barker of H. A. Roberts Ltd.
She, like all the other agency spokesmen, said the greatest shortage is of unfurnished houses renting between $100 and $150 a month.
John Murphy of Ker and Ker Ltd. said some people claim when they cannot find accommodation to rent that they are being discriminated against because they have children.
Some people did comment that the proposed legislation to allow loans on existing homes would help the situation, but I am sure the minister and the officials of the corporation are well aware of the existing shortage which is very serious for many families. As the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich mentioned this afternoon, these new loans will have an effect on the existing supply of houses, and rents surely are going up for apartment accommodation and for individual homes.
The minister said that direct loans increased last year but loans from other sources decreased, and that is not good enough. I think one remark in the minister's speech yesterday illustrates the attitude of the government to the question of housing. As recorded on page 9132 of Hansard the minister said:
The fact remains that, as I have said, every dollar is at a premium from the standpoint of investment. Perhaps that is not surprising because in a free enterprise economy money generally goes where the rewards are the greatest, and it is difficult for anyone who favours a free enterprise economy and a political philosophy based on free enterprise to be too critical of the efforts of our investors to channel their funds into areas where they will get the best interest rates, so long as these rates are not usurious or are not unreasonable.
Farther on he said:
I think I should make it clear that the government intends to pursue the course it has been following, but it is not our intention to pick up all of the slack that has resulted from the substantial withdrawal by private lenders from the residential field.
October 27, 1966	COMMONS
If the federal and provincial governments are not going to take up the slack, then who is going to do it? As the minister has said, private investors will invest their money where it will bring the greatest return and we cannot stop that. But if the vital need for housing is to be met the job can only be done by government or it will not be done at all.
It is unfortunate that the minister seems satisfied that the government has increased direct loans. That is commendable, but it needs to do a great deal more. From all the indications and opinions in the business pages of the newspapers by people in the investment world, this situation is going to continue for some time, and so it will require the government to act, to move in and supply the money to meet the housing needs of the Canadian people.
I also think it is very unfortunate that a certain amount of really unnecessary construction work is taking place at the present time. I know the federal government cannot control all these things. Building permits and so on are the concern of provincial and municipal governments. But it is a fact that at a time when money is scarce, when building tradesmen are scarce and when, as we are told, materials are scarce, we have shopping centres going up in cities that already have an abundance of them. I hope some of the provincial governments will give attention to that matter because all the materials and labour being used could be utilized to increase the stock of housing in Canada. I also hope the minister will give more thought to this problem.
As I said a few minutes ago, there is no apparent end within the next year or so to the money supply problem. It is evident that the amount of money coming from private sources is going to continue to be in short supply. Therefore houses will not be built unless action is taken by the federal government through C.M.H.C. by supplying funds and encouraging provincial governments to do the same. If such action is not taken then the very serious problem being faced by many families throughout the country will continue for quite some time.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Nicholson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-241, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
DEBATES	9187
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


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


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am not going to propose second reading, but I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the members who participated in this debate for the constructive suggestions and comments that have been forthcoming, and to say that when second reading stage is reached I hope to be able to deal with some of the matters raised by hon. members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time? Next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Sherman), Post Office Department-Montreal-reported theft of mail from airport; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Public Service-committee consideration of pensions of retired employees; the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan), Expo '67-passenger traffic from seaway ports in foreign ships.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair to go into committee of supply may I say that I have received an indication that it would meet the wishes of all hon. members if we have a dinner adjournment for an hour. My understanding is that there may be a disposition to terminate the labour estimates rather quickly since they were debated on three previous occasions. If there is that disposition, it may be the wish of hon. members to proceed with the labour estimates before adjourning for an hour. This is a matter for hon. members.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are about seven more minutes debating time left on this resolution.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The resolution was passed and the bill has had first reading.
Supply-Labour

October 27, 1966
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think under the circumstances it would be preferable to take a dinner hour and come back at seven o'clock. The estimates of the Department of Labour will go through just as quickly on full stomachs as they will on empty ones.


George James McIlraith: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could agree to suspending the sitting until seven o'clock but go into committee of supply now so that we may commence our consideration of those estimates immediately upon our return.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we now go into committee of supply?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

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


[Stage Direction]
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates: the expenses of the international labour conferences and the promotion of labour-management co-operation, $4,569,100.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that we now suspend our sitting until seven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in committee of supply to study the estimates of the Department of Labour for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1967. For the information of the committee, the estimates of this department were last considered on June 22. Hon. members will find the estimates at page 200 of the blue book. Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that on three occasions the first item of the estimates of this department has been before the house, we feel we have made the necessary remarks about it and will forgo this opportunity of speaking on the first item.


Mr. McNulty:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the estimates of this department. However, as you probably know, I am

vitally interested in the operation of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement and its effect upon my constituents in particular. The results so far in the Niagara peninsula are far from satisfactory and there is a great deal of concern for the future. I was one of the many who wholeheartedly endorsed this auto pact. It is true that more jobs have been created in the automotive industry, but at the same time there have been extensive lay-offs and many more workers may be displaced as a direct or indirect result of the Canada-U.S. auto pact.
I feel the government should take a stronger stand to see that the intent of the agreement is carried out, not only by labour but by management. In order to strengthen the government's position priority should be given to setting up a government-labour-management committee which would deal with specific problems in the auto plants as they arise.
As an example of how this committee would work, may I speak of the situation that exists in the Niagara peninsula at the present time. At the moment there is a severe lay-off at the McKinnon plant of General Motors in St. Catharines. At Hayes Steel Products in Thorold South, just a few miles away, there is under construction a new automotive frame plant which should be into production next April. Both situations are the direct result of the automotive trade agreement. Is it, then, not practical and moral that priority of employment at Hayes Steel should be given to the dislocated workers at General Motors?
Another industry, Conroy Manufacturing Company, has recently been purchased by Kelsey Wheel Corporation, and other than knowledge of the purchase the workers at Conroy's have no assurance of continuation of work. Obviously this causes a great deal of concern with workers who have spent their working lives at Conroy's and are established in St. Catharines. If the government-labour-management committee were functioning, these fears could be alleviated.
It would appear to me, from personal observation, that there has been some lack of co-operation by management in supplying the federal government with the necessary information that would be required to have advance notice of major changes in the levels of employment in order to minimize the effects of dislocation. I believe it should be mandatory for all companies concerned to supply such information when requested by our government.
October 27, 1966

[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Another area where there seems to be lack of co-operation is in the utilization of the supplemental unemployment benefit plan, commonly abbreviated and called SUB or
S.	U.B., instead of the transitional assistance benefit program, commonly called TAB or
T.	A.B. This plan is for workers displaced as a result of the trade pact. In 1955, after a prolonged strike at General Motors, the
U.	A.W. was successful in establishing the S.U.B. program on a 5 cents per hour basis. This 5 cents per hour was in lieu of an increase in wages; in other words it was considered part of the wage increase that U.A.W. could have had to build the SUB fund. The moneys for the SUB program are put into a central fund for each company; that is to say, all of General Motors in Canada have the one SUB fund. On this basis it would be possible for workers displaced by the trade pact to use up the fund and as a result take away from other employees of the same company who would not be affected by the trade pact. Using General Motors, our major auto industry, as an example, displaced workers in Windsor, Oshawa and St. Catharines could use up the fund, and the workers in the London diesel plant and in the Frigidaire plant of General Motors in Toronto who are not affected by the trade pact would lose their benefits. It seems to me that the use of SUB is unfair and unjust in that workers are paying for their own dislocation, and in fact some workers who are not affected by the trade pact are paying for dislocated workers.
In conclusion I should like to say that the major auto companies are not contributing to TAB. As we all know, this was not the original intention since it was expected that the automobile companies would be prepared to contribute an equivalent amount to general revenue and TAB would be paid to their employees when laid off as a result of the auto pact.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the government should, in the very near future, either ask the companies concerned to contribute to TAB or to the general fund, as they are morally obliged to do, or else the government should consider reimbursing the SUB fund and give the employees affected the benefit of the difference which may exist between their payments from SUB and from TAB.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, while neither I nor my colleagues are in favour of taking too
Supply-Labour
long in the resumed debate on Item No. 1, several things have happened since we last discussed this item, I think in June, which in my opinion deserve some comment at this time.
The first point I wish to make derives from the unfortunate railway strike which took place in this country and the steps which this parliament was forced to take to end it. Of course I am not going to discuss that at all, but views on railway negotiations which have held for some time have been confirmed and reinforced, that the ordinary labour negotiation and conciliation machinery is not adequate to deal with the railway industry in particular, and probably with the transportation industry in general. I suggest that we should not wait until another crisis comes upon us before we take steps to improve the machinery applicable to that industry. I think the reasons why the ordinary machinery is not adequate are obvious. The railway industry in particular and the transportation industry in general constitute such a basic industry in the country that serious difficulties necessarily arise in bargaining.
I woud like to suggest to the minister that he and his colleagues in the government give serious consideration to the enactment of a railway labour act or a transportation labour act-depending on whether you want to limit it to the railways or take in other transportation facilities of the industry which come under federal jurisdiction-to provide special machinery which would deal more adequately with disputes in that area of our economy. Lest there be any misunderstanding about this I should like to emphasize that I do not have in mind the provision of compulsory arbitration. During the debate on the act which returned the railway employees to work I said-and the other day I said it to a conference of labour leaders of the Canadian Labour Congress-that it seems to me all of us including the labour leaders, must appreciate that it is not always possible to strike for as long as the labour partner in the dispute may like. Situations may arise where the interests of society require that a strike be ended before damage which might be irreparable is done.
However, I have always said-and I say it again in order that no misunderstanding may arise-that this does not justify the enactment of compulsory arbitration, because in my view not only would that derogate from the democratic process of collective bargaining but, aside from theoretical reasons and

October 27, 19S6
Supply-Labour
reasons of principle, there is a simple and practical reason why general compulsory arbitration would be unfortunate and undesirable. The reason is that in all cases where statutory compulsory arbitration is in effect the process of collective bargaining dies. If you know that at the end of the line you will have to go before an arbitrator anyway, then you simply drag your feet, and usually management drags its feet until it gets to the arbitrator.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question? While I understand that he said he is opposed on principle to compulsory arbitration legislation of a general nature, is he not suggesting that some type of binding solution should be incorporated in the labour transportation legislation which he is suggesting? If that is not so, would he perhaps clear that up?


David Lewis: No, I am not, Mr. Chairman. If I may continue perhaps it will become clear to the minister what my view is. It is not theory but a fact that railway unions and management

assuming there were, as there has not been, genuine collective bargaining and assuming that management were ready, as in the past it has not been, to make offers about which the unions could argue-can in most cases reach an agreement, as is the case with the overwhelming majority of labour disputes. I do not have to tell the minister, as he knows it better than I do, that the strikes get the headlines, but that in his office literally thousands of collective agreements are arrived at, the majority of which do not require conciliation; and in the cases where conciliation is resorted to this process produces an amicable settlement. Despite all the hysteria and panic that some of the pundits have aroused in Canada, the fact is that over the years, the number of strikes related to labour disputes and negotiations in this country has been relatively small. I think that in the long run everyone concerned, labour, management and government should, on the whole, be proud of the record of Canadian labour management relations. This year happened to be a bad one in one or two important areas, and as a result the minister's distinguished grey hair became more distinguished and more grey. However, this has been an exception, not a rule, and I therefore think it would be a mistake in principle, because it derogates from the freedom of the parties to negotiate, and a mistake in practical terms, to have a general law imposing compulsory arbitration.

[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
The point I am making is that you deal with situations which such as the railway strike which are extraordinarily sensitive, and impose extraordinary considerations, but you deal with them as they arise and you hope they will not arise often. What I have in mind is a separate transport labour act which will provide particular machinery for bargaining, for conciliation and mediation, so that you will have in your Department of Labour, as a result of such a statute, people trained in the railway industry, who can get into the job of conciliation or mediation early. I have in mind the provision of tighter time limits, so you do not have the embittering experience of giving notice of bargaining in November, 1965 and not coming down to the wire until August, 1966.
Everyone who has studied the history of labour negotiations in the past 12 months, as I am sure the minister has, knows quite well that if real negotiations had gone ahead last February or March the likelihood is that a settlement would have been made without a strike. There are various reasons for this statement and I do not wish to go into them. Since the bargaining went into August, with all the things that happened in between in the country, to the economy, to profits and all the rest, the situation became much worse. Most important of all, the situation became a lot worse because the rank and file of workers were becoming bitter and frustrated after ten months of endless negotiations and conciliation during which the employer made no offer so far as money was concerned.
What I have in mind is a special statute providing different steps for negotiation which would bring experts into the picture early. I hope the Department of Labour would have qualified experts who would be paid sufficient to make them proud of having the job and giving their expertise to the railway industry, as well as to other labour-management problems. They would come into the picture early. They would not have to wait to be invited. They would be at the doorstep of the parties when they started negotiations and, wherever possible, would guide them away from the collision course when it appeared likely that is where they were headed.
I suggest also such an act would provide not only more effective conciliation procedures, but also more effective mediation procedures, so that men like Mr. Carl Gold-enberg, could come into the picture before
Oclober 27, 1966

