1966-06-22

PUBLIC SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of special joint committee on the public service of Canada-Mr. Richard (Ottawa East).
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Patrick T. Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe) moved:: That the petition of the Baptist General Conference of Canada filed after the time limit for the introduction of private bills specified under standing order 93, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders, together with the 15th report of the clerk of petitions thereon, presented to the house on Thursday, June 16, 1966, for any recommendation the committee deems advisable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
1Translation1


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Quebec-Montmo-rency) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-209, an act to amend the Criminal Code (desecration of the national flag of Canada).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to bring to the attention of all Canadians the unalterable value of representation in our national flag and to provide that its public alteration, deterioration or destruction, carried out deliberately or for purposes of revolt, protest, hate or disorder, are subversive and cast a reflection on the honour
and dignity of the Canadian nation as a whole.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the government of Saskatchewan asked permission from the government of Canada to table in the Saskatchewan legislature all correspondence between the Minister of Public Health of the government of Saskatchewan and the government of Canada concerning Implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Health Services or any steps preliminary thereto, since May 22, 1964?
2.	If so, on what date was the request made?
3.	Has approval for the tabling of this correspondence been granted by the federal government?
4.	If so, on what date was approval granted?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes, for certain stated correspondence.
2.	March 31, 1965.
3.	Yes, except that permission was not granted for the tabling of certain confidential notes.
4.	April 6, 1965.


VEHICLES SEIZED BY MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Godin: 1. For the years 1962 and 1963, how many (a) automobiles (b) trucks (c) ships and boats (d) aircraft were seized by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with regard to (i) customs (ii) narcotics (iii) adulterated alcohol (iv) counterfeit money?
2.	What was the total market value of the goods seized?
3.	What was the total amount collected from the sale of these goods?
6746	COMMONS DEBATES	June 22, 1966
Questions


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1.
1962	Customs
Automobiles	551
Trucks	42
Ships and Boats	235
Aircraft	1
1963	
Automobiles	660
Trucks	20
Ships and Boats	187
Aircraft	7
2.	The R.C.M.P. do not make a market value assessment of the goods seized, as in a majority of cases the seized goods are not sold but released on penalty. For example, a shipping vessel seized was released to the Quebec government as a lien holder and no revenue was derived from its disposal.
3.	Answered by 2.


BILINGUALISM IN R.C.M.P.
Mr. Allard: 1.	Are any of the senior and junior officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the province of Quebec bilingual and, if so, what percentage of the total?
2.	Outside Quebec and within the same groups are any bilingual and, if so, what percentage?
3.	In Ottawa and within the same groups are any bilingual and, if so, what percentage?
4.	In the different provinces, in Ottawa, in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories, are the French speaking members or the R.C.M.P. allowed to write their reports in French if they so wish?
5.	Throughout Canada and in the province of Quebec, are French report forms available to the French speaking members of the R.C.M.P. and, if not, is it the intention to issue orders in the near future to make such French forms available?
6.	Does the training that the R.C.M.P. give its members include, either on a voluntary or a compulsory basis, the teaching of French or English and, if not, is it the intention of the R.C.M.P. to include in the near future such language courses in the training it gives its members, either on a voluntary or a compulsory basis, and in what parts of Canada?
7.	When French speaking Canadians are being interrogated by R.C.M.P. officers, are they interrogated in French (a) in Canada (b) in the province of Quebec and, if not, is it the intention to recognize in the near future the rights of French speaking Canadians in this regard?

Narcotics	Adulterated Alcohol (Excise Act)	Counterfeit Money16	88	02	34	00	1	00	0	03	82	00	30	00	0	00	0	08.	Are the signs on office doors at R.C.M.P. headquarters and the inscriptions on R.C.M.P. envelopes bilingual (a) in Canada (b) in the province of Quebec and, if not, is it the intention to use bilingual signs and inscriptions in the near future?9.	Is it the intention to grant bonuses to bilingual officers in the R.C.M.P. in the near future and, if not. for what reasons?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1.	Yes. Senior officers, 100 per cent; Junior officers, 100 per cent.
2.	Yes. Senior officers, 12.3 per cent; Junior officers, 9.6 per cent.
3.	Yes. Senior officers, 21.4 per cent; Junior officers, 14.3 per cent.
4.	The R.C.M.P. will, in the near future, implement a system whereby French speaking members at headquarters, Ottawa, "A" division (part of the province of Ontario), and in the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick submit reports in their own language. Because the force operates under a provincial contract in the province of New Brunswick, this system will only apply to reports on administrative matters and federal statute cases. It must be remembered that in all the provinces, with the exception of Ontario and Quebec, the R.C.M.P. is under contract as a provincial police force.
The number of French Canadian members serving in the other seven provinces, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories is minimal and, because they are so few in number, it would not be practicable at this time to extend the system to enable those members to report in French. The R.C.M.P. will extend this system of report writing to the other provinces on administrative matters and federal statute cases as soon as it is feasible to do so.
June 22, 1966

5.	The majority of R.C.M.P. forms are already available throughout the force in French. Translation of the remainder is being proceeded with and it is expected all forms will be stocked in both languages in the near future.
6.	The training given to its members by the R.C.M.P. does not include the teaching of either the French or English language in the formal sense. The courses are given in the English language and there is at least one French Canadian member at each training center who is specifically responsible for assisting French Canadian recruits to increase their knowledge of the English language.
The R.C.M.P. is, in addition, participating in the language courses that are available at Ottawa, Ontario, through the public service. The R.C.M.P. is well aware of the need and importance of providing instruction for its members in both the English and the French languages and it is currently exploring the possibility of making this type of instruction available to its members across Canada on a voluntary basis.
7.	(a) The R.C.M.P. recognizes the right of French Canadians, no matter where they reside in Canada, to be interrogated in their own language, and the force does its utmost to deploy the French speaking members in the areas where their linguistic qualifications will best serve the needs of French-Cana-dians. In cases where we do not have a qualified member, interpreters are used, (b) In the province of Quebec all R.C.M.P. investigators are bilingual (French-English) and use whichever language is required by the person being interviewed.
8.	Yes. The signs on some office doors at the R.C.M.P. Headquarters in Ottawa are bilingual and the remainder are being converted. The signs on office doors at R.C.M.P. headquarters in Quebec are bilingual. The inscriptions on the envelopes used throughout Canada by the R.C.M.P. are bilingual.
9.	This matter is under study in accordance with the government policy on bilingualism in the public service as outlined by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on April 6, 1966.


U.S. BOX CARS IN CANADA AND VICE-VERSA
Mr. Southam: 1.	How many Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railway box cars were in use on United States railroads in the months of January, February, March and April 1966?
Questions
2.	How many box cars from the various United States railways were in use on Canadian railroads in the months of January, February, March and April 1966?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: 1 and 2. With regard to Canadian Pacific Railway box cars I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture, Finance, Trade and Commerce and Transport as follows: Information not available.
In so far as the Minister of Transport is concerned:	The management of Canadian
National Railways advises as follows:
1 and 2. The numbers of Canadian National box cars in the United States and of U.S. railroads' box cars on Canadian National lines as of the first of each month are as follows:
January 1st February 1st March 1st April 1st May 1st
C.N. Box Cars in the U.S. 9869 9680 11965 11763 9962
U.S. Box Cars on the C.N. 4893 5010 5879 6071 5878
During the months of January to April 1966 inclusive, 58,829 Canadian National owned box cars were shipped to the U.S. and 58,501 Canadian National owned box cars were returned to Canada during the same period.


LOCAL POLICING BY R.C.M.P.
Mr. Godin: 1.	Can a municipality call on the R.C.M.P. for local policing?
2.	If so (a) must it pay a certain amount for such services (b) to whom are such payments made (c) according to what standards is the hiring price of such police agents set (d) is such a municipality required to sign a contract (e) is the payment set by the hour, the day, the week, the month, or the year?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1.	Yes, if the municipality has a population not exceeding 15,000 and is located in one of the provinces with which Canada has an agreement to provide the services of the R.C.M.P. for provincial policing.
2.	(a) If the municipality has a population under 1,500, it may be policed by the R.C.M.P. under the terms of the policing agreement with the province in which the municipality

June 22, 1966
Questions
is situated and the province is required to pay for the services of the R.C.M.P. If the municipality has a population between 1,500 and 15,000 a contract is entered into between the municipality and Canada and the municipality is required to pay for the services of the R.C.M.P. (b) The Receiver General of Canada, (c) The hiring price is derived from a formula which is based on the cost of operating and maintaining the force during the previous fiscal year, (d) Answered by (a), (e) The year.