the last minute, after a strike has already been in existence. I suggest that even in the last case-although perhaps because of the circumstances it might not have worked-we might have been able to avoid a strike had a mediator with his qualifications been in the picture last January, February or March before the situation heated up to the point where a strike became inevitable.
I have not worked out all the details of such a statute. However, I know many of the minister's advisers and I have the greatest respect for them. I am sure the minister can get a great deal more help from them. I am not suggesting this statute could be written overnight. It would probably take a good many months of study to make it effective. What I am saying is that, obviously, over the years the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act has been found wanting so far as the railway and transportation industry generally is concerned; that the time has come to produce a separate statute, as they have in the United States in the railway labour act, containing separate provisions to deal with railway disputes.
The second point I want to deal with briefly has also become more acute since last June. I refer to the use of injunctions in labour disputes. I appreciate that this question falls largely within provincial jurisdiction, but you will forgive me, Mr. Chairman, if I make a few general remarks before making one or two specific recommendations. I happen to hold the view, and I make no apology for stating it as frankly and clearly as I can, that injunctions have no place in labour disputes. I am referring to injunctions of any kind, not merely ex parte injunctions.
As a member of the bar of the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario, it is my duty, Mr. Chairman, to point out that what I am about to say is said without any disrespect to the bench or any member of the bench. Having said that, it is my experience that injunctions are strike breaking weapons. They are used by management for the purpose of breaking a strike. I think this is totally wrong. It is totally wrong under any democratic system of justice that the courts should be in a position where they may be used by management for strike breaking purposes. This is what has happened.
I noticed, according to the press the other day, that at a recent Liberal meeting in Ottawa the Minister without Portfolio referred to this matter. You will be relieved, Mr. Chairman, to know that I am not going
Supply-Labour
to speak about that meeting tonight. As I have said, I noticed that at a recent Liberal meeting in Ottawa the Minister without Portfolio fathered or mothered or promoted some labour resolutions, one of which concerned the abolition of ex parte injuctions. Of course I agree with him. If he were here I would invite him to get to his feet and join with me right here in parliament in repeating what I understand he promoted at the meeting of his party. I may say however that getting rid of ex parte injunctions does not meet the situation. Even if the other party gets 48 hours notice, as I understand the situation would be under Ontario procedure and also in some other provinces so far as I can remember their procedure, that does not help you. The problem relates to the fact that injunctions can be obtained at all, and particularly in the way in which they are obtained. They are obtained, as I am sure every member of this house, lawyer and non-lawyer knows, on affidavit evidence. The affidavits are prepared by the solicitor for management and have some relationship to the way in which witnesses would give evidence if they were called to the witness box. But affidavit evidence is not in fact the same.
It takes time to read the affidavits and more time if you are going to cross-examine the deponent. Then it takes even more days if you are going to file any affidavits, and reply will need still more days. In the meantime an injunction will almost certainly have been issued, because the only way you can deal with the application for an injunction is to go into court on the day the motion is, as we lawyers call it, returnable and get an adjournment. You get it, certainly, on condition that the injunction is in force in the meantime. By the time you have completed your cross-examination, and you have filed your own affidavits, and your deponents have been cross-examined by the other side, the strike may be broken by the injunction.
Furthermore it seems to me to be totally wrong, and always has seemed so, that a matter as important as a labour dispute should be solved on the basis of somebody writing an affidavit, instead of people who make the charges being there to defend them, to give evidence by word of mouth, and to be subject to cross-examination in court at an open trial.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Although I must preface my remarks again by expressing the respect I hold for the

October 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
courts of Canada, I find that the most reprehensible part of these injunctions-and this was the reason there was trouble at Tilco and at Lenkurt in British Columbia-is that they prohibit from picketing not only the people against whom there is some evidence of unlawful acts, but they prohibit everyone from picketing. A typical injunction will commence in a way something like this: "Defendants" -A, B, C, and D-who presumably are alleged to have committed some unlawful acts, "their agents, their servants and any persons who know of the order", and so on. I am not giving you the precise legal jargon but that is the effect of it.
Now, Mr. Chairman, usually the order is published in the papers. The employers make sure that it also is announced over the radio and sometimes on television, and it is put up in public places in the form of a poster. There is hardly a person in the community who is likely to be unaware that an order has been made and unaware of its general purport. So even if I accept the proposition that there may be three, four, five, six or even ten people who have committed unlawful acts on the picket line, and even if I were to agree that these people should be enjoined, it seems to me totally unreasonable in the administration of justice that not only those who are alleged to have committed unlawful acts are enjoined, but everybody else is enjoined from demonstrating his solidarity with the persons on strike and picketing.
In the result, Mr. Chairman, ordinary law-abiding Canadian workers or Canadian union representatives are now in jail in Peterborough and on the west coast, some of them having been sentenced to 15 days, to two months, three months, four months and as many as six months because of the demonstrations they have made.
It is extremely difficult to deal with this situation. In my opinion the labour movement is justly determined to continue its agitation, and if necessary its defiance; ready to take the consequences of so doing, until the law relating to injunctions in this country is amended.
One does not have to go very far, Mr. Chairman, to see how it can be done much more properly. In the United States in the thirties, I think it was, the Congress there passed the Norris-LaGuardia Act. I appreciate that in the United States the federal system is different from that in Canada, but I merely want to refer to the situation there as an

illustration. Certain aspects of that act should be introduced into Canadian law across the country, namely, that you cannot obtain an injunction on affidavits; it can only be obtained after a hearing in open court, with witnesses giving evidence in direct examination and being cross-examined.
There are areas, Mr. Chairman, where you cannot get an injunction at all. In addition, the injunction obtained can enjoin only those who the evidence proves have violated the law. It cannot enjoin those who are innocent of such violation, and that is what we ought to aim at.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that this is a provincial rather than a federal matter as far as its general aspect is concerned. But in one aspect is is federal, and that is this: It is possible for this parliament to amend section 366 (2) of the Criminal Code, which is what is known as the exculpatory section, so that the watching and besetting which is permitted under section 366 is defined in such a way as to discourage the courts from limiting the number of pickets and from descending upon pickets and upon unions because they were attempting to persuade people to support them.
On a previous occasion, Mr. Chairman, I made this appeal to this house and I make it again. I urge the minister as Minister of Labour to discuss with his colleagues the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General whether it is not possible to amend section 366 (2) so as to provide three things. The first one is that the pickets are allowed to be as numerous as they like as long as they behave peacefully and within the law.
Since when in this land do we prohibit peaceful demonstrations? Yet every court I have been before first of all limited the number of pickets to two, three or four at one entrance because that was enough to convey information. The whole morale of the strikers is destroyed by that act of the court, which is to the benefit of the employer and to the detriment of the striking employees. Therefore I say that section 366 of the Criminal Code should specifically provide that picketing is permitted singly or in small or large numbers, so long as the participants picket peacefully.
Second, Mr. Chairman, the section ought to be amended to provide that the picketing is permitted to be carried on not only for the
October 27, 1966

purpose of obtaining or communicating information, as is provided by the present subsection, but in addition it ought clearly to provide that the picketers have the right to persuade or to attempt to persuade employees, customers, clients or other persons to abstain from doing something, so long as their attempt to persuade them and their persuasion is carried out in a lawful manner.
After all, Mr. Chairman, this is the object of picketing. It is sheer nonsense to say that the picket line is there only to convey or to obtain information. Indeed it is sheer hypocrisy to insist that that is so, because it is not so and it never has been so. The picket is there to protect his job. He is there to try to persuade other people, whether they be employees, customers or clients of his employer, not to cross the picket line, so that his strike will pinch his employer as much as possible and produce a settlement. Strikes are unfortunate, Mr. Chairman. Each time they occur every one of us regrets it, including the strikers. But when they do occur the strikers have the right to be given the opportunity to picket in a proper way, and not to be limited and confined, as is the case at present, by injunctions.
I suggest that this amendment to section 366 (2) of the Criminal Code is necessary, because from my knowledge of the law over the years courts have interpreted picketing by reference to section 366 (2) of the Code, or its predecessor section.
Third, Mr. Chairman, not only should the striking employees themselves be permitted to picket, but anybody else who wants to support them and who wants to demonstrate on their behalf should be given the right to do so. If this parliament were to make that change in the Criminal Code it would be the first important step toward encouraging the courts- and it is within the power of this parliament to do this-not to issue the kind of injunction order that has resulted in the unfortunate arrests and prison sentences imposed recently. In my humble opinion and with all respect to the judges who imposed the sentences they are completely out of all reason to the alleged violations. If an otherwise law-abiding organizer of a union has to spend six months in jail because he dared demonstrate in the face of a court order against him, the court is placed in a position of arrogance rather than importance. It endangers the respect which people feel for the courts and for the administration of justice. Those who think that by imposing such
Supply-Labour
severe sentences the people will be deterred from what they are doing, make a very grave and profound psychological mistake.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
The likelihood is that the savagery-and this is not too strong a word in my opinion-of these sentences will increase the bitterness and resentment, and will encourage more people rather than fewer people to defy the law. This parliament can make its contribution through the amendment to the Criminal Code to which I refer.
I wish to make a third point which we have been promoting and propagating for a long time, and which I have suggested on many occasions. I noticed the other day, that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration raised the same point in a speech. If I understand correctly, my leader asked a question about this speech by the hon. minister, and the minister made it clear that he was expressing his own opinion only. I invite the minister to express his opinion in parliament. Here it would count more than on an outside platform.
I suggest that when employees, which as a group are certified to bargain collectively under the law and after going through all the procedures and processes required by the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, go out on a lawful strike, the employer should be prevented by law from hiring strikebreakers. The whole concept of the strike, itself an unfortunate breakdown in normal civilized relationships, is that the strikers on the one hand suffer loss of income and the employer on the other hand is hurt by loss of business. My point is that in this confrontation if there were no strikebreakers, the parties involved would get together sooner rather than later. Both parties would more easily come to their senses, arrive at a compromise, the workers would resume work and the employer would make profits again. But if, as the law now provides, you permit employers to hire other workers who were not there before the strike, only the poor strikers are hurt.
As some hon. members know, I was involved in one of the landmark cases in labour law in this country. The Royal York Hotel was on strike, and the Canadian Pacific was involved. I will not bore members of the committee with details, but I refer to it to make my point. During the strike the Royal York Hotel fired the employees. I took the

October 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
position on behalf of the union at that time that the hotel by firing the employees was violating the law because the provincial labour relations act, and the federal Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act provide very clearly that in a lawful strike an employee retains the status of employee. The Canadian Pacific took the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. I was delighted to win at every stage of the superior courts, though we had lost in the magistrate's court. But we won in the High Court of Ontario, in the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court of Canada.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I regret to interrupt, but the hon. member's time has expired.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Is the hon. member nearly through? If so, I suggest we let him finish.


David Lewis: I am nearly through, but I do not want to detain the committee.


Maurice Rinfret: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to conclude his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank hon. members. I shall not be long.
The point I wish to make is that when we won that case we really had not won anything, because all we had was a sort of judicial declaration that the employees could not be fired. There was nothing in the law preventing the Royal York Hotel from hiring anybody it pleased. When the strike was ended there was no guarantee that the employees who had been on strike would be taken back. This therefore shows a hole in the law. We made a useful and progressive provision in our law across Canada when we said that people on lawful strike shall remain employees of the employer.
I urge the minister to give serious consideration to amending the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act as it relates to those industries over which parliament has jurisdiction. It would be an important landmark if parliament could take the next step and provide not only that a person remains an employee while on strike, which is in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, but that he who cannot be dismissed by the employer while on a lawful strike cannot be replaced. That is, the employer should not have the right to replace

the employees who are on strike. If you do that, all the bitterness, injunctions and violence which occasionally occur would disappear. You would put the employees who are on strike and the employer on an equal balance of inconvenience when there is talk of injunctions, and you make possible the resolution of strikes, unfortunate as they are when they occur, on a much better basis.
I remind members of the committee-and I am concluding my remarks with this-that nowadays an employee does not have merely his job at stake in a strike. He has a whole range of fringe benefits and equities that he has worked up during the course of his employment. He has seniority, which is important to him. He will have a pension plan, a health and welfare plan, and an insurance plan and all sorts of benefits that affect him and his family. If he loses his job he loses more than his work, because he loses all the equity he has acquired by his years of service. That, to my mind, justifies the sort of amendment to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act I have suggested.
I thought the present was an appropriate time to say a few words on the subjects I have dealt with. I again thank hon. members for giving me an extra two or three minutes.


Mr. Allmand:: At this time, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask some questions regarding the right to strike in essential services, and regarding the use of compulsory arbitration. I do not ask these questions to embarrass labour or because I am anti-union. I ask them because the public asks them, because my constituents ask them, and for this reason I think they should be raised in the house.
I am not an expert in labour matters, as is the hon. member who spoke before me. I speak as a backbencher. I do not speak on behalf of my party. It may well be that labour representatives have good answers to these questions. If so, there should be no objection to the questions being asked. We are not here to favour any one group in society, but to protect and promote the public interest.
During the past two years there have been several strikes in essential services, and on several occasions governments, both federal and provincial, have resorted to compulsory arbitration to settle these strikes.
October 27, 1966

[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
On each occasion the Canadian Labour Congress and other unions have strongly condemned this action. On the other hand governments have used this procedure reluctantly and only as a last resort. In the two recent cases subject to federal jurisdiction, special legislation was enacted and the government stated that no precedent was being established. However, the public have been asking the following questions. First, why are strikes allowed at all in essential public services such as railroads, post offices, hospitals, and so on? Second, why is compulsory arbitration so bad if it is the only alternative to a strike which often seriously affects the national public interest? Third, why would the workers prefer a long strike to a quick settlement determined by an independent tribunal? Do they really gain more from a settlement after a long strike than from a quick settlement resulting from the use of compulsory arbitration? The Canadian Labour Congress often states that it is opposed to compulsory arbitration on the grounds that it is anti-union and that it is anti-democratic. But its spokesmen rarely attempt to explain why it is antiunion or why it is anti-democratic. What reason is there for believing that compulsory arbitration would be more favourable to management than to labour? Have there been any studies made of compulsory arbitration decisions to indicate which side those decisions favour in the long term? I do not know. My purpose in raising this point is merely to seek information on a point which is, I believe, of interest. Some might suggest that compulsory arbitration is wrong because it removes the right of the parties concerned to bargain freely and arrive at agreements without interference. But, Mr. Chairman, such a right has been taken from the parties directly concerned in other fields, and the solution has been accepted as being a reasonable one. When government or another public body is forced to expropriate private property and the parties concerned cannot agree on a price, the matter is referred to an expropriation board or to a court for decision.
Few people would be prepared to accept a situation where the property owner could hold out and prevent expropriation taking place until a price satisfactory to him was agreed upon. We accept the fact that the public interest must be served and that a definite decision must be taken so that work may proceed.
Supply-Labour
Those who oppose compulsory arbitration often argue that if we are to have control over wages by this process, then we should also have some control over prices and profits. Well, Mr. Chairman, the only type of compulsory arbitration I have in mind relates to such essential services as railroads, the post office, the seaway, hospitals, and so on, and in each case a certain control over rates and prices does exist. In some cases these services are public utilities whose rates must be approved by boards and commissions. In others they are government services or crown corporations financed by taxes or charging rates subject to government control. Suppose the government decides to increase postal rates or hospital rates or school taxes. The public may have the opportunity to make respresentations, but once the decision is taken people do not have the right or freedom to avoid the rates or taxes because they do not find them acceptable.
I should like to raise some further questions which are being asked by the public. There are those who say it is undemocratic to interfere with the right to strike. But I would ask whether all union members have full democratic rights within their unions. I refer to the closed shop, the check-off, the payment of union funds to political parties, the right to elect national officers or to fire them, the right to determine their salaries, the right to determine union dues, and the right to a secret ballot in deciding whether or not to strike, together with other important matters.
I listened with interest to what was said by the hon. member for York South who told us that in certain extreme instances he would favour compulsory arbitration, but that he did not think the matter should be the subject of legislation. He said he did not believe it should be the subject of legislation because once it was, there would be no genuine collective bargaining. Mr. Chairman, over the years there have been several examples of compulsory arbitration affecting the railway unions, yet in the periods between, collective agreements have been freely reached after negotiation. It would seem to me that unless there are good reasons to the contrary there should be provision, as an alternative, for compulsory arbitration in disputes involving essential services.
I believe that such a provision should be in existence so that it would not be necessary to ask parliament to pass special legislation each time there is a threat to our national interest. However, as I said when I began, I am not an

October 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
expert and I am ready to listen to the answers to these questions. It may well be that the procedures within the unions to which I referred a few moments ago are necessary if the union movement is to survive, though they are seemingly undemocratic. This may be so, but they do constitute, none the less, a whittling away of traditional democratic rights; to some extent they impose restrictions on the freedom of the workers. And if some restriction of freedom within the labour movement is necessary for the good of the labour movement, then it might well be that for the common good of the entire country some restriction will have to be placed on the right to strike.
I ask these questions not because I am anti-labour or anti-union. I do not come from the establishment or from business or from the ownership class. In asking these questions I am not trying to serve business or corporate interests, or even the government interest; in having this matter discussed in the house the only interest I wish to serve is the public interest and the interest of my constituents.
Discussion of these issues would also, I feel, serve the interests of the rank and file of union members. I have raised these questions. I should like to see them discussed openly and publicly. If there are good arguments against the procedures I have mentioned I should like to hear them. But I do not want to hear cliches and stereotype answers.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, during discussion of the Department of Labour estimates, I would like to refer to a problem which recently came to light in Quebec and which, I believe, concerns a great majority of the Quebec workers and all the Quebec members sitting in this house.
This concerns recent decisions taken by the Canada Labour Relations Board concerning the freedom of Canadian workers to choose their own union, their own negotiating unit and their own representation unit. Two days ago, the chairman and secretary general of the Confederation of National Trade Unions, the C.N.T.U., along with several directors and labour leaders concerned with the problem I am referring to, came to Ottawa to meet with the Quebec members of all parties and protest against certain decisions recently handed down by the Canada Labour Relations Board, and as well as urge us to draw up legislation to have the Canada [Mr. Allmand.J	|	,
Labour Relations Board reconsider those decisions.
That day, we received briefs from the C.N.T.U. entitled: To Quebec ministers and federal members, with reference to the problem being discussed today.
I would like to make a few comments with regard to these notes and ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) to take the necessary action to correct the existing situation along the lines of the brief submitted to us by the C.N.T.U.
We find in that brief:
That BoardMeaning the Canada Labour Relations Board.
-is made up of a chairman, appointed by the governor general in council, four management representatives and four labour representatives. Among the four labour representatives, three are appointed directly or indirectly by the Canadian Labour Congress (C.L.C.) and the fourth by the C.N.T.U.
When an inter-union dispute arises between a C.L.C. affiliate and a C.N.T.U. affiliate, it is not exaggerated to repeat what has already been written, namely "that the dice are loaded against the C.N.T.U." This becomes obvious when the decision would result in changes in allegiance of other groups of workers or when the decision is one of principle, which would have the same effects.
And now here are the facts.
The C.N.T.U. applies for union recognition to the Canada Labour Relations Board on behalf of a group of employees of the C.B.C. French network. That request is rejected on the pretext that a national unit cannot be broken up and that the application of the C.N.T.U. covers only a local unit.
Well, Mr. Chairman, in the case which we are now concerned with, the employees involved, that is those of the C.B.C., were dissatisfied with their union known as I.A.T.S.E. and which includes theatre and film employees, and they made it known through a referendum.
Here is what the C.N.T.U. brief says about it, and I quote:
Quebec workers chose to join a new union affiliated to the C.N.T.U.
The latter submits its request to the Canada Labour Relations Board and what happens? That legitimate, normal and logical request of Canadian workers is turned down.
The brief further states:
With the support of the C.L.C. labour members, the Labour Relations Board turned down the request, setting forth as a principle that when workers are represented by a "national unit", they cannot get rid of it.
October 27, 1966

Now, how is the membership of the Canada Labour Relations Board made up? As I said earlier, there are four labour representatives, three of whom are directly or indirectly appointed by the C.L.C., and the fourth by the C.N.T.U.
Mr. Chairman, how can you expect a union such as the C.N.T.U., to obtain justice when it has a lone representative sitting on the Canada Labour Relations Board while its rival union, the Canadian Labour Congress, has three? Obviously, when a vote is taken, three votes are cast against one; the three members appointed by the Congress vote according to their interests, while the C.N.T.U. representative votes according to those of his own union. Inevitably, where there are conflicting interests between unions, the C.L.C. gets the upper hand due to a larger representation. That is what happens and that is why the matter is serious, for the Quebec workers suffer the consequences of this situation. That is being done with complete disregard for the freedom of choice of his union by the Quebec worker, for his freedom to choose the representation and negotiation unit.
Mr. Chairman, we can only protest against that and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) must remedy the situation.
Needless to say that the decision taken by the Canada Labour Relations Board, was greeted with strong protest by the Quebec citizen in general as well as by the Quebec workers.
I will now quote in that respect another paragraph of the C.N.T.U. brief:
It is known that the C.B.C. employees in Quebec are dissatisfied with their labour structures: they would like to be able to exercise their freedom of choice: they are prevented from doing so by a legal body, as if the labour structures could thus be arbitrated and especially by people interested in their being "mummified".
It can be appreciated that the strong protest which arose in the province of Quebec was justified following the decision taken by the Canada Labour Relations Board. The brief adds and I quote:
More recently, the petition of recognition of the workers at the Angus shops in Montreal was rejected for the same reason, even though the wording of the decision does not say so.
Since the first decision rendered in the C.B.C. case, another union affiliated to the C.L.C. has been able to recruit the majority of the members in the IATSE local-
Supply-Labour
-representing C.B.C. employees who wished to join the C.N.T.U.-
-by taking advantage of the discouragement of the employees, telling them positively that the C.N.T.U. formula was excellent but that it would not be successful.
Yet, during that time, the problem was clearly put forward to the federal cabinet which formed an ad hoc committee to hear the C.N.T.U. as well as the C.L.C.
That ad hoc committee, formed at the beginning of April 1966 and presided by Hon. Robert Winters, heard the case of the C.N.T.U. on the 21st of the same month, and that of the C.L.C. on June 15- and we are now at the end of October, without any news. If it was intended to form a committee of ministers to save time, we hardly needed to appear.
On two occasions, we forwarded telegrams requesting that the work of the committee be speeded up; we did get acknowledgements from some ministers, but that was all. One could be led to believe that the matter of freedom is of little interest to the members and the chairman of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, what I would like to know from the Minister of Labour is when this ad hoc committee will report on its inquiry into the problem raised by the Confederation of National Trade Unions.
I see the Minister of Labour is talking with a government member. I suggest he would be better off listening to the questions we put to him, in our consideration of the estimates of his department.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order, I can assure the hon. member that everybody in the chamber can hear him quite adequately, including the minister.


Mr. Ormislon:: There is no point of order there.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) to repeat his statement; I did not grasp what he said, since my earphone was not in place, and he was not speaking loud enough for me to understand. Therefore, would he please repeat.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I made just the opposite observation, that the hon. member was speaking loud enough for everybody in the chamber to hear him without the benefit of the hearing aids.

October 27, 1966
Supply-Labour


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased if this is the case. However, I mentioned that the hon. minister was engaged in conversation and, ordinarily, when one listens to two people at the same time, chances are that he does not grasp everything that is said.
However, since he is now listening, I will repeat my question to make sure he gets it straight: Can the minister inform the house when the federal cabinet committee, appointed to examine the question raised by the C.N.T.U., following decisions handed down by the Canada Labour Relations Board, will report and attempt to solve the problem in a reasonable and equitable manner, granting every Quebec and Canadian worker the freedom of choice with respect to negotiation and representation units? That is the first question I want to ask the hon. Minister of Labour.
Here is another quotation from the brief prepared by the C.N.T.U. for federal ministers and Quebec members:
Canada is made up of various elements, a fact that Quebec members are surely aware of. If wage-earners are compelled to exercise their right of association within national units, you can readily imagine that the interests of Quebec workers will not be duly considered. Moreover, what about the free choice of workers?
And the brief further states:
There is another form of discrimination at the Labour Relations Board level. We have already raised the matter, but without any success. Frenchspeaking members must either speak English, which is a serious handicap, or speak French and have their speeches translated by an interpreter-


Gilles Grégoire: Of course.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes sir; bien sur.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Has the hon. member any knowledge of what transpired at the last hearing of a dispute between the unions in Quebec in the matter of bilingual translation facilities?
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, as far as I know the problem is twofold: what was said to the federal members for Quebec, only two days ago.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: My question was, does the hon. member know that simultaneous translation facilities were made available at the last hearing of such a dispute, pursuant to the assurance I gave some weeks ago? The hon. member is now complaining that no action was taken.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to see that the hon. minister is ready to allow simultaneous translation in the Canada Labour Relations Board. I have just heard the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) say: "It is done". There was no simultaneous translation last time. I shall be very pleased if there will be in the future, and I congratulate the minister on his decision.
In its brief presented two days ago, the C.N.T.U. mentioned this problem. If the hon. minister has already dealt with it, so much the better; I can only congratulate him on it.
Mr. Chairman, to get back to the question of discrimination, if I may so, as regards trade-union freedom, discrimination exercised by the Canadian Labour Relations Board against workers from Quebec or from Canada as a whole, who cannot choose their own union, I should like to point out a few reactions coming precisely from Quebec.
In an article published, in the Monday January 24, 1966 edition of Le Devoir following a decision made by the C.J.R.B., Mr. Jean-Marc Leger wrote the following lines:
As a result, for a Crown corporation (or any other federal agency under federal jurisdiction as regards labour relations), constituting legally and administratively a sole entity, there should be, as regards every class of its employees, a corresponding sole "bargaining unit", namely a single union, on a national scale.
The board has always rejected the notion of labour plurality on the regional basis in the same sphere of action.
Settling, when necessary, conflicts of jurisdiction between labour unions with very similar aims, it clung obstinately to the thesis of the Pan-Canadian unit of negotiation, feeling that it did not have to take into account the differences, often considerable, in the working conditions from one region to another or of the socio-cultural differentiation factors. Thus, a new labour union cannot hope to gain recognition if it does not succeed in securing, throughout the country, as members the majority of the workers in a particular sector of a federal agency or of an agency coming under federal jurisdiction.
October 27, 1966