PRINCE ALBERT NATIONAL PARK EXPENDITURES
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What was the total expenditure (exclusive of wages and salaries) expended in the Prince Albert national park in each year since 1963?
2.	How much of such expenditure was spent on (a) roads and highways (b) buildings?
3.	What are the expected expenditures during the current year?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1963-64	1964-65	1965-661.	Operation and maintenance, excluding 168,560	205,549	226,471salaries and wages	* 422,429	142,590	160,521
Capital
includes $202,720 for the continuation of construction of scenic road and $87,510 for continuation of marina development at Waskesiu Lake.
2.	(a) Operation and maintenance, excluding salaries and wages
Capital
(b)	Operation and maintenance, excluding salaries and wages Capital
3.	Operation and maintenance, excluding salaries and wages Capital
1963-64	1964-65	1965-6611,096	20,198	28,043258,328	9,705	16,57117,290	4,141	14,67616,699	6,651	24,0101966-67$225,000 $115,500


FORT PRINCE OF WALES-RESTORATION COST
Mr. Southam: What was the total cost of the restoration of Fort Prince of Wales at Churchill?


Arthur Laing: 1. $222,199.


DISPOSAL OF ARMOURY, LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Irvine: Is it the intention of the government to dispose of the Dundas street armoury, London, Ontario and, if so is it to be turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, and on what date?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: The answer to this question, Mr. Speaker, is no.


FISHERMEN'S LOANS, MANITOBA
Mr. Stefanson: How many loans were made to fishermen in the province of Manitoba during the past three years under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, and what are the number of loans for each year and the total amount of loans?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Four loans were made to fishermen in the province of Manitoba during the past three years under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, as follows:
Fiscal Year		
Ended	Number	Amount
March 31, 1964				
March 31, 1965	2	$ 7,500March 31, 1966	2	$ 4,000Total	4	$11,500
June 22, 1966


DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS BY PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Referring to P.C. 3374 of the 25th day of October, 1935, what use is made of the right of the Prime Minister to make "recommendations in any department" and under what circumstances?
2.	To whom are such "recommendations in any department" made, and in what form?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. The right of the Prime Minister to make "recommendations in any department", set out in order in council P.C. 3374 of 25th October, 1935 as a special prerogative of the Prime Minister, is used in cases of emergency or special need when the minister and acting ministers of the department concerned are not available. The right is exercised rarely and normally in routine matters.
2. To the governor general in council, in the form of a submission to the governor in council.


ADVICE TO GOVERNOR GENERAL ON APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Referring to P.C. 3374 of the 25th day of October, 1935. what is the accepted technique whereby the Governor General is advised in respect of the appointment of (a) Speaker of the Senate (b) chief justices of all courts (c) senators (d) subcommittees of council (e) treasury board (f) committee (sic) of internal economy, House of Commons (g) deputy heads of departments (h) librarians of parliament (i) crown appointments in both houses of parliament (j) governor general's secretary's staff?
2.	How long has this technique been in use?
3.	Has any other technique ever been used in respect of any appointments made to these positions?
4.	If so, what techniques and on what specific occasions?
5.	Has the technique or device of an instrument of advice ever been used in respect of any of these appointments?
6.	If so, on what specific occasions?


John Ross Matheson: 1. By order or minute of council, with the exception of 1. (j), in respect of which the governor is not advised.
2.	Since 1 July, 1867.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to part 3.
5.	No.
6.	See answer to part 5.
Orders for Returns


PARKING FACILITIES, PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many parking units are there for area numbers (a) 246 (b) 96 (c) 75 (d) 58?
2.	For each aforementioned areas, how many parking permits have been issued?
3.	Is the number of parking units for the use of the personnel of the House of Commons adequate?
4.	If not, what should be the number of units?
5.	Has the government received any suggestions concerning the improvement of parking facilities on Parliament Hill?
6.	If so (a) who is responsible for the study of these suggestions (b) on what date was the first suggestion received?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Area Number
(a)	246
(b)	96
(c)	75
(d)	58
2.	Area Number
(a)	246
(b)	96
(c)	75
(d)	58
Number of Parking Units 70 39 21 55
Number of Parking Permits
136 58 37
3. This is a matter of opinion and therefore a factual answer cannot be given.
4.	This is a matter of opinion and therefore a factual answer cannot be given.
5.	Yes.
6.	(a) The Department of Public Works (b) Not known.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Gregoire: 1.	How many private railway cars are owned by the Canadian National Railways?
2.	According to regulations, who is entitled to make use of private cars?
3.	Since 1958, have any of these cars been used by any (a) federal ministers (b) members of parliament (c) mayors or senior officials (d) wives of any of these persons, and, if so, for what trips and how often in each case?
4.	Have any friends of the persons mentioned above been invited to travel in these private cars and, if so, for what particular trips?
5.	Since 1958, what personnel have been assigned to these private cars?
6.	How much did it cost to build each of these
private cars?

June 22, 1966
Orders for Returns
7.	Since 1958 (a) how much did it cost to repair and maintain these cars each year (b) what is the yearly cost of food and other items such as drinks?
8.	Since 1958, what has been the total yearly cost of maintenance, repair, food, drinks, personnel, including various expenses, with regard to all these private cars?
Return tabled.


AUDIT OF CROWN AGENCIES BY AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Caoueile: Does the government intend to entrust the audit of the crown agencies accounts to the Auditor General of Canada in the near future, and (a) if so, when (b) if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.


LOANS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Mr. Godin: 1.	During the last five years, has the Government of Canada granted any loans to foreign countries?
2.	If so, in each case (a) to what country was the loan granted (b) what is the amount of the loan (c) what is the interest rate charged (d) what is the due date?
Return tabled.


PRICE OF QUINIDINE SULPHATE
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	Is the government aware of an increase at the retail level in Toronto from $4 per hundred tablets to $19 per hundred tablets of the cardiac drug, quinidine sulphate?
2.	If so, what is the explanation for this increase?
3.	What pharmaceutical companies supply Canadian patients with quinidine sulphate?
4.	What countries are the major suppliers of the basic material from which quinidine sulphate is made?
5.	Is there a shortage of quinidine sulphate in Canada today?
6.	Have measures been taken by the government to ensure the supply and regulate the price of quinidine sulphate and, if so, what are they?
Return tabled.


OLD AGE SECURITY AND FAMILY ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What was the total amount, by provinces, of old age security paid in each of the years 1955 to 1965 inclusive?
2.	What was the total amount, by provinces, of family allowances paid in each of the years 1955 to 1965 inclusive?
Return tabled.
[Mr. Gregoire.l
[Translation1


Mr. Caouetie:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is the parliamentary secretary in a position to give us an approximate date on which the government might reply to Question No. 910 that has been on the order paper since March 1? It has been quite some time and we have nothing yet to indicate when a reply will be given.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call to the attention of the Secretary of State the fact that my starred Question No. 1,283 of April 6 and that another starred Question No. 1,346, on the order paper since April 22, and that another question, No. 1,354 also dated April 26, and finally another question No. 1,385 dated April 28 are still unanswered.
I should like to have answers to these questions. It seems to me they are quite simple and could be easily answered.
1English1



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for papers No. 136 is acceptable to the government subject to the agreement of the government of the province of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 136 shall be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I ask that notices of motion No. 131, 141 and 142 be called, and that the remaining notices of motion be allowed to stand.



EXEMPTION FROM U.S. COPYRIGHT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 131-Mr. Knowles:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of any comunications, dated since April, 1963, exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the United States concerning the abolition of the manufacturing clause of the United States Copyright Act or the exempting of Canada from its provisions.
Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with
June 22, 1966

established practice, before diplomatic correspondence of this kind can be tabled it is the custom to ask the concurrence of the other government involved. That concurrence has now been obtained. If the house is prepared to accept the motion, the correspondence will be tabled forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 131 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 136-Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams or documents exchanged between the government of Quebec and the Minister of National Revenue or his department and the Minister of Labour or his department, with regard to winter works at St. Ephrem de Beauce, between January 1, 1960, and January 1, 1966, inclusively.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 141-Mr. Knowles (for Mr. Orlikow):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the names, by province, of all persons sentenced to preventative detention under section 660 of the Criminal Code in the past ten years; where, when and by whom they were sentenced; whether they were represented by counsel and by whom; the past records of all those sentenced; when the sentence was imposed following their conviction as habitual criminals; by whom they were sentenced and the location of the people concerned serving these sentences.
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Solicitor General has discussed this motion with the hon. member for Winnipeg North and that he is satisfied that the names of the persons sentenced, when and by whom they were sentenced, and whether they were represented by counsel be excepted from this motion. Subject to these exceptions the motion is acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the minister is it
Orders for Returns
the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 141 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 142-Mr. Woolliams:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of all letters and correspondence since September 1, 1965, which have passed between the Department or the Minister of Justice and the United States department of Justice in connection with the conviction for fraud in the United States of John C. Doyle, Canadian Javelin Limited, and his failure to serve the sentence imposed upon him.
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, there is no correspondence between the Department of Justice or the Minister of Justice and the United States Department of Justice in connection with the subject matter of the motion. Under these circumstances I wonder whether the hon. member would not withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion be dropped?