And Mr. Jean-Marc L6ger adds a little further:
But there is such a thing as law and jurisprudence, on the one hand, common sense and, on the other, justice. Through the interpretation given by the C.L.R.B., the notion of negotiation unit is liable to maintain existing situations to the benefit of the oldest or more powerful, favour a certain hardened labour unionism, disregard often important differences in the working conditions in various regions as well as the various socio-cultural characteristics, and finally deny, in practice, the right of free association and free labour affiliation.
That is what Mr. Jean-Marc Leger wrote in Le Devoir on Monday, January 24, 1966, following a decision by the Canada Labour Relations Board.
I would now like to quote a sometime newspaperman, sometime member of parliament, the hon. member for Montreal-Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) who wrote in the Montreal Star on January 25, 1966, and I quote:
In spite of a speech from the throne full of great plans and of a vote which saved the government Friday night, it is obvious, if one opens a weekend newspaper, that the Labour Relations Board stole the limelight from us by taking a serious decision, which might have dire repercussions and could soon become famous.
And the hon. member adds a little further:
The only reason given by the board to justify its decision is that the national negotiation unit should be maintained and that there is no valid reason for setting up regional negotiation units.
At first sight, such a decision may seem sensible, even if it has a very legalistic character. In fact it is liable to worsen labour relations considerably. For the first time, the tensions which exist between Ottawa and Quebec are reflected in a field which those problems did not reach much, that of labour.
And the hon. member for Montreal-Hoch-elaga adds this:
Second, the board which made the ruling should be considered. How is its membership made up? Of three management representatives, one of whom died recently and has not yet been replaced and of four labour representatives, three from the C.L.C. and one from the C.N.T.U. Of course, the I.A.T.S.E. is affiliated to the C.L.C. while the union seeking recognition is affiliated to the C.N.T.U. One of the officers of that confederation stated in this connection: we feel like strangers when we appear before the board. By three to one, our request for certification is perhaps doomed in advance.
I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that four management representatives also sit on the Canada Labour Relations Board and that because of the division between the C.L.C. and the C.N.T.U., the management representatives may agree at times to make the decisions instead of labour representatives.
Supply-Labour
If the argument of the Labour Relations Board is to be carried to the extremes, all unions might as well be abolished so that only one will be recognized. That union would then have a free hand, and the malcontents could not get out. No other union could be chosen if that one proved inefficient. And the workers, whether satisfied or not with that single union, would have to put up with it, because a single labour union would represent all the workers no longer given an alternative.
I should like to quote another paragraph from an article written by the member for Hochelaga in the Montreal Star of April 25, 1966; it reads as follows:
Finally, it is obvious, since that decision was taken, that the C.N.T.U., which is largely concentrated in Quebec, will not be able to represent a group of Quebec workers of whatever importance, within any federal agency or any other undertaking where there is already a national bargaining unit. Accordingly, any union already certified to represent such a unit may treat its members as it wants since it is clearly established that they have but two alternatives: to endure the abuse of the PanCanadian unions or to give up altogether the advantages of trade unionism.
And the hon. member for Hochelaga concludes by saying:
Up to now, contrary to what has been the case in other groups of our society, nationalism and separatism had little influence on unions in Quebec. As a result of this C.L.R.B. decision, the situation could change very rapidly.
Mr. Chairman, I would now read some of the arguments raised by the Confederation of National Trade Unions in its brief to the cabinet committee studying this question. That brief I believe was submitted on February 16, 1966. One of the arguments therein was the following:
The French television network is in itself a separate administrative unit within the C.B.C.
And I believe that everybody in this house should admit this, that the French television network is in itself a separate administrative unit within the C.B.C.
And I quote another argument:
It is unacceptable that the exercise of the right to unite of the French network employees should be subject to the will of English network employees.
It is these people who live hundreds of miles away, who are not engaged in similar work, who do not speak the same language and do not share the same culture, who decide on behalf of the French element how they are to exercise their right of association.

October 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
Mr. Chairman, I would like to argue further, I will do this in a few minutes, but first, I would like to introduce an amendment to item No. 1, so as to permit further discussion on the matter, and to give every member a chance to express his views on the question, so that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) will be able to decide accordingly. For these reasons, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe):
That the salary of the Minister of Labour be reduced to $1 unless the minister takes the necessary steps to oblige the Canada Labour Relations Board to give the Canadian workers under the jurisdiction of the board the right to be represented by a union of their choice.
Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to conclude-
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. When we are discussing the departmental estimates, how can an amendment of this kind be brought in?


Gilles Grégoire: Would the minister explain what he means when he asks how any member can now bring in a motion or amendment of this kind?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: My point of order is this, Mr. Chairman: There may be occasions when an amendment can be proposed, but not in this way during the discussion of departmental estimates.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, where would the minister suggest that we bring forward such an amendment, if we cannot do it when studying the estimates of his department?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we are considering at this time item No. 1 of the Department of Labour estimates which deals with general administration of the department. We are considering item No. 1.
I should like to mention to the minister that the purpose of the amendment is not so much to take his salary from him, no, but it is the only means available to us to ask the minister to act along this line, and I have taken care to add that his salary be reduced to $1 "unless", and that is what I would like to see, not the reduction of the minister's salary to $1, but unless he takes the necessary steps to force-


René Tremblay: This is blackmail.


Gilles Grégoire: I hear the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) say this is blackmail. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to him that the rules and procedures of this house are so narrow that when someone wants to have his views accepted in this house, there are not so many means available to do so, but this is one of the rare means that is available to us.
I should like to point out to the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane that the amendment is not intended to blackmail anyone; if we resort to this means it is because it is one of the few if not the only one which is available to us to move an amendment on the subject.
If section 44 of the Industrial Relations Act were before the house, then we could bring in the necessary amendments but it is not before the house, it is not on the order paper, therefore we have to take this opportunity and move the amendment during consideration of the estimates of the minister. We are now on item No. 1 which allows a general discussion on the overall operation of the Department of Labour and the Canada Labour Relations Board comes under the Department of Labour. If we want to see any change in that board, a motion or an amendment has to be moved under item No. 1 and it can be done only in this way. However, I should like the minister to realize that I am not trying to have his salary reduced to one dollar but rather to make it possible for everyone here to suggest that we should like the minister to force the Canada Labour Relations Board to take the necessary steps so that every Quebec and Canadian worker might have the free choice of his bargaining and representation labour unit.
This, Mr. Chairman, is the meaning of this amendment. I think that it should be accepted, since the Canadian Labour Relations Board has clearly encroached upon the rights of Quebec workers which is an unthinkable precedent.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order in connection with this proposed amendment, as they call it. We are discussing vote 1 of the estimates of the Department of Labour. In the blue book the estimates of this department start at page 200 and run to page 209. Above vote 1 is the statutory item dealing with the salary and motorcar allowance of the minister. How can an amendment to the salary of the minister
October 27, 1966

be brought in when we are discussing vote 1? The item sought to be amended appears above vote 1 and is not being discussed at the moment. It is vote 1 that is being discussed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, on the same point raised by the member for York-Hum-ber, (Mr. Cowan), I must say this: On section 1 or on item 1, any member can move an amendment even about the minister's salary. A general discussion is then going on and I think that when we are dealing with generalities concerning the said estimates, we are entitled, or the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is entitled to move an amendment. Whether it is carried or defeated, the member is entitled just the same to move an amendment, since we are holding a general debate on the estimates of the Minister of Labour.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I admit that the salary of the minister is statutory, but it is a fact that on section 1 of a bill or on item 1 of estimates, it has always been possible to discuss the over-all operations of a department.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak to a point of order which has been raised. I have not seen a copy of the proposed amendment in writing, but it sounded as if it were a rather lengthy one. It has always been my understanding that while it was possible for a member in committee of supply to move that a vote be reduced, the terms of the motion had to be confined to that and nothing more. I therefore wonder whether the exact terms of the amendment which has been proposed could be clarified. I have always understood that in making such a motion a member could present the reasons for his opinion that a vote should be reduced, but that the terms of such a motion should be confined to that. I therefore wonder whether, before we listen to further discussions on the point of order, we could have some clarification as to the motion which has been put forward.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before you make your ruling, may I remind you that not so long ago, about a year or a year and a half ago I believe, an amendment of this kind was presented by a member of the Conservative party with a view to reducing 23033-582
Supply-Labour
the salary of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Cardin) to one dollar unless certain things were done.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on a point of order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member is already speaking on a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I was on a point of order, following the request-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member permit a question? Can he tell us the terms of his amendment which we heard only verbally, so that we may know what is the point of order which he is attempting to discuss?


Gilles Grégoire: I wish to point out to my friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) that-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. member for Lapointe presented his amendment in French. It is being translated, and I will read it to the house in a moment or two.


Michael Starr: Only in French?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Why not in English?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I have prepared this amendment myself in my office, before we resumed our sitting, because, unlike the other parties, we, the Independents, do not have available the secretarial staff willing to work in the evening and paid by the government to do our work. When we decide to move an amendment at night, we do not have the necessary staff to do the work and we are obliged to do it ourselves; the amendment is written by hand of course, it has not been translated or mimeographed, so that we have not been able to send a copy to the representatives of the other parties.
I do not think that I have to make apologies for this, since it depends on the lack of such facilities available to all members of this house.

October 27, 1966
Supply-Labour


An hon. Member:: Read the amendment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am asked to read the exact wording of the amendment. The amendment reads as follows:
That the salary of the Minister of Labour be reduced to $1 unless the minister takes the necessary steps to oblige the Canada Labour Relations Board to give the Canadian workers under the jurisdiction of the board the right to be represented by a union of their choice.
A similar amendment has been proposed by a Conservative member not so long ago, and it was accepted by the Chairman and I hope that this one will also be accepted by the Chairman of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the purpose of the amendment is not so much to reduce the minister's salary, but rather to allow all members of the house to voice their opinions on the question of principle which is at stake, so as to allow the hon. minister to take note of it and to force the Canada Labour Relations Board to give the Canadian workers the right to be represented by a union of their choice.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member tell us in French just what it is?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. If the hon. member's amendment had been simply to reduce the minister's salary I would not have risen on a point of order; but he has written a condition into his so-called amendment.


Michael Starr: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Can the Chair clarify the situation for the committee by reading the amendment?


Herman Maxwell Batten: The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe is as follows:
That the salary of the Minister of Labour be reduced to one dollar unless the minister does not take the necessary steps to oblige the Canada Labour Relations Board to permit French speaking workers falling under the jurisdiction of the board the free choice of being represented by a union of their choice.


Michael Starr: This amendment is obviously out of order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Lapointe pointed out his objectives in putting forward this amendment, but I will have to say to him that whatever his objectives might be the Chair is only guided by what the amendment says.

First, the hon. member placed a condition on the amendment he moved and second, he moved an amendment on a statutory item dealing with the minister's salary, and which is not the item now under discussion in this committee. If the hon. member wishes to make any change in the particular statutory item, then I think he should move his amendment when we come to legislation dealing with "The Salaries Act". For those reasons I declare the amendment out of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, you have just ruled out of order the amendment, but I have no intention to appeal against your decision. I think that during the general discussion on the estimates of the Department of Labour, it is important that we know exactly the attitude of the Canadian Department of Labour towards the trade unions.
We had, two nights ago, a meeting with the representatives of the C.N.T.U. where all Quebec members were invited-those who represent the province where the C.N.T.U. has the largest and most complete scope.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, it appears that pressures are now brought to bear on the Department of Labour so that all federal civil servants belong to a union whatever it is, as long as they all belong to the same union.
Mr. Chairman, when the Canadian Labour Relations Board, the C.L.R.B. as we call it, asks or suggests that all federal civil servants belong to the same union, the C.L.R.B. first, followed by the federal government, or the Department of Labour, oppose the union's recognition, as it should be recognized, not only in one province, but throughout Canada. If we meet the members of the C.N.T.U. or their officials, we find that these people nevertheless have in the various federal departments people interested in their union. If squabbles or bickering exist among the various unions in Canada, I do believe that this does not concern the federal or the provincial minister of labour. If the unions try or attempt to reach some understanding among themselves first, before asking us to legislate, well and good; however, if a union should ask Ottawa or the Minister of Labour to introduce or to endorse some legislation recognizing a particular union then, neither the minister nor the government should fall into the trap.
October 27, 1966

Mr. Chairman, we do agree that the Canadian workers, that the federal civil servants should be recognized and adequately represented. Now, if some quarrel existing among the unions should tend to have repercussions in the parliament in Ottawa, in this house, I believe that the minister, as any member of the house, should refrain from referring the situation or the problem to the House of Commons.
In the evening, the day before yesterday, we heard Mr. Pepin, the chairman of the C.N.T.U., threaten to withdraw whatever forces of the C.N.T.U. from the departments or from the federal organization. No doubt Mr. Pepin is right when he speaks for his union; however, there are other unions in Canada, in no way inferior to the one headed by Mr. Marcel Pepin. Now, it is on this point, Mr. Chairman, that I believe that it is important and urgent for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) to take position.
Had we left the C.N.T.U. or any other union free to carry its organizing, even among the federal employees, even in the civil service, even in the very midst of the employees linked to or connected with the federal administration, then, I believe, the present debate would not have taken place. Nor would we have had the amendment which was suggested a while ago by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), to reduce the minister's salary to $1 per annum from the $35,000 he gets at present.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want, as the hon. member for Lapointe said a while ago, the minister to be deprived of his salary because he needs it as well as anybody else, but I would not want the minister or his department to prevent a trade union from the C.N.T.U. from setting an organization among the federal civil servants and enjoying the same rights and the same regard as any other Canadian trade union. Let there be no discrimination against either of them, against either of the trade unions.
I believe at this stage all the members can agree with that, that anybody may be free to belong to the union of his own choice and that the union may be looked upon with respect by him, according to the standards of the federal labour organization.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to talk at any great length on the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe.
Supply-Labour
However, I must take exception to some of the inferences in his speech. While it may be a question of semantics, the main argument the hon. member for Lapointe advanced was that the cards are stacked, if I may use that expression, against the French speaking union member from the province of Quebec. I happen to think, Mr. Chairman, that it is a deplorable situation when we introduce the race cry to settle the problems of labour. If there is any sensible Canadian, and I use the term "Canadian" here in its broadest sense, then it is the man with the lunch pail who earns his living by the sweat of his brow.
I believe that many of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Lapointe are valid. When he attacks the decisions which are restricting the C.N.T.U. to a regional basis, he is ignoring a situation which I want to emphasize, that there are many thousands of workers in the province of Quebec who happen to be English speaking Canadians and who are members of the C.N.T.U. Mr. Pepin, who heads that particular union, emphasized that fact just two nights ago.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. If the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), will read again what I have said in the record, he will see that his interpretation is incorrect, for I spoke not of French Canadian workers but of Quebec workers, and I should like the hon. member to note this.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: You used the term "French Canadian", not "Quebec".