Mr. Woolliams:: That is what I am thinking about.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member for Bow River is giving some thought to motion No. 142 or is it dropped?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If there is no correspondence let the minister report accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion dropped? Withdrawn?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If there is no further correspondence let the hon. gentleman report accordingly. I am not withdrawing the motion.


George James McIlraith: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 138-Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams or documents exchanged between the Unemployment Insurance
June 22, 1966
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Commission in St. Georges de Beauce and the Minister of Labour or his department, the Minister of National Revenue or his department, and the Minister of Finance or his department, with regard to winter works in St. Ephrem de Beauce between January 1, 1960. and January 1, 1966, inclusively.
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: This was called on an earlier occasion but was stood down because of the absence from the chamber at that particular moment of the hon. member for Megantic. I should like to say that the correspondence, telegrams and other documents referred to in the motion are communications between the Unemployment Insurance Commission and my department or myself, the Minister of Labour, and another minister. They are all privileged documents, and in the circumstances I would respectfully ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion dropped?
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Finance tell me how much longer I shall have to wait before the condition will be met which will permit notice of motion No. 72 to be passed?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have not had any recent communication from the chairman of the Carter commission, so I am not in a position to answer that question at the moment. We are trying to get the report as quickly as possible. However, we have a problem about the translation which I mentioned in the house some days ago, and we have not yet made up our minds whether we can release the report in the English language only.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: This is about the time of the average session when the Leader of the Opposition asks the Prime Minister whether the government has in mind a summer adjournment. At the same time the Prime Minister sets out in some detail the further legislation, in addition to that on the order paper, which it is the intention of the government to bring before the house.
Can the Prime Minister give the house some general ideas in this connection? I know he is just as anxious as can be to answer the question. I await his reply with interest.
[Mr. Langlois (Megantic).)


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: We have been making such fine progress lately, due of course almost entirely to the co-operation of hon. gentlemen opposite, that I think we can look forward to a summer adjournment at a reasonably early date. I would hope that by the beginning of next week, perhaps, we would be able to place before the house what we hope to achieve before that summer adjournment.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the Prime
Minister then whether, in view of the fact that so large a percentage of the cabinet was in favour of the abolition of capital punishment in the vote that took place, and in view of the considerable number of cases which were pending at the time of that vote, the government intends to bring in any amendments to the Criminal Code regarding this subject, at the present session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Certainly not at this particular time, Mr. Speaker, and I am not now in a position to say whether such an amendment or a government resolution on this subject should be brought forward at a later date.


John George Diefenbaker: Is consideration being given to this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we
in the government have to give consideration to this important matter in the light of the discussions and the decisions reached or not reached by the house in the previous debate, but I am not in a position to add to that now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary with respect to the first part of the question
just asked by the Leader of the Opposition, may I ask the Prime Minister whether medicare is still on the list of items to be dealt with before a summer adjournment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope the medicare resolution will be before the house next week.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I directed a question to the Minister of Labour with reference to the ten longshoremen in Vancouver who have now been sentenced to serve terms in prison for insisting upon their right to a statutory holiday guaranteed to them under the Canada
June 22, 1966	COMMONS
labour code, and the minister promised to look into this matter. I would like to ask him what action the Department of Labour and the government intend to take with respect to the right of these men to enjoy the privilege set out under the Canada labour code.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot accept any of the premises contained in the earlier
part of the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I do not want to quibble, but in the first place the men in question were not sentenced to terms in prison. Fines were imposed by the court, with the alternative of a jail term. With regard to the second part of the premise to the question, I cannot accept it either. There was a serious question of law involved at one stage and I stated that on that particular phase I felt my department and the Department of Justice should have the benefit of the reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Verchere who dealt with the matter.
Just before coming into the house I was advised that the reasons for judgment in this case were given orally. They have now been transcribed and sent to the judge for revision, and I am hoping to receive a copy of them tomorrow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister if his department is looking into the question to see whether the courts have the legal right to issue an injunction ordering men to work on a day which is a holiday under the Canada labour code?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now asking for a legal opinion, or legal interpretation of a statute, and his question is out of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the minister for a legal opinion. I asked him if his department is looking into or would it look into the legal aspects of the authority of the courts to issue an injunction denying men a holiday and compelling them to work on a day which is a statutory holiday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not have the legal mind which would permit me to distinguish between the two aspects of the question.
DEBATES	6753
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. T. S. Barneli (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask him whether he has any further information about the telegram concerning the matter raised in the question directed to the Minister of Labour, which was sent to Her Majesty the Queen asking her to give grace in this case.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; no such telegram has been received by the government. I have made inquiries and no such telegram addressed to Her Majesty the Queen has been received at Rideau Hall. The press statement which I read on the matter indicated that such a telegram would be sent, but did not indicate it had been sent.
1Translation1



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS

[Stage Direction]
QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR ALL DIRECT TAXES On the orders of the day:
['Order, please.\nInquiries of the Ministry [Translation1']
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister?
During the election campaign the new premier of the province of Quebec said many times-not only promising, but pledging his word-that he would come to Ottawa to get back 100 per cent of direct taxes.
Are the right hon. Prime Minister and his government presently preparing to receive the premier of the province of Quebec who will come to get back 100 per cent of direct taxes?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is hypothetical.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that King Hussein's visit to the United States is the second major visit of a Mediterranean area head of state, would the minister tell us whether he is likely to visit Canada as well?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: No, Mr. Speaker.
June 22, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry. I base the question on a recommendation unanimously adopted and made public yesterday here in Ottawa after a national conference on highway and automobile safety. Will the government now take immediate action to establish a national accident prevention research centre, in view of that recommendation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me this is a question of a very general nature concerning governmental policy. I wonder whether it is the type of question which should be asked at this time.


William Heward Grafftey: I just thought this would be a good question to ask before the July 1 week end.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforf-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance under whose jurisdiction the Canadian Wheat Board comes. Could the minister inform the house regarding the price per bushel for wheat under the three year sales agreement with Russia? Is it on a three year basis, or will the price be renegotiated at the end of each year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I clearly answered a similar question the other day after announcing the conclusion of the negotiations between the Canadian Wheat Board and Exportkhleb. As the hon. member will see if he looks at Hansard, at that time I made it quite clear that the price was fixed only for the first year of the contract. Subsequent years are subject to negotiation.


Reynold Rapp: Good.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Was the minister quoted correctly in yesterday's Globe and Mail by Mr. Geoffrey Stevens when he stated that the average per bushel price at seaboard for Canadian wheat

works out at 2.38 per bushel for the first year of the three year Russian wheat deal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows he cannot ask whether a press statement is correct or incorrect.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Moose Mountain has asked a question in respect of which the house is entitled to information. The house did not receive this information the other day. Following up the question asked by the hon. member for Moose Mountain, I should like to ask what is the price per bushel for the coming year, and at what point of delivery does the price apply.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the house is well aware it is not customary for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to give the prices at which the Canadian Wheat Board sells wheat to its various customers. That was the practice while the government of the right hon. gentleman was in power. These prices were never given, and I do not intend to break this rule.
The Canadian Wheat Board sells at the same price on the same day to every customer. It is sold at the daily price on the day the negotiations are completed.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the minister give a statement to any member of the press, that the price was $2.38, or was that another leak from the department by somebody under his direction?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure the right hon. gentleman would not suggest that I would say anything outside this house that I am not prepared to say inside the house. I gave no such information to the press, nor did I authorize anyone to give the information. The answer can be obtained, however, by a person who is as good at mathematics as my right hon. friend, by looking at the prices which prevailed at that time and by adding the freight rate, to arrive at an approximate price.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the minister's last statement, is the price, worked out by his mathematics, $2.38?