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I absolutely deny the truth of what the hon. member for Verdun has just said and he need only read Hansard tomorrow to see that he is wrong.


David Réal Caouette: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is true that the hon. member for Lapointe did not mention French Canadian workers, and the hon. member for Verdun is quite aware of this.
There are C.N.T.U. members not only in his riding or in mine, but throughout Canada. The hon. member is trying here to distinguish between French and English speaking Canadians. The hon. member is quite off the track. He should not raise this question, because it is not relevant in the circumstances, and the leader of the C.N.T.U. said himself two days ago that the C.N.T.U. wanted to recruit

October 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
members not only among Quebec workers, but among those outside the province.
The hon. member for Lapointe did not mention the French fact or did not try to discriminate. He simply put the facts as evidence before the committee.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Perhaps the point of order has been discussed sufficiently for the parliamentary secretary to continue his remarks.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I will accept the-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am quite happy to accept the word of the hon. member for Lapointe when he says he did not imply the C.N.T.U. was exclusively a French speaking union. I am very happy and very pleased to know he gives it a wider interpretation because I happen to be one of the supporters and admirers of the C.N.T.U. I say this for one fundamental reason which may, in a sense, be ironic. One of the reasons I am pleased and proud of the existence of the C.N.T.U. in the labour field is that a month or six weeks ago, on behalf of 600,000 French and English speaking members and in conjuction with the rival C.L.C. as well as in conjunction with unions for the agriculture section of the province of Quebec, they completely rejected the associate state theory, Mr. Gregoire, and separatism. I am very proud of the C.N.T.U., but at the same time I do not want unintentionally to mislead the house. If the hon. member did not refer to the French speaking Quebecois, I apologize, but I will find out from Hansard tomorrow.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. By virtue of Standing Order No. 37, a member may explain what has been misunderstood: a while ago the member for Verdun tried to twist my words, to put words in my mouth that I had not used, in an attempt to bring up the question of racism which I had not brought up. And right after having been contradicted as he will be again tomorrow when he reads Hansard, the member for Verdun would like to plunge into racism, of which we spoke this evening during the debate. I blame the member for resorting

to such tactics. Whatever he is trying to achieve, what he is doing is certainly detrimental to the Quebec workers.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I do not know why the hon. member should get so very excited because I referred to him as the leader of the separatist party. He does not mind that title, and I respect him for it. When he crossed the floor of this house to sit in the far corner he declared that he was the avowed advocate of separatism in the federal parliament. I do not think he has to apologize for that; it is his own declaration. I am not trying to create the false impression that the hon. member for Lapointe represents separatism in this house: That was his own statement which he made when he departed from the ranks of those with whom he once sat.
Again I must repeat that there might have been a misunderstanding as a result of the translation from French into English, and that the word "Quebecois"-which is something to which I happen to plead guilty, being a Quebecois myself, having lived in the province of Quebec for 45 years-came through on the English translation system as a "French Canadian". If Hansard proves to me tomorrow that the hon. member for Lapointe did not say that these recent decisions were unfair to the French speaking workers of Quebec. I would be happy to apologize tomorrow.
I think that one of the deplorable aspects of the battles of the C.N.T.U. for national recognition has been that too many people in Quebec and in the rest of Canada have tried to tar them with the separatist and nationalist brush, whereas I said six weeks ago that they were one responsible voice in the province of Quebec to come out on the side of federalism. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am an admirer of Pepin and Sauve and others who head the C.N.T.U.
I am not here to take issue with their claims. When the minister is given the opportunity he will be able to give a full answer to the amendment proposed, which I gather is now out of the way because the Chairman in his wisdom has ruled it out of order.
I think that both the C.N.T.U. and the hon. member for Lapointe have made a strong argument for more speedy decisions on behalf of cabinet committees. Obviously, these questions have to be faced and we must decide whether or not we are going to recognize bargaining agents as national in scope or as regional in scope.
October 27, 1966

I am sure that the minister is going to point out that these same problems arise in the province of British Columbia. Representation from that province precisely in the terms of the C.N.T.U. brief have been made; to recognize regional bargaining agents within the railways and by certain regional unions on the coast.
In conclusion, I repeat that if I misrepresented the remarks of the hon. member I am sorry, but I will read what he said in Hansard tomorrow.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for York-Humber.


Gilles Grégoire: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Lapointe on a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: I would like to rise again on a point of order, based on standing order 37 of this house, and tell the hon. member for Verdun, or explain, as that order allows me to, what I said a while ago: I did not want to drag politics into this debate on labour problems in Quebec, but I regret that he did turn the debate into vulgar politicking, while he should have taken into consideration the principal rights and privileges of the workers.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, at this time when we are discussing vote No. 1 of the Department of Labour estimates for 1966-67 there are three distinct points I should like to raise, and I hope that I can secure a definite answer from the Minister of Labour during the course of the discussion. I wish to refer specifically to the situation that exists in the city of Peterborough. If the Minister of Labour, with his knowledge of the law, should indicate that this question is sub judice, I wish he would do so now because I would immediately swing on to a discussion of the situation in Oshawa. This I will do if he states I am not permitted to speak about the situation at the Tilco Plastics firm at Peterborough.
I address my remarks, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Labour. I would point out that two weeks ago tomorrow I was in the
Supply-Labour
city of Peterborough and the situation there involving Tilco Plastics is not unfamiliar to me. I know many of those who have been convicted in the lower courts of contempt of court, and their conviction was sustained by the Ontario Court of Appeal this very week. I sat last Monday in courtroom No. 225 of Osgoode Hall, the Supreme Court of Ontario, and listened to the argument of Mr. E. B. Jolliffe, the solicitor for the men who were appealing their conviction and sentence. I was there from eleven in the morning when the court opened until 4 in the afternoon, when it adjourned until eleven o'clock the following morning.
I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that I was one of those mass demonstrators at the Tilco Plastics plant on February 24. No one arrested me; no one summonsed me. I do not know what favouritism was shown in the matter of summonses in what described in the Court of Appeal as "that moving belt" that moved about two sides of the Tilco Plastics plant.
Be that as it may, in this matter of the conviction and sentence of these men, which have been sustained by the Appeal Court of Ontario, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour, who is a lawyer and a fully fledged member of the cabinet, if the cabinet is giving any consideration whatever to showing mercy to the men who were convicted in Peterborough, or to the men who were convicted in Vancouver in connection with the Lenkurt strike.
Believe me, Mr. Chairman, this is a situation which so far has never been explained. Why does the cabinet allow the convictions in Peterborough to stand, while no action whatever is taken against the same type of demonstrators in the city of Oshawa? I worked at three different times on the staff of the Oshawa Reformer. It has since changed its name to the Oshawa Times and if I call it the Reformer, Mr. Chairman, you will know that I refer to the same paper. If I refer to it as the Times it is still the same paper. The paper used to be owned by a Liberal by the name of Mundy, and had been for many generations. It has recently passed under the control of Lord Thomson of Fleet.
The original mass demonstration that occurred in the province of Ontario was staged at Oshawa. In fact, it was reported in the papers that one of the participants in the Oshawa demonstration tore up some legal papers in the hands of the sheriff of Ontario

October 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
county. Why was action taken against the mass demonstrators in the city of Peterborough but not against the mass demonstrators in the city of Oshawa?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, while I did not immediately answer the question that was put by the hon. member earlier when he asked me whether or not he was justified in referring in this house to the Tilco strike, may I say that this was because I felt that it would depend on the subject matter involved. Having regard to the nature of the points which are now being discussed by the hon. member, may I say that they do not come within the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Labour or under any branch of the federal government, and therefore should not be discussed at this time on the estimates of the Department of Labour.
If the hon. member were dealing with the question of ex parte injunctions or a matter of that sort, and he wanted to raise by way of illustration something that had happened in connection therewith, this would probably be relevant or germane to this debate; but not the type of discussion which is going on at the moment; and I say that with respect.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Ralph Bronson Cowan: If the hon. Minister of Labour wishes to confine the discussion to certain specifics I will argue with him on the question of the exercise of mercy. The exercise of mercy seems to be the prerogative of the cabinet of which he is a member. I am saying that there should have been mercy shown with these convictions at Peterborough.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Is the minister rising on a point of order?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am also rising to give an answer to the question that the hon. member referred to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The minister is rising to answer a question of the hon. member for York-Humber, I take it.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Because the federal government does, under certain circumstances, have the right to exercise clemency, that is not done when, in a court of law, appeals have been taken. And appeals have been taken in this case. There was an

intimation yesterday that one of those concerned was considering a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the British Columbia case the appeal has not yet been heard.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have listened with interest to the answer of the Minister of Labour. I should like to point out that there have been cases where the cabinet has exercised mercy in the case of convicted murderers when the convictions were not appealed to higher courts. The murderers having been convicted in the lower courts and no appeal having been heard past the supreme court of the province. Mercy has been exercised in several such cases. In Peterborough there has been an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ontario. So far as I know no appeal has been made to the Supreme Court of Canada as of this moment. Surely the exercise of the quality of mercy will not be restricted at this time with regard to the convictions of those sentenced in Peterborough? If those men remain in jail, in Peterborough, until such time as a decision is made whether there should be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the time to which they have been sentenced could have elapsed. I do not think that is right, just nor equitable.
The hon. member for York South says that he pays respect to members of the bench. There are times when I find it very hard to be respectful to members of the bench. I sat through the whole argument last Monday, for quite a few hours.
If I am told by the Minister of Labour, a learned lawyer, that what I am discussing at this time is not within the province of the federal government, I would ask him another question. Can he, as the representative of labour in the cabinet, tell us why no action was taken against those original mass demonstrators in Oshawa? They have been shown mercy in advance of trial. They were granted amnesty from the start. Nobody took them to court. The people in Peterborough, going on the precedent in Oshawa, figured they had every right to make a mass demonstration against the use of injunctions in labour disputes.
I was interested when the member for York South gave us a little history of injunctions, referring back to some amendments in the United States congress passed about 1930. That is about 36 years ago. I am 100 per cent opposed to the use of ex parte injunctions in
October 27. 1966

labour disputes. I think they should be outlawed. I have already congratulated the Minister without Portfolio of this cabinet for taking such an active part in the Liberal convention at the Chateau Laurier where the Liberal party passed a resolution calling for the outlawing of ex parte injunctions in labour disputes in the country. I ask the Minister of Labour, since the Minister without Portfolio is not here, if the federal government found it possible to suspend capital punishment while the discussion was being held as to whether it would be abolished last spring, why cannot the federal cabinet abolish or hold up the sentences for contempt of court while we are dealing with the resolution introduced by the Minister without Portfolio at the Chateau Laurier calling for the abolition of ex parte injunctions?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: If they could abolish sentences then, why not now?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Several times the hon.
member has been asking for an expert opinion on the question of law. He has paid tribute to the Minister of Labour by saying he is a lawyer of good standing or experience, or something like that. I cannot give a legal opinion in this house, and the hon. member should know that. The matters he is talking of are the responsibilities of law enforcement. Law enforcement within the provinces is the responsibility of the provinces. Until the right of appeal and the time of appeal is expended the other questions do not arise.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: 
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Minister of Labour on a point of order.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The hon. member is dealing with matters that do not come within the jurisdiction of the federal government or of this parliament even. He is dealing with labour disputes that are entirely in the provincial field, subject to provincial legislation and action in provincial courts.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: 
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would ask a ruling on the point of order that I raised, Mr. Chairman. These issues are not germane to the item under discussion. It is true that this vote covers items of labour-management co-operation, but the matters with which the hon. member is dealing do not come within this vote at all. These are labour matters; labour-management disputes, if you want to put it that way; or industrial relations disputes. They do not come within the ambit or jurisdiction of the federal government, nor do the rights of the rubber workers in the province of Ontario or in any other province of Canada.
It is true that the rubber workers are bound by the Lord's Day Act, but that is not a matter to come up for discussion here. They are bound by any applicable statute of course. Certainly, to ask the federal Department of Labour to intervene in a matter which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial department of labour is wrong in my humble submission and I ask, Mr. Chairman, that you rule that the hon. member should confine his remarks to Item 1 of the estimates before us.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: I do not think there is any need for the Chair to remind the hon. member for York-Humber of standing order 59(2) which says that speeches in the committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the items or clauses under consideration. While it is true that Vote 1 permits a general discussion of the Department of Labour, hon. members must deal only with those questions which come within the purview and under the authority of the federal Department of Labour. I hope the hon. member will confine his remarks to the item before the committee.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I thank you. As I stated before, I believe the Lord's Day Act is a federal statute and I believe it is possible to