Mr. Pickersgill:: It is a simple question. Work it out yourself.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for statistical information.
June 22, 1966


John George Diefenbaker: We want the truth and do not get it.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In reply to a question put to the minister the other day respecting the flour content in the newest Russian wheat deal, I think he said he might be in a position to give information on this point in a few days. I wonder whether he is now in a position to indicate to the house the amount of the flour content in the first one year firm contract of that wheat deal.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not in a position to reply to this question today, but I expect to be able to do so very soon.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Can the minister tell me whether some of this flour will be going to Cuba, and whether it will pass through Saint John or Halifax?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will attempt to answer this question at the same time as I answer the previous one.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister now in a position to satisfy the curiosity of members of the house concerning the large number of visits back and forth by senior officials such as Mr. Harriman and now Mr. Bundy from Washington, and indeed a member of the United Kingdom cabinet? Could the minister throw any light on these comings and goings?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend, who has had experience in the Department of External Affairs, will realize that comings and goings are very natural to any diplomatic effort.
I should like to say that we did have a discussion yesterday with Mr. Ronning, as my friend mentioned. The discussion which took place between the Prime Minister and Mr. Ronning was mentioned by me on Monday. Mr. Ronning visited Hanoi from June 14 to 18. This was the second visit Mr. Ronning has undertaken to Hanoi on the initiative and
Inquiries of the Ministry instructions of the Canadian government. His first visit, as the house will recall, took place last March.
Mr. Ronning was well received in the North Vietnamese capital, and he had the opportunity for wide ranging discussions with senior personalities of the North Vietnamese government.
The house will appreciate that it is neither customary nor prudent to disclose publicly the content of discussions which were held on a basis of confidence by mutual agreement. I can say, however, that Mr. Ronning's assignment was conceived with two related objectives in mind; first, to see whether a basis could be established on which the parties primarily concerned in the Viet Nam conflict might be enabled to enter into direct informal discussions; and second, to continue to explore the attitudes of interested governments on the various elements which might in due course constitute the basis for a peaceful solution of the Viet Nam situation.
I think it would be wrong to try at this stage to assess the results of this visit in one way or another.
ITranslationl


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We know that the question period is only half an hour on Wednesdays. The Minister of External Affairs is making a statement which he could have made on motions, and giving the opposition the opportunity to ask questions during the half hour available to us. Moreover, the minister does not answer at all the question put to him; he takes advantage of the circumstance, while he is on his feet, to make a statement he might have made earlier.
Mr. Speaker, as the minister's statement is important, I would ask the unanimous agreement of the house to revert to motions, so that we can comment on the minister's statement and still have the time to put our questions.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order made by the hon. member for Lapointe is nearly as long as the minister's statement. The members know that they put questions to the minister at their own risk.
[English1


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to complete the statement.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact we only have a 30
6756
June 22, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry minute question period today, surely the minister should ask leave to revert to motions as a result of the request of the hon. member for Lapointe. If he does not I am sure that hon. member will not vote for him any more.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that hon. members and ministers of the government realize that on a day such as this replies to questions should be as short and succinct as possible. I am sure the minister will want to keep that in mind in making his reply.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that this matter is perhaps as important as any we have dealt
with this session.


An hon. Member:: Revert to motions.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I was asked a question about the nature of these discussions and I have given an answer. I have no wish to impose a further reply on the house in respect of a matter which I think is recognized in all parties and throughout the country as being perhaps the most important facing us at this time in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, while I admit that the reply of the minister was, as usual, very interesting, it was not a reply in response to my question. I asked the minister whether he could throw some light on the comings and goings of Messrs. Bundy and Harriman. I was not inquiring about the visit of Mr. Ronning. While his reply about Mr. Ronning was very interesting, and I am sure we were all glad to hear it, I asked the minister about the visits of Mr. Bundy and Mr. Harriman. Will the minister reply to that question.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the importance of this question-and I think the minister is correct in this regard-will the house give him permission to conclude his statement.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to that asked by the hon. member for Oxford. In view of a story that appeared in the morning press, will the minister assure the house that Mr. Ronning's visit to Hanoi was

solely at the request of the Canadian government; that he carried proposals or suggestions to the Hanoi administration which emanated from Canada, and that the United States-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: Can he assure the house that
Mr. Ronning was not carrying suggestions emanating from somewhere else. I am giving the minister an opportunity to clear this up by stating that he was not carrying instructions from anyone else. I hope the minister can answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as posed is certainly argumentative. I recognize the hon. member for Lapointe.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Lewis: I did not intend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member will be given an opportunity to ask his question again later on. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Lapointe.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend my question to be argumentative. I suggested with respect that the minister might be given an opportunity to make a statement which would be favourable to Canada and to peace. I repeat my question. In view of a story appearing in the press, will the minister assure the house that Mr. Ronning went to Hanoi and met the administration there at the behest only of Canada, with suggestions emanating from Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The second question is the same as the first and is out of order, as the first one was.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs will tell the house, to use his language, if the related objectives of Mr. Ronning's visit were realized.


Mr. Martin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with this subject when the suggestion was made that the statement was too extended.
It would be wrong to try at this stage to assess the results of the Ronning visit in one way or another. I have made it clear to the house that this visit represents only one
June 22, 1966

phase in what is a continuing effort on our part to see whether some mutually acceptable basis for a peaceful settlement of the conflict can be established. We are under no illusion about the magnitude of the obstacles. On the other hand, we are in no way deterred from persisting in the process of patient exploration of positions, of opening channels and establishing contacts. That is what I think the Canadian people want this government to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there was one pertinent portion of the statement read by the minister, the reference to the pilgrimage to Hanoi as one of the steps the Canadian government is taking in order to bring about the desirable objectives to which the minister refers. What are the other steps?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like simply to say that I have been in this house as long as any member here.


John George Diefenbaker: Even longer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, even longer, as my right hon. friend suggests. I can recall no occasion, involving Canadian relations with other countries and the peace of the world, when there has not been on the part of every member of this house the fullest understanding of the position in which the government must find itself in dealing with this kind of matter. I say that on my responsibility, and I am sure I would be borne out in this by the Prime Minister who has shared with me the discussions we have had during the past two days. I am sure the replies I have given today and yesterday are the replies which my right hon. friend would make, given the same responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can immediately assure the hon. gentleman that I would not, because we would at least give a reply instead of an exhibition of verbosity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me ask the hon. gentleman this question. Have we gone back to the days of Mackenzie King, when we could not get any information in parliament regarding foreign affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation1



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance, which arises out of a press release issued by the Department of Finance on June 16, 1966, concerning loans made under the Farm Loan Act, in which it is seen that out of a total of 46,285 loans, only 873 were made in the province of Quebec.
My question is this, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether Liberal members in that corner could not keep a little quiet. Can the Minister of Finance advise whether his department will investigate the reason why the province of Quebec gets about 1 per cent of federal loans for farm improvement purposes?


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



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Does the government plan on taking early action on the recommendations made yesterday by the special 50 member committee of government officials and safety experts, especially in respect of making breathalizer tests mandatory and the requiring of pollution control devices for motor vehicle exhaust systems?


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



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a very brief question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, asking him whether he is now prepared to disclose the contents of the report on the Mirkovich purported cancer cure, since he has now the report before him and has had some considerable time to review and consider its contents.
June 22, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the minister of health for the province of Ontario will be making a statement tomorrow on this subject, and by arrangement with that minister I intend to make a statement dealing with this matter at the same time.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, asking him whether he has any comment to make about the declaration made today in Montreal by the Seafarers' International Union to the effect that the Canadian government has been lax and has abandoned its responsibilities in the field of safety in relation to the lives of sailors at sea because of a question of manning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this question is acceptable.


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, partly to seek some information. Did I understand you to say that my question is unacceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: I should have said it is out of
order.


Frank Howard: Why, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: It is out of order because Jack does not want to answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the continuing submissions coming from the Atlantic provinces for the inclusion of the growth areas of Halifax, Dartmouth, Saint John and Fredericton in the designated area program, is the minister giving consideration to altering the present stand of the government in this regard?
[Mr. Forrestall.l


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, no new information has come to my attention during the course of the past month.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the unanimous resolution of the legislative assembly of the province of New Brunswick urging the government to alter its stand and include the whole Atlantic area in the designated area program?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think this question was asked and replied to a few days ago.


Robert Carman Coates: But can the minister indicate to me whether his attention has been drawn-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mine is also a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Minister of Industry whether he has received any report from the Atlantic Development Board recommending the inclusion of these cities in the Atlantic provinces in the designated areas.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: To my knowledge no recommendation from the Atlantic Development Board has been received in this respect.