discuss a federal statute when considering the estimates of the federal Department of Labour. I am glad the federal Minister of Labour has stood in his place tonight and said "Of course the workers of this plant are bound by the terms of the Lord's Day Act." It is good to hear the federal Minister of Labour making this flat-footed statement, because last Sunday afternoon the men were told by a United States official of their movement that the Lord's Day Act is not in force in Canada at this time.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The Lord's Day Act is a
pre-confederation statute which was passed some 300 years ago and inherited by this country. It is not an act of the federal parliament. If it is still the law-and I think it is-it will have to be obeyed by workers in Ontario as in any other province.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have already thanked the minister for his statement with regard to the Lord's Day Act. If he wishes me to do so, I will thank him again.
I mentioned when I began that there were three points I wished to raise. If the federal Minister of Labour does not wish to discuss the question of rates of pay or shift differentials in the federal government service I will be glad to ask him a series of questions, and perhaps the minister will tell me whether I am out of order. While we are discussing Vote 1, which deals with general administration and the promotion of labour-management co-operation, I should like to mention the wages or salaries paid to nurses in the federal service. This includes a great many departments-immigration, for one; health and welfare for another. If I am to be told I must discuss this question under these various departmental estimates, I should like to be told when I can discuss the employment of labour in the service of the federal government.
On more than one occasion in the past I have suggested that the federal government should take steps to pay the nurses in the employ of the government on a shift differential basis with premium rates of pay for Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. On two occasions I have congratulated the Minister of Veterans Affairs on having introduced a shift differential rate of pay for nurses in veterans hospitals across the country. But we were amazed to learn in a health department committee meeting some months ago that in connection with the shift differential rates of
October 27, 1966

pay introduced by the Department of Veterans Affairs Treasury Board has ruled that the night differential applies only from midnight until six in the morning-the only place in all Canada where the night shift differential is limited to certain hours and is not paid for the entire shift.
I happened to be in Britain this past summer in my capacity as a member of the committee on veterans affairs. I went considerably out of my way to get in touch with officials of the British government regarding national health administration in that country and I asked about day premium rates of pay for nurses under government control there.
I was happy to learn from those officials and from officials of the nurses association that for the past two years the British government has been paying nurses one pound extra for work on Sundays as compared with the other six days of the week. They work a 42-hour week in Britain, and for work on Sundays they receive extra pay amounting to one pound, though they do not as yet receive an extra day premium rate for work on holidays.
I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he is exercising his persuasive powers on the cabinet to see that the federal government introduces day premium rates of pay as they have been doing in Britain for the past two years with regard to nurses in the employ of the federal government. I asked specifically about the situation in Great Britain because I was mightily interested in finding out whether or not the nurses who appear on Sundays to conduct the work of the hospitals and the health services are the women who also work on the other days of the week.
I was told that the extra pay for Sunday work had resulted in practically an entirely different staff staffing the hospitals on Sundays-they were attracting married women who did not work as nurses during the week, and they were attracting girls who from Monday to Friday were following other occupations, though they were qualified nurses.
I was interested in this fact because when one talks about day premium rates of pay in the nursing service in the Dominion of Canada he is alwavs met with the statement that day premium rates of pay should only be paid to women working five days a week in which Sunday is included. This is a ridiculous argument because day premium rates have been used by many branches of industry to attract qualified people to work on holidays
Supply-Labour
and Sundays-not necessarily those who are regularly employed five days a week on that particular type of work.
Since the Department of Veterans Affairs has made a feeble approach to the question of shift differential pay in an effort to attract nurses to the federal service and to attract girls to take up the nursing profession I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he will seek to have the federal government introduce day premium rates of pay for nurses on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. If such tactics were adopted in the nursing profession, and if young girls now in secondary school were made aware of the fact that extra pay would be available for working Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, over and above regular rates, I am sure many young women could be attracted to the nursing profession who today give it the "go by" for the simple reason that the hours of work are unattractive.
At the present time the vast majority of the nurses of Canada get no consideration in return for working nights, Sundays or holidays. They are told that this is part of their work and the basis on which they were engaged. I see no reason why girls who would like to be nurses should be subjected to working conditions which are unfair compared with those of girls who take positions as secretaries or stenographers, or in other fields open to women in which day premium rates are paid.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
In case somebody says I am wandering again when I speak on this item, I would point out that you will find at page 202, 203 and 206 three different references to overtime. The amount suggested is so small as to indicate there is no regular schedule of compensation for overtime, and I would suggest to the Minister of Labour that he use his persuasive powers to get the federal government to introduce day premium rates of pay and a satisfactory shift differential into the pay schedule of nurses in the employ of the federal government.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to find that the hon. member for York-Humber has been able to make at least one of his points without running into procedural difficulties. I am sure that the causes he espouses elicit considerable sympathy on the part of many hon. members. I only hope that he may find that the rubber workers about whom he was speaking will discover it possible to take advantage of the Lord's Day Act

October 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
to institute a charge, if the terms of that act are being contravened by those seeking to force workers who are unwilling to do so to work on Sunday.
Quite some time ago in this discussion I listened to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace outlining some questions which, in my view, are the kind that are being fermented in the minds of the Canadian people by the actions of those seeking to retain the working people of this country in second class positions in our society. Though there may be a proper time to discuss such questions I do not really feel it appropriate that they should be dealt with while we are dealing with the estimates of the Department of Labour.
However, there is one remark made by that hon. member which, for the sake of the record, I wish to correct. He suggested that my colleague from York South had indicated support for and was advocating, under certain conditions, the use of compulsory arbitration. If he examines carefully the remarks made by the hon. member for York South I think he will find he made no such statement at all. What the hon. member for York South sought to indicate was that there may be occasions when it is necessary for parliamentary or legislative action to be taken to bring about a termination of certain types of labour disputes.
So far as I can recall the hon. member for York South made no reference to the necessity of using compulsory arbitration. I am sure all members realize I am not as learned in the law of labour injunctions as is my colleague from York South, but I must say that as I listened to his eloquent statement on this question earlier tonight, I felt the blood rise in my veins because I recall times when I had been involved in certain situations, as an officer of a labour union, in which I thought the unjust use of injunctions was involved.
I believe the hon. member correctly interpreted the result of the use to which injunctions have been put in this country when he said that that sort of abuse of the courts was designed to reduce the esteem in which those institutions are held, and that this was a practice which should certainly be removed so far as a country like Canada is concerned. I know there have been times when a responsible officer of a labour organization has been under a great strain, knowing that just a few words one way or the other could have resulted in hundreds or thousands of men and
women, who were in a mood to do so, taking action against what they felt was a basic injustice in the treatment given them.
This is the kind of responsibility which leaders in the labour movement across Canada feel very keenly at this particular time, in view of the increasing use to which injunctions are being put by those who are seeking to use them as weapons in labour disputes, and particularly in view of the harsh sentences which have been imposed upon certain workers who felt their basic rights had been trodden upon. However, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to pursue this question any further on this occasion in view of the fact that it was dealt with so adequately by the hon. member for York South.
The hon. member for York South also indicated that certain events which took place during the course of the present year may have brought a few new gray hairs to the head of the Minister of Labour. One has only to review the discussions which have taken place in this chamber on labour matters, particularly on the estimates of this department, on various occasions starting May 27 and running through until June 22, to realize that some of the matters discussed on those occasions were not happy ones either for the minister or for members of this committee dealing with them. Fortunately, some of those events are now receding into the past, and my only purpose in rising at this time is to ask the minister to give us some statement on where we are heading from now.
But, Mr. Chairman, there are two or three matters I would like to raise with the minister, on questions about which I hope he will make some comments before this item passes. Before doing so, however, I would like to touch on one or two happier events in recent months, at least happier so far as they concerned the minister. I refer in particular to a certain event which took place in Ottawa not too long ago during the time parliament was in recess. As someone who was here for part of that time I wish to express my congratulations to the minister on the manner in which he served as president of the I.L.O. conference which was held in Ottawa, embracing the American states members of that organization.
The manner in which the minister and the officers of his department made arrangements for the conference and looked after its proceedings brought credit to this parliament and to Canada as the host country, and I feel

October 27, 1966

it is only right and proper that when we are discussing the minister's estimates some reference should be made to this subject and some congratulations offered. The delegates who gathered here during the period when this chamber was not only a bilingual but a trilingual one, found it an inspiring experience.
The committee discussion of the conference on manpower and social security programs were those which I believe will bring forth valuable results not only for the other nations in the hemisphere but also for workers within the Canadian society. I hope that Canadian people generally appreciate the fact that parliament hill has been the scene of a useful international gathering.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Having said that, there are one or two matters I should like to bring to the minister's attention in the hope that he will give some answer before these estimates are passed. The first has to do with the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, which is a relatively new statute. What is the situation regard ing statutory holidays as far as the international longshoremen's and warehousemen's union?
Earlier this year some of the members of that union went to trial because they had been compelled to work on a statutory holiday as prescribed by the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. In view of the obscurity so far as the words relating to statutory holidays are concerned, I think some explanation should be given in anticipation of further problems. Some official interpretation of this particular part of the code should be made available at this time.
It is my understanding that the minister at one time assured us that if this matter was not resolved through a process of collective bargaining he would take it upon himself to bring in, for the consideration of parliament, amendments to the code to alleviate this situation. It is also my understanding that negotiations resulted in a new agreement between the longshoremen and the employers on the west coast which did not deal with this question about statutory holidays. At this time I should like to ask the minister when he expects to introduce appropriate amendments to cover this situation.
Perhaps the minister will also indicate what progress is being made by the commission which was appointed to look into the
Supply-Labour
difficulties being experienced in the St. Lawrence river area regarding manning and so forth? This whole subject was left unsettled following the settlement of the strike that took place there this year. It would be beneficial if we received some progress report in this regard from the minister. Surely some report as to the progress made in this regard would be appreciated at this time. Having regard to this last question to which I referred I should like to be apprised of proposed legislation to amend the Canada Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which we understand has been under consideration for some time.
In conclusion let me state that it should not be too much to ask the minister to update us by a report before we pass these estimates for this fiscal year.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
I sent earlier an amendment which was not accepted-but that is beside the point- and in which I stated:
That the salary of the Minister of Labour be reduced to $1 unless the minister takes the necessary steps to oblige the Canada Labour Relations Board to give the Canadian workers under the jurisdiction of the board the right to be represented by a union of their choice.
This is the amendment I sent you earlier. You had it translated by I do not know whom, Mr. Chairman, and the English text you read was as follows:

-that the salary of the Minister of Labour be reduced to $1, unless the minister does not take the necessary steps to oblige the Canada labour relations board to permit French speaking workers, falling under the jurisdiction of the board-

Mr. Chairman, according to the English translation, you read "to permit French speaking workers ..." whereas the motion I sent you read: "To give the Canadian workers under the jurisdiction of the board." Therefore, a mistake has been made, and I would ask that in tomorrow's Hansard-and I ask this because the clerk mentioned the matter to me-the same text that was read by the chairman of the committee, be reported correctly, since it explains the statement made afterwards by the member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey).

October 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
I also wanted to point out for the benefit of the English translation that when 1 mention in French "a moins que l'honorable ministre ne prenne les dispositions necessai-res" the translation is as follows: "Unless the minister does not take the necessary steps." If the amendment which I moved had been correctly translated in English it should have read as follows: "Unless the minister takes the necessary steps" and not: "Unless the minister does not take the necessary steps", because in the French version, I say: "A moins que le ministre ne prenne," there is obviously a "ne", because "a moins que" is a semi-negation which is completed by the word "ne".
While in English, "unless" is a complete adverb. I would therefore ask that those two corrections be made and that the words which you mentioned earlier be recorded in Hansard and perhaps also afterwards the corrections which I have just pointed out; and that can also justify the tirade of the member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey); because I would like to draw to his attention, before I finish stating my question of privilege, that I did not attempt in any way to play politics when I raised that point and remained completely outside politics, blaming no party nor anybody in this house and I would find it unfortunate if the tirade of the member for Verdun was unjustified, although it would appear at first sight that he misinterpreted my statement.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I think the point raised by the hon. member for Lapointe is well taken. At this time I have the official translation which replaces the hurried translation made at the table shortly after the hon. member presented his amendment in French. If it is the hon. member's intention to have the amendment recorded in Hansard in English exactly as I have read it from the translation from the table, I can assure the hon. gentleman that that will be done.