Robert Carman Coates: I wish to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether he has received the unanimous resolution of the legislative assembly of the province of New Brunswick urging that the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe that asking whether the Prime Minister or a member of his government has received a representation does not constitute an urgent question.



POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE-PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I wish to address this question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). Will the government pay unemployment compensation to the workers who were laid off at the Point Edward naval base, in view of the fact that the jobs promised to them were not provided? It was indicated that the dock workers in Quebec would receive this compensation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This appears to be a question of general policy, and I suggest to the hon. member that it should not be asked at this time.
June 22, 1966


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. In its statement of policy the government has already announced its intention to pay unemployment compensation to dock workers in Quebec. I only ask that the same rights and privileges be granted to the workers laid off at the Point Edward naval base. It should be a simple matter for the Prime Minister to answer with a yes or no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will call orders of the day, after which hon. members may rise on points of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised this point of order previously but did not insist on it, as I was unwilling to cut into the question period. My point is in reference to answers given by the Minister of Finance regarding the price of wheat. First of all he said the information was confidential and privileged and that it was against government policy to divulge it. In his second answer he said that anyone with any knowledge of elementary mathematics could figure it out. These two answers are contradictory. Either the price of wheat is a confidential matter or he is giving us wrong information or withholding it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has not given me a reference to the standing order, and I cannot accept his question.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question period has expired for the simple reason that the Minister of External Affairs has taken advantage of us by using up the time allowed. Give me some time, Mr. Speaker, and I will point out to you when he has done so.
In answer to a question put by the member for Oxford the minister gave information which was not asked for, and the house permitted a long and detailed answer to a question which was supplementary. In this way the Secretary of State for External Affairs used up the valuable time of this house during which hon. members wished to deal with questions pertaining to the welfare of the workers in their own ridings. It was an abuse on the part of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to take this time away from the hon. members ">n this side of the house.
Supply-Labour


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask for cooperation from hon. members. I do not think the hon. member for Cape Breton South has a valid point of order, any more than the hon. member for Bow River.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The orders of the day have been called.


Mr. Aiken:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker-

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



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[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.
The Chairman:: When we rose at our last sitting we were discussing Vote No. 1, to be found on page 200 of the blue book.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I do not know why Mr. Speaker left the chair-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. This is not the business of the committee.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I will make it the business of the committee, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am prepared to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. I move that the committee now rise and report progress.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Motion (Mr. Aiken) negatived: Yeas, 63; nays, 90.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the motion lost. The hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: I rise, Mr. Chairman, to speak on the labour estimates-


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The spokesman for our party, the official opposition in the House of Commons, has risen and has not been recognized. He is on his feet.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.

June 22, 1966
Supply-Labour


David Lewis: I will be glad to yield the floor to the hon. member.


Michael Starr: I do not believe that is necessary. I believe it is up to you, Mr. Chairman, to recognize him and I ask you to do so.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member tor York South.


David Lewis: I will yield the floor.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are an arrogant bunch anyway.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Surely the committee realizes that this is not the first round of debate on this particular vote. There is no time limit on this debate as there has been on some of the resolutions we have considered. I saw the hon. member for York South rise and the Chair has recognized him. Again I recognize the hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman-


Malcolm MacInnis: You are sure it is not because Jack Pickersgill saw that Mr. Aiken was the first one to rise?


David Lewis: I do not believe the business of the house is going to be advanced by the kind of resentment that apparently has been aroused. I am not saying this critically. I would, subject of course to the instructions of the Chair, still be willing to yield the floor to the hon. member if that will restore peace in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Don't play it so saintly.


Mr. Regimbal:: Mr. Chairman, I will respect the judgment of the Chair and the recognition of the hon. member.


David Lewis: Alphonse will now speak with Gaston's permission.
I rise to speak on the first vote of the labour estimates because I respectfully suggest that there are matters in the labour field in Canada which need emphasis. In addition, there are matters respecting labour legislation in Canada which need to be stated here and certain actions and courses taken by employers need emphasis also at this time. I want to refer first of all to something members of this party have said on a number of occasions, that the basic reasons for labour unrest in Canada today appear in the main to be two. The first is the rise in the cost of
[The Chairman.]
living in the last couple of years and the second is the feeling of fear that workers in Canada have about the security of their jobs resulting from the technological changes known as automation.
I think it is unfair to blame unions and workers for insisting on improvements in their standard of living and for insisting on improvements in their wages and fringe benefits in view of this situation. It is usual for many people in Canada to blame labour in major part, if not in total, for the increases in prices. It is my submission that every study which has been made of the role of wages in the cost of living has shown that increased wages are not responsible for the increased prices in this country. In addition, every study which has been made has emphasized that it is inaccurate to suggest that the rise in wages in Canada has been responsible for making Canada uncompetitive in foreign markets, and that the contrary is true.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, without taking a great deal of time, let me point out that every study made by the Economic Council and by the research men in the minister's department indicates that there has been a very huge increase in productivity per man hours of labour in Canada since the end of the second world war. These studies show, for example, that from the 1935-39 period immediately before the second world war to 1963 there was an increase in the labour cost per unit output in manufacturing of 135.4 per cent. When that is adjusted to take into account the reduction in exchange rates it comes down to about 118.3 per cent.
From 1946 to 1953 the increase in cost per unit went up only by 50 per cent. On the other hand, from 1960 to 1963 the percentage trend was downward and there was an actual reduction in labour costs per unit of 1.4 per cent. This reduction was around 11.3 per cent if one makes the adjustment because of the change in the exchange rate. The fact is that labour costs per unit of output in Canada dropped very considerably between 1960 and 1963. The Economic Council, which made these calculations and found that the labour cost per unit of output in manufacturing decreased, as I have said, by 11.3 per cent from 1960 to 1963, drew this conclusion:
Canadian unit labour costs in manufacturing over recent years have also risen substantially less than in most other leading industrially advanced nations.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
After the Economic Council had pointed out the reduction in the Canadian exchange
June 22, 1966

rate and the effect which it had it went on to say in its report:
Another important factor has been the relatively much smaller average increases in wages in Canada than have recently been occurring in most European countries.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the United States is the only country in which the increase in wages from 1957 to 1964 was about equal to that in Canada. If I remember correctly, I think that on the average the increase was 4.4 per cent annually in Canada and about 4.3 per cent in the United States. In the other countries included in the various studies to which I have referred we find that the increase in wages in the United Kingdom was an average of 5.9 per cent over the same period, in Sweden 8.8 per cent, in The Netherlands 10 per cent, in France 11.1 per cent, in Italy 11.9 per cent, in Germany 12 per cent and in Japan 17.2 per cent. Among these nations are, of course, most of our competitors in the international commodity market. In all cases the rate of increase in wages has been substantially more than that in Canada, in some instances three or four times the Canadian increase over the same period.
Similarly, Mr. Chairman, if you look at the increase in the per unit cost as calculated by the United States department of commerce, according to the statistics which they have published, there is an equally revealing state of affairs as far as the Canadian situation is concerned. The percentage increase in labour cost per unit of output in manufacturing from 1957 to 1964 in Canada was 3 per cent while it was 5 per cent in the United States, 42 per cent in France, 23 per cent in Germany, 11 per cent in Japan, 26 per cent in The Netherlands, 16 per cent in Sweden, 16 per cent in the United Kingdom and 17 per cent in Italy. There again the increase in the labour cost per unit of output in manufacturing in Canada was the lowest among these countries which I have cited. In many cases their increase was five and even ten times as high as the increase in unit labour cost in this country.
I would remind the members of the committee, and through the members of the committee I remind my fellow citizens of Canada, that the per unit cost of labour is what matters, not the size of the increase in wages. If it is possible to increase wages and at the same time to introduce efficiency which lowers the per unit cost or avoids an excessive increase, then, Mr. Chairman, you have
Supply-Labour
the happiest of situations. The working people benefit from the advances which are made. Their standard of living is improved and at the same time the economic position of Canada remains in the preferred position in which it was before the increase in the wage rate.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest we should realize when we discuss labour matters in this country that the arguments against labour and against the unions to the effect that they are pricing Canada out of the markets of the world are sheer propaganda. It may be true in one or two industries; I cannot say I imagine there are exceptions to the general rule; there always are. But by and large, in Canada's manufacturing industries as a whole wages have not, if I remember correctly the way the Economic Council puts it, been the causative factor in the increase in prices in this country.
I suggest, as was suggested previously, that the real causes of price increases in Canada have been on the one hand the administered price policies of many corporations and on the other the very large, almost phenomenal increase in the rate of profits, both before and after taxes, particularly of the large industries.
I set that, Mr. Chairman, as the starting point for a discussion of labour matters in Canada, and I plead with the members of this committee and with the people of Canada not to divide the country by suggesting that labour is being unreasonable and is pushing prices up. This is no more fair or just than to say that when the farmers of Canada do get a little bit more occasionally they are responsible for the increase in the cost of food, one of the major causes of the increase in the cost of living. In fact the increase in the cost of food is mainly due to the food processors and food packing industry, not to the primary producers.
The workers in the plants and in the mines are the primary industrial producers in the country. Like the farmers, and together with the farmers, they are in our view the victims of the same squeeze between prices and costs, of the same administered price policies and of the same concentration of wealth and power.
Another point frequently pressed in this country, as well as in this house on occasion, is that the workers continue to have their right to strike and to interfere with the economy of the country, etc., ect. Let me say first without any apology that I consider the right of people to say that they will not work

June 22, 1966
Supply-Labour
lor certain wages or under certain working conditions to be a basic right in a democratic country. There may be some exceptions to this in, for example, defence industries or where security matters are involved. But when the time comes when we prevent by law the ordinary worker, whether he be white collar, blue collar, professional, mine worker or industrial worker, from exercising his right to refuse to work under certain conditions and at a certain wage, then we abandon the basic precepts of democracy.
I urge hon. members to recognize that when workers and members of unions exercise their right to strike they are exercising a right which the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Zambri v. Canadian Pacific Railway which was heard a few years ago and in which I was involved, has held is a right which is theirs at common law, a right which has been restated in the statute law of this country and in the various labour relations acts.
I would also remind the committee that it is unfair and a great mistake to forget that the right to strike has in fact been very substantially curbed under every jurisdiction in Canada except the province of Saskatchewan, though I understand that some amendments may have been or are about to be introduced in the legislature of that province. In every other jurisdiction in this country, once a collective agreement is signed, then for the duration of that collective agreement, whether it be one year, two years, three years or five years, the right to strike is taken away by law. In such cases employees are prohibited from striking during the life of the agreement. Union officers are prohibited from counselling strikes. Both employees who strike and unions and union officers who counsel or initiate strikes are subject to prosecution, whether under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act passed by this parliament or under the labour relations acts passed by the provincial legislatures.
The fact is that before order in council 1003, which was introduced in Canada during the war, all workers in Canada had the right to strike whenever they decided in their judgment to do so whereas under the present law they can strike only after certain procedures have been followed. They can strike lawfully only after a collective agreement has terminated, after certain conciliation and mediation procedures are completed and a certain period beyond has passed. We have in

fact taken from the workers of this country their right to strike during the major part of their working lives, namely, during the periods when collective agreements are in force. I am not saying that this is a bad thing I believe, and I am sure all members of my party believe, that this was a step which brought some order out of chaos in labour relations. It introduced into the labour relations field the concept that once a worker made a bargain with an employer through his union and the employer made a bargain with him, then for the duration of that bargain both of them should live together in peace. If there are differences between them they should settle them by the grievance procedure or by arbitration if they cannot settle them themselves. Thus there is a useful introduction, if I may call it that, of a civilized relationship and civilized behaviour into the matter. The right to strike during the effective period is taken away.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The relevance of this to my next point is that because the right to strike is taken away during the life of a collective agreement, because the workers cannot do what they would have done under the common law, namely, down tools and walk out, or pull the plug as it is called, grievances build up during the life of the agreement. If those grievances are not settled to the satisfaction of the workers, bitterness and resentment are built up. Therefore, when the workers get to the bargaining table to negotiate for a new agreement or to revise an old agreement, nine times out of ten the union committee makes representations not only about negotiations but also about a backlog of unsatisfied grievances and unresolved complaints. The union committee brings to the table a mountain of complaints having nothing to do with the major part of the negotiations. I say that anybody having anything to do with labour must keep in mind that at the negotiating table you are dealing not only with particular questions of wages, reduction of hours or job security but also, whether you like it or not, with a build-up of resentment and bitterness resulting either from failure to solve complaints during the life of the agreement or from other factors which have produced a great deal of discontent and dissatisfaction.
This was one of the major problems in the longshoremen's strike. I have never acted for the longshoremen in Montreal, Quebec or Trois-Rivieres but I have acted for them in Toronto and Hamilton. I know from personal
June 22, 1966

experience at the negotiating table that it takes a couple of days to get rid of the complaints and the bitterness before you get down to discussing the issues to be negotiated.
Related to that-and this brings me directly to the department and to the legislation which the department administers-is the terrible prolongation of negotiations. The longshoremen's strike which was settled about a week ago had to do with revising a collective agreement that expired, if my memory serves me right, on November 30, 1965, some six or seven months ago. Negotiations were started before that. This sort of thing is true for almost every major set of negotiations. Our machinery permits either the employer or the union to drag his or its feet for months. It has been my experience-I am not impartial and I am therefore making this statement out of my particular set of premises and prejudices-that it is the employer who drags his feet. As a matter of fact, my information is that in the longshoremen's strike, until the Minister of Labour got into the picture some week or two before the final settlement, the union had not had any monetary offer from the Shipping Federation despite having gone through six months of negotiations. The union had not had an offer it could look at and consider.
I would not be exaggerating if I said that I have known hundreds of such cases where the employer, on the theory that if he starts too early he will have to give too much, withholds his offer until the last minute. And what does that result in?
People often blame unions, if I may interject this, as if they were impersonal corporations. I know that there are shareholders in a corporation and that there are members of the board, but the fact is that a corporation is a much more monolithic organization than a union. In the corporation a few persons are able to make a decision and the negotiators are told to carry it through.


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


David Lewis: Certainly.


John Carr Munro: I felt that the remarks of the hon. member for York South concerning collective bargaining were laudable and are remarks that many of us agree with. But how can he reconcile his statement with the bill his party advanced last week with respect to the longshoremen's strike, about which the hon. member was talking? That bill sought to legislate the men back to work for pay and
230.13-429
Supply-Labour
other terms less favourable and more rigid than obtained in the settlement.


David Lewis: Answering the question, first, the terms were not less favourable and, second, I make no apology for that bill. Since the hon. member for Hamilton East has asked the question I shall take a minute or two to answer it if he will listen with his ears and not with his prejudices.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: We considered the step very carefully, Mr. Chairman. We felt three things. We felt, first, that the economic situation had reached a point in Canada where some legislative step was likely to become necessary. Second, we felt if a step was likely to become necessary it was better if it were by legislation which did not involve compulsory arbitration but which in effect gave the workers the monetary increase which had already, we thought, been agreed to. The final agreement showed that we were right, because 80 cents over two years is exactly what was agreed to and what our bill proposed.
In our bill the remainder of the differences would be left to negotiations and to a commissioner of inquiry. Thus the collective bargaining system would not be interfered with, as my friend suggests.
Also-and I know every time one says something like this some hon. members shout with guilt feelings that they cannot control, "You are being pure" and all such nonsense, which does not phase me-we felt that precisely because of our close association with the labour movement in Canada a step suggesting legislation of this sort might serve a useful purpose in promoting negotiations, in stimulating them and, if you like, in bringing those negotiations further forward. We knew that hon. members in this house would ask exactly those questions the hon. member asked and would say that we were trying to interfere with collective bargaining. None the less we believed, right or wrong, that our bill on the floor of this house, or the suggestion of such a bill, would serve a useful and constructive purpose in stimulating the negotiations and in suggesting the kind of legislation that should be undertaken, if legislation should be necessary at all.
I can only say to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, that we were delighted to see the result produced by collective bargaining. Let me point out that the good result was achieved only after practically the entire cabinet was involved and after the Prime