Gilles Grégoire: That is my wish, sir.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to deal with the explanation given by the hon. member. The hon. member has informed the committee-and I believe him- that his interpretation of the word "Canadian"

means "Canadiens", and not like sometimes at home when we talk about "Canadiens"-les Anglais, French Canadians and Englishmen. I am very happy with the hon. member's explanation and apologize for any inference that I drew from his earlier remarks.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I came here tonight a little late and I missed the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), to reduce the minister's salary to one dollar a year. I am quite sure, even though I am not always in the confidence of the hon. member for Lapointe, that his intention was not to reduce the minister's salary but to impress the house over certain grievances he wished to raise-


Gilles Grégoire: I said so.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I am told that he said so. I think the member for Lapointe, as all of us, has a great deal of sympathy for the part which the Minister of Labour has to play in the troubled circumstances we find ourselves in, with labour agitations getting worse and more frequent. But evidently that does not mean that we approve everything that is done in the Department of Labour. And I do not want, for many reasons, to make a review of all the problems.
First of all because it has already been done, Mr. Chairman, and also, because I do not feel I have the competence to do it; however, there are two or three points I would like to raise.
For instance, the decision of the Federal Labour Relations Board which forbids the C.N.T.U. to represent certain trade unions, as the one looking after radio employees or railway employees, under the pretext that it is advisable to have a negotiation unit.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that is interference with the rights of minorities, it is a coercion on the will of the workers, it is an obvious pretext to support certain trade unions of international scope. In that respect, I want to raise a protest, Mr. Chairman, because, in short, I do not think it rests upon the federal government, a Labour Relations Board or an ad hoc committee of the federal cabinet to decide whether such or such bona fide union should represent such or such group of workers.
Ociober 27, 1966

Even though I am not, as my colleague for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), a separatist, I believe that to proceed that way is to give an opening to those who, in certain quarters of Canada, claim that there are plots against the legitimate concerns of what we can call "the Quebec group" because, after all, the C.N.T.U. is a worthy union, accepted by all standards for the recognition of those unions. It is difficult to understand why it was not accepted as bargaining agent in the cases mentioned earlier and, I repeat, we find the excuse of uniform negotiations throughout the country obvious and unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman, I repeat that I admire up to a certain point the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) who has a difficult job under the circumstances, but I think that the decision taken recently with regard to the request of the C.N.T.U. is unacceptable, intolerable, and even a coercive measure.
Unfortunately, I could not be present Tuesday evening at the meeting of the president of the C.N.T.U., being held up elsewhere by other concerns, but I took care to find out what topics were discussed and I think I would like to join all the members who were at the meeting in their expressed opinion that it is difficult to understand why the C.N.T.U. is not allowed to represent unions and workers who wish to be represented by it.
Ultimately, I repeat, it is up to the workers to vote and I think the vote of the majority should carry with regard to as qualified a union as the C.N.T.U.-since it already represents hundreds of thousands of workers here in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, like many of my colleagues, I listen to the comments occasionally made in this house by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). He might be called the diplomat of labour and the labour movement.
He was, himself I believe, or at least so I am told, an organizer in the labour movement, or perhaps even a negotiator. He talks about it intelligently. I noticed with interest that each time he intervenes, he also insists either on labour problems, or on what I might call nationalist questions, concerning the relations between Quebec and the rest of the country. In saying that he is the member for Verdun, elected by an impressive majority of French Canadians, he seems to feel entitled to maintain that he could be one of the spokesmen for the group generally called the French Canadian or the Quebec group.
Supply-Labour
I should not like to refuse the hon. member for Verdun the right to speak in the name of the people of Quebec, for I am one of those who admire the hon. member.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
But I feel that if the people of Verdun vote for him they may not do so for the reasons he mentioned here, for instance, when he indicts certain attitudes adopted by some French Canadian members. That he is a union leader whose competence is recognized, we admit. But that he is a leader of the French Canadian people, is really debatable. There is something about that which, if I may use the expression, is congenital. He is of Irish or Scottish descent and I respect him highly, but he may not have that sort of intuition we call the instinct of self-preservation, or survival, which enables us under certain circumstances, to protest and restate a question.
In spite of the respect I owe the member for Verdun, I am so convinced that he may not have our instinct for self-preservation that I would like, possibly during an election campaign, to go with friends of mine with whom I do not agree on every score-I am thinking in particular of my friend, the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette)-to discuss in the Verdun district, from the same rostrum as the member for Verdun, that particular aspect of Canadian politics which we call the Quebec-Ottawa relations.
I insist again on the fact that I am not a separatist. On that point, I humbled myself into stating that I did not agree with my colleague of the independents group, the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). But nevertheless, I believe we have the same fundamental objectives, although we may not believe in the same means to achieve them. Even though our methods are not the same, I believe our objectives are identical.
Once again, I wish to say that I am not questioning the honesty of the views held by the member for Verdun. I believe he is perfectly sincere, and I repeat that I am one of his admirers. But, I also wish to repeat that there is possibly something-if the expression is not correct, I would ask the French language purists in the house to set me right -of a congenital nature which he forgets when he tells us, time after time, that, as a member elected in a French Canadian constituency, he is in a position to express the deep aspirations of French Canadians.

October 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
As far as we are concerned at present, Mr. Chairman, since we are discussing the Department of Labour estimates, I will admit to the member for Verdun and to many other members that they are better qualified than I. But when we come to the decision, which I find unfortunate and unacceptable, handed down by the Canada Labour Relations Board refusing the C.N.T.U.'s request to represent the workers who, by a majority vote, would like to have the C.N.T.U. as bargaining agent, I maintain that the majority vote of these workers has been brushed aside, that coercion and force have been used, and that such procedure is inadmissible under the democratic system of government which is ours. The negotiating unit excuse is full of holes; it does not hold water.
I would have liked to see the member for Verdun, a labour leader whom I respect, stand up for the rights of the minorities. I use the word "minorities" since we are speaking of labour organizations who do not enjoy the national and international affiliations enjoyed by other labour movements.
Reference was made, during the debate, and this I noticed particularly with the New Democratic Party, that courts of law were handing down unfair injunctions, that there was a misuse of authority, so to speak.
Mr. Chairman, I am quite naive with respect to legal matters. I was taught, very young just as my constituents were also taught, that observance of the law was a fundamental thing and that it was not up to those whose job is to dispense justice or to ordinary men-if I may use the term-to decide whether the law was right or wrong.
I believe that in such a field the members of the N.D.P., who are saying there might be unfair, acceptable or unacceptable injunctions, are falling into line with revolutionists, who decide by themselves that such a law will be good if its suits them and bad if it does not.
I learned at home, and all my constituents did likewise, that to abide by the law is a basic principle. Therefore, if the laws are wrong, it is up to us as members of Parliament to improve upon them, but it does not behoove us to preach rebellion among workers against the provisions of the law, against injunctions that are legal. It is up to judges, not to members of parliament, to decide whether or not injunctions are legal. And

I think it is to preach insubordination, rebellion, disorder and anarchy to declare such things in a respectable assembly such as parliament.
Mr. Chairman, compulsory arbitration was mentioned, and I believe that we are all against it, except when the situation reaches a climax and somebody has to take a decision. I simply think of us, for, at some point, we might encounter some situation where litigation arises between a fellow citizen and ourselves; we then resort to the courts and refer our case to them. Beforehand, we accept their decision; should it be unacceptable, we may resort to the appeal courts.
However, Mr. Chairman, when strikes drag on and on after negotiations have gone on for months, I agree that the law allows unreasonably long delays which, on the whole, permit some employers to resort to dilatory tactics so that the workers' patience becomes exacerbated. There is probably room for improvements in the law.
There comes a time, especially in the case of strikes which affect the public interest, the public service, when a decision must finally be made and if the general economy, the common good, if you want, is compromised to serve the particular interests of a group of people, it is necessary then to find a solution.
I repeat what I have already said in this house, and even if I am not qualified to say it, I call upon the authority of a statement made by an American labour leader, Mr. Walter Reuther, to repeat that it is high time to stop advancing the interests of one particular group at the expense of the common weal. That implies that the governments will find an acceptable machinery to stop those dilatory procedures which drag negotiations indefinitely and irritate the workers with the result that at a given moment they take drastic measures which, to put it briefly, lead to chaos or anarchy because the workers must not necessarily be blamed for such things even if they are asked for a show of good will.
Mr. Chairman, to sum up, it seems to me that when a provision has been formulated to force the parties to negotiate during a reasonable period, let us say three, four, five or six months and if, after that, they still have not reached an acceptable solution, steps should be taken to set up labour courts made up of people well informed about labour legislation, with experience in
October 27, 1966

Supply-Labour
such conflicts, where labour and management should probably have their say. If there is no other means to solve the problem, it should be submitted to those labour courts for a final solution. And if that is then called compulsory arbitration, Mr. Chairman, I repeat what that American politician said: If it is treason, I plead guilty.
The question must be settled once and for all and those labour conflicts must not be allowed to drag on indefinitely. The workers are the first to suffer from them and the general economy suffers in most cases.
However, I want to stress the reason for my intervention, Mr. Chairman. I would like to protest and everyone knows that I do not like to embarrass the government, since I promised my electors of Trois-Rivieres to support whatever government would come to power and I must admit that if the party on the other side of the house had been elected, I would probably have followed the same course, even if it had not been with the same special sympathy.
But, finally I must tell the government that I want to protest as vigorously as I can against this decision, which I find discriminatory, unacceptable and vexatious, taken recently by the federal Labour Relations Board, whereby the C.N.T.U. was prohibited to represent workers who were ready to take a free vote and to comply with the opinion of the majority of those people.
For then, was it going to happen? We know in advance, sir, that if there are ten provinces here and one is eliminated from this race for representation, well, of course, it will always be a minority, even if unions operating in one area, such as Montreal, Quebec, the provinces of Quebec or Ontario, or the case might arise for other unions in other provinces, they will be necessarily eliminated because of the majority vote of the other provinces.
I believe a grave error was made and, as I am aware of the sense of justice of the Minister of Labour, and of his deep knowledge of labour problems, I am one of those who were astonished that he did not protest against that decision. And if the legislation did not permit him to do that, he should at least have made a statement to suggest to us that that was an abuse against the rights of minorities, the unalienable rights of minorities.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, if you could ignore the clock for two or three minutes I could deal with two or three points which perhaps deserve comment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, since I should like to add a few comments that I was unable to make because my time expired earlier, I think it would be better to wait until tomorrow so that we may be able to make our comments; the minister will also have even more time to answer the questions raised tonight, because I do not think that in two or three minutes he could give us a complete answer to the problems we raised regarding the Canada Labour Relations Board.


Maurice Rinfret: Order.

Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, would you please say it in French?


Maurice Rinfret: I thank the hon. member for Villeneuve for his remark but from time to time I take the liberty of speaking either in English or in French since the house is equipped with a simultaneous interpretation system.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, this is not a matter of simultaneous interpretation; when I want to hear French spoken, have I the right to hear it?


Maurice Rinfret: Again I thank the hon. member for Villeneuve but if he wants me to repeat in French what I have just said in English just simply to satisfy a whim, I shall tell him that as vice chairman of the committee, sometimes I make remarks in French and on another occasion, in English.
Order. Mr. Lessard, of the committee of the whole reports that the committee has considered a certain resolution, has not completed its consideration and request permission to meet again at next sitting of the house.

October 27, 1966
Business of the House
When will the report be received? Now?
When will the committee be allowed to meet again?
At the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: Agreed.

Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Before the government house leader tells us what we will be considering tomorrow, I want to ask him a question based on the time that has been spent on estimates so far. I want to remind the house that under the new rules we are limited to 30 days or its equivalent in hours on estimates. Up until ten o'clock tonight we have spent 52 hours and 18 minutes on estimates. I am going to ask the government house leader if he would consider an allocation of time for each department which is left, so that each party will have equivalent time based on its representation in the house?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I can answer that question in full at the moment. It is apparent from the use that has been made of the time so far by the parties that some arrangement will have to be worked out to give an equal opportunity to the opposition groups to use the time in some reasonable and fair way, with a safeguard to ensure that supporters of the government to have an opportunity to participate in the discussion of estimates. It is quite clear that there will have to be some kind of allocation of time as between the parties based on their representation in the house. Just how that can be worked out I am not sure at the moment.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could announce the business for tomorrow. We propose to continue with the estimates of the Department of Labour; Indian Affairs and Northern Development; the National Research Council; the Medical Research Council, and Transport. Then we shall call interim supply, but not necessarily in that order. We will want to get interim supply forward, and when we will bring it forward will depend on the progress made during the day.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Michael Starr: I drew to the attention of the government house leader the night before that this phrase "not necessarily in that order" is not good enough. In order that we may be organized for the things which are supposed to come up, I would ask the government house leader if he would specify how the business will be conducted and in what order?


George James McIlraith: The difficulty in which I find myself is quite clear. It is apparent that we require that the interim supply bill be brought forward. It will be for one month. If we are not making any progress on the other items, I will have to interrupt them and bring forward the interim supply bill. There will be an opportunity for hon. members to discuss this if they wish. What I meant by "not necessarily in that order" was that we would call the Department of Labour first; then Northern Affairs; National Research Council; the Medical Research Council, and then we would call interim supply and the transport department. I want to repeat my earlier reservation and say that it may be necessary to bring forward interim supply before the first three items are completed.


Michael Starr: Does the minister mean no sooner?


George James McIlraith: We may have to bring forward interim supply earlier for consideration. That is the only reservation I want to make; there is no difficulty about the sequence of the other departments.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the explanation of the minister regarding the business for tomorrow and Monday, are not very clear. The minister just said that: "We might be able to deal with interim supply during the consideration of departmental estimates".
When does the minister want us to study the interim supply bill which the government intends to introduce? It seems to me that it would be interesting to know.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the hon. gentleman correctly he was asking at what time we proposed to consider the supplementary estimates.