June 22, 1966
Supply-Labour
Minister became involved in the negotiations. If you set such a precedent, too often the Prime Minister and the entire cabinet will be involved in settling labour disputes which ought to be settled without the involvement of the entire cabinet.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The question asked by the hon. member made me digress. I shall come back to what I said. 1 bring to the attention of the minister what I think is one of the matters that careful consideration should be given to, namely, that the time limits for negotiation and conciliation should be tightened. Since we already have law on the statute books dealing with this aspect of things, let us make the law workable. You can make the law workable only if the law sets very tight limits on the length of time during which the parties can negotiate directly before going to conciliation and, if conciliation is undertaken, before a final settlement one way or the other. We must in the future avoid the kind of lengthy, drawn-out process of negotiation and conciliation which can result and does result only in further bitterness, further resentment and a build-up of impatience among the rank and file of the union membership which makes it almost impossible for the bargaining committee to arrive at any conclusion which would be acceptable to union members.
We ought to look on the conciliator as being more important than we have hitherto done. Every conciliator ought to be of the rank of a mediator. It is not enough to sit down with the parties and listen to them, but carry no weight with them and have no influence with them. We should get the kind of conciliator who has a standing of great importance in the field of industrial relations, a man who has a knowledge way beyond that of the average conciliator today. He must carry weight with the parties.
I am confident as a result of intimate knowledge that the Air Canada strike could not have been avoided had not an experienced member of the Labour Department carried on the final phase of the discussions. I cannot pay too high a compliment to the excellent job Bernard Wilson did. I am confident that had it not been for a man like Bernard Wilson there would have been no settlement.
I would suggest too that a conciliator nowadays ought not to come to the bargaining table with empty hands and, if some of

them will forgive my saying so, with empty heads as far as the facts of the situation are concerned. I cannot blame them. At the present time they are given no information. I think conciliators ought to have the benefit of a research organization behind them. When a conciliator goes to the bargaining table to help the parties adjust their differences he ought to have more information at his disposal than they have, not just as much, about working conditions in the industry, about the wages paid, about the wages paid in comparative fields, the place of the industry in relation to exports, and so on. All these matters relate to the settlement of wage and related disputes and ought to be within the knowledge of the conciliator. Otherwise, he listens to one story, which is usually exaggerated and distorted, then he listens to another, which is usually equally exaggerated and distorted, and is often completely at sea about what is really in dispute between the parties. I therefore make these few concrete suggestions.
I wish to turn now to the question of the longshoremen and the Labour Code and to say briefly that the minister failed to understand the questions asked by my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and the question I myself asked yesterday. We are not concerned with the latest court action. If the court found that the men violated an injunction order and felt they should be punished for doing so, that is a separate matter. What I am concerned with is that the Labour Code does not define an employee in adequate terms and does not make it sufficiently clear that people such as longshoremen come under the Labour Code, that they can as a matter of right refuse to work on the eight regular holidays mentioned in this code, again, that they have a right not to work longer hours than those provided by the code and that they have a right to refuse to work if they do not get the vacation pay which the code provides.
If we enact a law setting out benefits which workers in certain industries should enjoy, we ought to write that law in such a way as to make it impossible for employers to interfere with the rights of the workers. It is the first injunction I am concerned about, the fact that an employer was able to go to court and obtain an injunction forcing these men to go back to work.
The act and the regulations Should be amended so that the workers may be able to
June 22, 1966

exercise their rights without such interference on the part of the employer and without an opportunity for the courts to step in. I say, as a responsible member of parliament, I hope, and as a responsible member of the Canadian Bar, that the courts have allowed themselves to be led astray by employers demanding anti labour injunctions in labour disputes. From my study of the common law and the statute law of this country, about which I know a little in this field, I say it was never intended that the law of injunctions should be applied to labour disputes. It was intended to be applied only in civil matters involving the usual property differences between citizens. It is, in fact, being used-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If the hon. member is nearly through I think that he should be allowed to continue.


David Lewis: I did not hear the minister.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I understood from the hon. member that he had nearly finished and in view of that I think he should be allowed to complete his speech.


David Lewis: That is right. I have only two or three sentences more.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Lewis: I shall not abuse it, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the courts and the judiciary I say that they have allowed themselves to permit employers to abuse the process of the law in issuing these injunction orders in labour disputes. I hope the minister and his colleagues will give every consideration to the amendment of the Criminal Code or to some such amendment as I produced in the form of a bill in this house, so to define "watching and besetting" as to make it impossible for the courts to interfere as they have interfered. I am sure the courts have done so with the best of motives, believing they were carrying out the law. Well, let us change the law so that they will not be able to use an injunction order in effect to break strikes, in effect to force people to work, in 23033-4295
Supply-Labour
effect to interfere with the bargaining process and the rights of Canadian workers.
I conclude by saying that though Canada has made great progress in the labour-management field we have still a considerable distance to go, and I urge the minister to give serious consideration to the suggestions which I have made, and which other hon. members have undoubtedly made in this field, as well as to various suggestions which his department could make to him and which none of us may have thought of.
[Translation1


Roger E. Régimbal: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
About ten days ago the house, and especially the government members applauded with good reason the end of the longshoremen strike in Montreal. Throughout the house as well as throughout the country, everyone breathed more easily upon hearing about the settlement of that strike which had gone on for 37 days and had penalized, not only the parties involved, but practically all classes of our society in all the spheres of activity in the country. That sigh of relief marked, we hoped, the end of a very unhappy experience which unfortunately had resulted in nothing but misery, as is the case with most of the much publicized strikes.
At that time, we noticed in the ranks of the official opposition as well as in those of the other opposition parties, an almost complete lack of criticism because of the relief felt by everyone. However, that silence should not have been interpreted for a single moment as the expression of our satisfaction about the way the negotiations had been carried out or as a sign that we approved the government's intervention, because on that score, at least in all the corners of the opposition, I have the impression that everyone had felt a terrible disappointment. Now that the crisis is over, we would like to take advantage of this debate on the estimates to make known some of the serious thoughts we kept to ourselves then.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)

Since we were not able to make much comment at the time of the settlement of the longshoremen's strike I believe the time has now arrived when we can express our legitimate disappointment at the way the strike was allowed to continue and at the government's participation in efforts to settle it. How could we be other than disappointed when one stops to think that practically

June 22, 1966
Supply-Labour
everybody in the country was adversely affected by the strike action?
During the days preceding the settlement, and even during the days preceding the strike itself, we posed several questions to the minister asking what action he intended to take to bring about a happy settlement before adverse effects would have to be endured. Unfortunately his answers always contained an expression of hope but did not outline the kind of action that was needed.
One of the main arguments that was used was that the government should not butt into private negotiations. A lot can be said for that proposition, but now we know that no settlement was reached until the government did butt in. That should not have been a last resort; it should have been the first resort.
Aside from the private features of the negotiations, where strike action is involved we must consider that it is a form of economic warfare in which A argues it out with B and, if agreement cannot be reached, he then takes a form of economic action in order to have himself judged right. This is the general atmosphere of any strike, but when the welfare of the people of Canada is involved the government has a very definite responsibility. We submit that the longshoremen's strike was a sad experience from beginning to end simply because the government took no action to avoid having the strike take place. Mr. Chairman, you can imagine how scandalized and disappointed we were at the enthusiasm which rocked the aisles on the government side of the chamber when settlement of the strike was announced. This was the second time in two years that we saw such a reaction from government supporters.
Anybody who knows anything about labour matters knows that the time to applaud is when a strike has been avoided. A strike is a state of war, and nobody can win anything out of a war whether it be in the economic Held or in some other field. There is no reason to boast of a settlement. The time for boasting is when a strike has been avoided.
The same situation applied in the postal strike roughly a year ago. In that case we had nothing to gloat about but the fact that after everybody had suffered the government finally decided to do its little bit. I return to the point that government assistance should be offered before strike action is taken. Speeches were made to that effect before the longshoremen's strike took place, but to no avail. I repeat that the government has a
fMr. Regimbal.]
responsibility to step in when the interests of the economy are involved.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he know just what the government did during the six weeks or so that preceded the settlement?


Roger E. Régimbal: We tried persistently to find out but we could not get a definite word in reply.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thought the hon. gentleman agreed that contentious matters should not be dealt with in this house during negotiations since it might disturb things. Does he not think that applies equally to the minister and to the government, even though he might have liked them to make a statement on the subject?