David Réal Caouette: In which order will we consider those estimates?
October 27, 1966	COMMONS


George James McIlraith: I did give the order. First of all we will call the labour department. I had every reason to believe after checking today rather thoroughly that it would take but a very few minutes after seven o'clock to finish that department. However, it is apparent that in the three hours since seven o'clock we have made no progress at all with that department.
What I am trying to say clearly to hon. members is that I should like to call the estimates of the Department of Labour, then Northern Affairs, then the National Research Council and the Medical Research Council and then interim supply. If those departments do not go quickly we will have to interrupt them at some reasonable time tomorrow, depending on the progress being made, and call interim supply. That is the only responsible position to take in this matter, I think to be fair to all members.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Public Works has just said that he had every reason to believe that the debate on the estimates for the Department of Labour would be completed in a few minutes.
Now, he could not have checked as thoroughly as he claims he did since my colleagues and myself have not even heard of it; he did not visit us. If he thinks we are not part of the house, he may find out differently, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George James McIlraith: I find it very difficult to look into the mind of the hon. member.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in participating in this particular adjournment debate is to ask some questions that I think a great many Canadian citizens are asking relative to one aspect of the general operations and administration of our post office services across this land.
DEBATES	9217
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I do not refer to the question of insignia for our mail trucks and mail bags, which is a controversial subject these days. My concern on this occasion is with the security measures in effect at the various major airports in this country where mail is in transit. This concern is fed for a great many Canadians by the recent theft of an estimated half a million dollars worth of cash and securities from the mail room of the Montreal international airport; and before that by the theft of some $350,000 worth of gold bullion from the Winnipeg international airport. The Winnipeg theft took place last March and the Montreal theft took place just two weeks ago, on October 13.
I first asked in this house, in the afternoon of October 13, whether the Postmaster General was in a position to cast any light on that morning's theft at all. I wondered whether he could tell us how the thieves accomplished their feat and if he had any progress to report in the investigation into the crime and the hunt for the criminals. I am still interested today in those same questions; but with them I would link a further question now. I would ask the Postmaster General what steps, if any, are being taken at the major airports across Canada to guarantee there will be no recurrence of this year's Winnipeg and Montreal airport thefts where the mail is concerned.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
It is true that the Winnipeg theft did not involve mail. It involved gold bullion in transit by air and armored car. But the fact that it occured at a major airport, where tons of mail are in daily transit, added to the fact that the Montreal airport theft followed it by only a few months and did involve mail, is sufficient reason for Canadians to ask their Post Office Department to tell them just how safe their mail is.
Add to this the fact that both raids-both the Winnipeg theft and the Montreal theft -were carried out in what appeared to be almost unbelievable simplicity, under the very noses of people whom one would expect to be security conscious, and you have a situation, sir, which I suggest is deserving of the closest public scrutiny.
The question arises: If $500,000 worth of mail can be stolen, with apparent ease, from the Montreal airport, and $350,000 worth of gold can be stolen, again with apparent ease, from the Winnipeg airport, how safe is the
October 27. 1966
9218	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion mail today in Winnipeg, in Montreal, in Vancouver and in every airport in this country?
According to my information, the raid two weeks ago in Montreal was so precocious as to be almost incredible. Perhaps the Postmaster General has more substantial information on this, but newspaper reports said the thieves cut their way into a screened security area at the airport's post office building and made off with their haul while postal employees were having breakfast next door. The time of the raid was fixed at somewhere between 4 a.m. and 4.45 a.m. on October 13, while 35 of the 36 post office workers on duty at the time were taking a meal break. The 36th man, a supervisor, remained in the post office building while the other 35 men went to eat. Apparently, he neither heard nor noticed anything as the thieves gained entry and made off with the mail.
There is no reason, according to investigating officers, to entertain any suspicions of complicity in the burglary, either on the part of that man or any of the others on duty in the post office building at the time. And it is certainly not my intention to suggest that there was any element of complicity whatever.
But I ask, as I believe a great many Canadians are asking, what is the Post Office Department doing about this particular burglary, and what is it doing to ensure that mail will be properly protected at our airports in the future.
It is not good enough to say it was just one of those things, and it will not happen again. It has happened before. There was a major robbery at Montreal International Airport less than two years ago-in December of 1964-when five armed bandits tied up four workers and escaped with $115,000 worth of gold bullion, watches and drugs. What many people want to know is: what precautions are being taken to ensure that in the future our mail will be safe?
According to the Montreal district postmaster, no guards are stationed in the post office building at the Montreal International Airport because it is against the department's policy to employ armed guards. I wonder if the Postmaster General, in replying to the other questions I have asked, would tell the house also whether he is giving any consideration to a possible change in this policy in the future.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern and even the curiosity which may have prompted the member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Sherman) to put his question.
I am aware that all Canadians who use the postal service every day as an essential service are anxious to know to what extent parcels, letters and money can be sent safely through the mails. I must add that on this point, the Canadian Postal Service record is rather enviable.
With regard to the theft at the Dorval airport post office, I cannot, of course, provide more information than what appeared in the press. I am sure the member for Winnipeg South will agree with me, because if the information we now have were made known, it would be most prejudicial to the investigators who are now trying to throw light on that theft.
I can assure the hon. member that the R.C.M.P. in Dorval and the investigators of the Post Office Department are conducting a very thorough investigation, in order to discover the culprits.
As for the exact amount of money stolen, I do not feel it is in the public interest to disclose the amounts we handle daily, because it would encourage further unfortunate incidents as the one which occurred in Dorval.
As far as the security in our post offices is concerned, I can assure the hon. member that the department is constantly looking into this matter, but it must be realized that even though we alter and improve our security methods in our post offices, well, thieves also become smarter and more efficient. I can assure the hon. member that the department strives as much as possible to provide an adequate protection for our parcel posts.



PUBLIC SERVICE-COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF PENSIONS OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 17, 1966, as recorded in Hansard at page 6543, I put a question concerning retired civil servants to the Minister of National Revenue. At that time he had just one title; I congratulate
October 27, 1966

him on now having two. My question read as follows:
In view of certain procedural difficulties that we had this morning at the meeting of the joint committee on the public service, will the government consider giving that committee a term of reference from the house which would enable it to discuss the question of adjusting the pensions of retired civil servants?
Hansard, goes on:


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would have no objection to doing that providing the committee completes the huge amount of work it now has before it in considering four very complicated bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fine: we can do it after we have completed the other bills.
On several occasions since then I have asked similar questions of the Minister of National Revenue or have put them to him in his capacity as President of Treasury Board, and on each occasion he has confirmed the answer he gave me on June 17. The last exchange between us was on Friday, October 14, as recorded in Hansard at page 8662.
In rising tonight I am not trying to get out of the minister one iota more than he promised originally. But by the same token I do not want to settle for any less. The minister made it clear that he was expressing his personal opinion-that he had no objection to the terms of reference to the joint committee of the public service being enlarged so that we can discuss the question of adjusting the pensions of civil servants already retired. He also made it clear that he felt the committee should deal with the bills already referred to it before discussing this other matter.
We are getting along reasonably well in that committee. We have long since finished one of the four bills. We are now dealing with the other three. However, I feel it is necessary to have an assurance from the minister that when we finish the three bills now before the committee which have to do with collective bargaining he will take up with his cabinet colleagues the drafting of a motion which would enlarge our terms of reference so that we could go into this question of the pensions of retired civil servants.
I would remind the minister that he gave his personal commitment on June 17 following several occasions upon which this question had been raised in the house. It just so happened that there were estimates or motions on matters of one kind or another that resulted in the question of the pensions of retired civil servants being discussed fairly often. There was great interest in it, and this
DEBATES	9219
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion offer by the minister seemed to be a culmination to those discussions and to that interest. I simply express the hope that we will not have to go over this again and again, that we will not have to go through another series of discussions to get the action already promised.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I take the minister at his word, that once we have got through with the bills now before the committee he personally is prepared to see that we go into this question. Meantime the seriousness of the problem increases, for our retired civil servants feel very severely the difficulty of getting along at today's higher cost of living. The conviction on the part of our retired civil servants is that they are entitled to an adjustment of their pensions, and this belief is growing.
I believe if we have a discussion of this matter in the joint committee, and if we have before us the people who are interested in it, the committee will come to the view that something ought to be done. That, of course, is for the committee to decide, but what I am asking the minister tonight to do is to confirm the assurance he has already given, that once we have finished the work we have now in that committee, so far as he is concerned our terms of reference will be enlarged so that we can consider the question of increasing the pensions of federal civil servants already retired.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, speaking in my capacity as President of the Treasury Board I would like to assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that I have never made a commitment which I have not tried to keep. I would not like to assure him that I am going to resign from the cabinet if I cannot keep this commitment, but I said that in my personal opinion I would have no objection to this being done, that I would take it up with my cabinet colleagues when the vast amount of work which the committee had in front of it at that time-and much of which is still in front of it-was completed, and I assure him I still intend to do this.
We in this government and parliament are concerned about old age pensions. I think this is indicated through the supplementary old age assistance plan which we hope to have before the house very soon. The problem which is being experienced by retired civil servants in Canada is not, I should like to point out, a unique problem, although it is a
October 27, 196$

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion problem, because they were employees of the Canadian government, that receives special consideration. I have a great deal of sympathy for them and for other old age pensioners who got pensions in fixed dollars, which now become worth less year by year.
In this regard I would like to refer my hon. friend to the fact that we as a government, for the first time in Canada's history, under the Canada Pension Plan and the amendment to the Old Age Security Act, have taken steps to attach pensions to the cost of living so that they will move upward as the purchasing power of the dollar declines.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is good. Let us also do it for the retired civil servants.


Edgar John Benson: This becomes a very difficult matter when we start to deal with it retroactively, but it is something that should be considered. Indeed it has been considered often and seriously by the government, and has been considered by governments of other countries, and indeed adjustments were made once in Canada and have been made in Britain and the United States. But in making these adjustments they were not made on general grounds, but rather on the basis that the former employees of the government are a special responsibility of the government as an employer.
This is the reason that I made my commitment to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, and I would simply like to state that
1	certainly stand by that commitment, and as soon as the vital legislation which is presently before the committee is back in the House of Commons, or is close to coming back to the house, I will take the matter up with my cabinet colleagues and see if I can get them to agree to having this matter referred to that particular committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very good.



EXPO '67-PASSENGER TRAFFIC FROM SEAWAY PORTS IN FOREIGN SHIPS

Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, prior to an amendment made in the year 1964, section 671 of the Canada Shipping Act, chapter 29, R.S.C. 1952, provided under clause
2	that no ship other than a British ship would transport passengers from one place in Canada to another place in Canada, either directly or by way of a foreign port.

By the 1964 amendment to the Canada Shipping Act, which was assented to on the 18th day of March, 1965, there was added to section 671 an amendment (2a) which in clause (b) provided that in future no passengers shall be transported by water either directly or by way of a foreign port in any ship other than a Canadian ship from one place in Canada to another place in Canada, both of which places are situated within the area comprising the great lakes, their connecting and tributary waters and the St. Lawrence and its tributary waters, as far seaward as two straight lines drawn from the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence to points on Anticosti island.
Thus, not only foreign ships, but formerly privileged British ships are effectively prevented from picking up Canadian passengers in our seaway ports and disembarking them at other Canadian seaway ports. This means that the citizens of seaway ports such as the port of Toronto, with its very cosmopolitan make-up, are deprived of the privilege of becoming paying passengers on other than Canadian ships, unless they are going abroad or to the United States.
This means that in our centennial year of 1967, due to a critical lack of Canadian passenger vessels on our seaway waters, that Toronto and other citizens will not have the opportunity to journey to Montreal by boat through the lovely stretches of the thousand islands, the St. Lawrence and the other tributaries and lakes of the great lakes system.
Mr. Harvey Currell, assistant city editor of the Toronto Telegram, on Saturday, October 22 last, writes about the trip by ship that Canadians cannot make from Toronto harbour through the seaway to Montreal's and Canada's Expo '67. He says:
From Toronto's front door, the world's greatest inland waterway stretches through the St. Lawrence thousand islands, down the six seaway locks and on to Canada's east coast.
Average Canadians aren't allowed to sail it.
No Canadian passenger ships except short-hop ferry services are left on the St. Lawrence or great lakes. The outdated Canada Shipping Act forbids foreign and even British vessels from carrying passengers between Canadian ports.
That's why you can't go down to Toronto harbour, board one of the many European freighters that also possess passenger accommodation and sail down the seaway to Montreal, Expo and Quebec.
Parliament meant well when it passed the original passenger sections of the Canada Shipping Act. They were intended to protect Canadian passenger ship lines against foreign competition in our own waters. Now, however, there isn't anything to protect. Last fall, the last two Canadian passenger services weighed their last anchors and called it a day.
October 27, 19G6

Mr. Speaker, there is only one way to quickly remedy this situation in time for Expo '67 and in time for owners of foreign vessels to make their plans for 1967, and it is urgent that the remedy be applied forthwith, because many details would have to be taken care of before next May, to be of any benefit in the centennial year and to Expo '67.
Section 673 of the Canada Shipping Act provides that the governor in council by order in council may suspend the coasting laws in Part XIII of the Canada Shipping Act, for any period specified in the order in council, in any specified waters in Canada in relation to any specified ships of any foreign country.
Section 671, which bars British and foreign ships, is one of the coasting laws under Part XIII of the act. Thus, Mr. Speaker, I am most anxious to have the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) initiate as soon as possible, if he will, and if the obstacles are not too great, the obtaining of a suspension order in council for the year 1967 that would permit suitable British and foreign vessels docking at our seaway ports, to transport paying passengers between such ports and particularly between them and Montreal.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
I understand that in addition to there being no Canadian passenger boats in service along the seaway there are only a few Canadian freighters that have paying passenger service. From my discussions with various constituents I know that in Toronto there are many
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion citizens whose origins are from abroad and who would like to travel to Montreal in 1967 in ships flying the flag of their native land. In Toronto we have people from all over the world, and in Toronto harbour we now have ships from all over the world during the seaway season. I submit that it would be helpful to Expo and interesting to the Canadian public to have section 671 suspended for the year 1967 as a trial measure. If this step were taken by the Minister of Transport at once, it would still be in time. It would be a step that would capture the imagination of Canadians, advertise and benefit Expo and warm the hearts of immigrants to Canada from all over the world.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) for putting forward this most constructive suggestion. However, due to the unavoidable absence of both ministers referred to by the hon. member, all I can do tonight is take notice of his suggestion. I would assure the hon. member that I will bring it to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) in his capacity as spokesman for Expo, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). I am sure the suggestion of the hon. member will receive the attention of both these ministers.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.34 p.m.

Friday, October 28, 1966