Roger E. Régimbal: I do not get the sense of the question, Mr. Chairman, since the minister had so many statements to make after the strike was settled. Why were we denied information until everything had been settled? All the government said in all its answers was that it hoped for settlement.
I remember mentioning in one speech during discussion of the estimates, also, I think, that without interfering in the actual process of negotiations the prestige of the minister and of the Department of Labour should be introduced as a factor with the negotiating parties who should be talked to in this general sense: Look, you can squabble all you like and fight all you like, but speaking for the people I must advise you I cannot allow any economic action to go beyond that.
There are several things that could be done in such a situation. In fact I experienced one recently. I was not the victim but just a couple of weeks ago I was returning through Paris from Geneva when Air France employees declared a two-day strike against the company one week in advance of the actual strike action. It was announced in such a way that the public could take steps to protect themselves against the inconvenience of such economic warfare.
It seems to me that the minister should have acted much sooner in the longshoremen's dispute because once a strike is allowed to start we all know that the eventual settlement is going to be twice as hard and as bitter to achieve. The parties at that stage are commited, have taken their stands and usually do not budge quickly from their positions. The government should act before the fact rather than after the fact. It should act
June 22, 1966

rather than just express the hope that the problem will go away. That is what it did on this occasion, but the problem did not go away and every class of society was affected.
Further, once the strike did take place the government's action left a lot to be desired. The strike was permitted to last much too long, some 37 days during which farmers, labour, management, industry and all classes of society were made to suffer. I come from a small town of approximately 10,000 population which contains four industries and all four were adversely affected by the strike. If that situation is multiplied all across Canada we can readily see what kind of economic tragedy a strike like this could have been and actually was.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In any event, when the government finally decided to act it is our feeling that all the wrong people became involved and that the action during the strike could have been directed better. I am referring particularly to the crash committees which were organized. Everybody questions the participation by or the fact that certain persons were involved. Everybody agrees the Minister of Industry should have been there-this is a normal thing-even though several question his actual knowledge in the field of industrial relations. However, this is a question of principle to which no one had any objection. Many persons have raised objection to the fact that the President of the Privy Council was involved, because everybody believes he knows little or nothing about the whole field of industrial relations. Everybody knows he has been on both sides of the table, the management side and the labour side. Anybody in industrial relations knows that a person who tries to play both sides usually ends up using both sides against the middle, and the middle in this case happens to be the Canadian people who deserve better.
Another was the ex-minister of labour. We have doubts about him because if he was such a good minister of labour we suspect he would still be minister of labour. Everybody is miffed and mesmerized by the fact that the one person who knows more about labour than anybody in the government was not called upon. I am referring to the Minster of Citizenship and Immigration who has a record of a whole life of experience in this field. I can understand that there could be personal implications, that there could be political implications and that there could be
Supply-Labour
strategic implications, but it seems to me when any matter takes on the importance that this had we should drop these considerations and make sure that we send the best man in the circumstances to do the job.
The settlement itself certainly was not something we can crow about, mainly because we have just come out of the wonderful budget speech in which the Minister of Finance suggested very modestly to labour to please take their little old time and not insist on too many increases so that we can have a chance to settle our economy. Three weeks after that we come up with the biggest settlement that ever has been accomplished in Canada-30 per cent in two years. It is an amazing thing that we should find a contradiction like this within a few weeks and among the same people. Despite the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, without a doubt this is going to set a pattern for weeks to come. We dread the inevitable effect this will have on what everybody wants to be affected favourably, the cost of living. It seems to me a pattern has been set which necessarily will be followed in the negotiations that have broken down right now so far as the railways are concerned. Unfortunately you cannot get out of it too easily.
We are very disappointed with the way the strike was handled. We were very disappointed that the strike was allowed to happen and that it was allowed to last so long. Without being too pessimistic we fear that without a doubt we have just made the first step on a long path of suffering. It is on this particular basis that we very sincerely and modestly object.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to occupy a few moments of the time of the house in the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Labour with regard to an item concerning shift differential rates of pay which never came to my attention until June 13. This information was given me while serving on the health and welfare committee.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to a situation which I think cries aloud for immediate remedy. I know him to be a fair man and I sincerely believe he will take immediate action and not put it off until some time in the dim and distant future when collective bargaining may be instituted for employees of the government.
When the postmen went on strike in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and elsewhere in Canada I said in this House of Commons that I supported the postmen in going on strike

June 22, 1966
Supply-Labour
for the simple reason that the government was telling them it could not pay them more money while at the same time it is the government which establishes the rates on mail and by keeping the postage rates down low the government is able to turn around and tell its employees that it cannot pay them more money because the revenue is not large enough. At the time of the strike I said, and I repeat it now, that when the cabinet was in a position to raise the rates to a fair and reasonable level they certainly were not justified in telling the post office employees that they could not raise their rates of pay.
We now have a situation in the Department of Veterans Affairs and in the Department of National Health and Welfare which I maintain cries aloud for correction. I believe it is the duty of the Department of Labour to step in. On two occasions I publicly have congratulated the Minister of Veterans Affairs for his administration of that department. I based my congratulations and commendation in large measure on the fact that they were providing a shift differential rate of pay to the nursing staff of the Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals across the dominion. Although I have been in business for 40 years and have been accustomed to shift differentials for workers who are working evening shifts or night shifts as opposed to the day shift, I never thought for a moment that the shift differentials being paid in the Department of Veterans Affairs were such that they cry aloud for immediate correction.
It is some years since I first began to agitate in public for a shift differential and day premium rate of pay for nurses on the staffs of our hospitals in the Dominion of Canada. In my investigation some years ago I was very pleased to learn that in the province of Quebec and in the province of Saskatchewan the hospital services commissions were paying shift differentials to nurses on evening and night shifts compared with the rate of pay for day shifts. This is not the case in the other eight provinces of Canada. In the province of Quebec the director of nursing at Notre Dame Hospital in Montreal told me about six years ago that the differential in the rate of pay was 12 cents an hour on the night shift and 15 cents an hour on the evening shift compared with the day rate. This was a rather interesting statement because of the fact that there was a higher differential for the evening shift than for the night shift. Normally the night shift draws the highest differential. I cannot remember

the name of the order to which this director of nursing belongs, but she told me that the nurses maintained that the shift from four o'clock to midnight interfered with their social life much more than did the midnight to eight a.m. shift, and for that reason the evening shift received a 15 cent differential and the night shift a 12 cent differential.
The province of Saskatchewan has had an equally good shift differential on these two shifts. So when it was announced in 1963 that the Department of Veterans Affairs would be paying a shift differential effective April 1, 1964, I, as a person interested in the matter, took it for granted that the rates would be in conformity with standard practice this country over or this continent over. I congratulated the minister and investigated the matter no further.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
However, when I was attending the committee on health and welfare considering the estimates on June 13 I asked the officials of the department who were then appearing before the committee whether they were paying shift differentials to nurses in hospitals for Eskimos and Indians which come under their direct control, in the same manner as the Department of Veterans Affairs. I was advised that they were paying the rates established by Treasury Board.
I am very glad that one of the officials who appeared before us on June 13 later sent me a letter in which he said:
At today's meeting of the national health and welfare estimates committee you asked me about the shift differential regulations. I thought you might like to have a copy of this.
He enclosed photostatic copies of the Treasury Board shift differential minutes. I was astounded to learn that the shift differentials paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of National Health and Welfare for nurses are 8 cents an hour on the evening shift and 12 cents an hour on the night shift. While I may have been astounded to learn of these absolutely ridiculously low rates of shift differentials I was dumbfounded by the discovery that the Dominion of Canada does not pay the shift differentials for the full shift. In the case of the evening shift from 4 p.m. to midnight they only pay the shift differential for six hours, and on the night shift from midnight to 8 a.m. they only pay the shift differential for six hours from midnight to 6 a.m. The Treasury Board maintains that they are day work hours from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and that
June 22, 1966

anybody who is working what the Treasury Board calls day work hours is only going to be paid day rates of pay and the rate differential will only be applied to six hours on the evening shift and six hours on the night shift.
I will read into the record Treasury Board action in this regard as indicated by extracts from the minutes of a meeting of the honourable Treasury Board held at Ottawa on December 12, 1963. It is headed "T.B. 609965 Treasury Board". It states:
The Treasury Board, pursuant to section 7 of the Financial Administration Act, is pleased to make the attached regulations respecting shift differential allowances effective April 1, 1964.
It is signed, I believe, by Mr. D. M. Watters. Attached is a Xerox copy of the shift differential allowances. Number one states that these regulations may be cited as shift differential allowance regulations. I will not read them in their entirety, but I should like to read 2(b) and 2(c) which are as follows:
(b)	"evening work" means regularly scheduled work performed by a public servant between 6 p.m. and midnight;
(c)	"night work" means regularly scheduled work by a public servant between midnight and 6 a.m.;
Section 3 reads:
Subject to sections 4 and 7, every public servant shall, in addition to his salary, be paid an allowance of 8 cents per hour for evening work and 12 cents per hour for night work.
These regulations are taken from the official Treasury Board regulations. This is a Xerox copy from which I have read.
Having been astounded, as I already said, by the minuscule shift differentials of 8 cents an hour and 12 cents an hour, I telephoned a reliable source of information in Montreal only last week with regard to nurses' rates of pay in the province of Quebec. This informant of mine is a man who holds a very responsible position in the hospital field in that province and he advised me that they pay a shift differential of $1.85 from 4 p.m. to 12 p.m. and that this shift differential applies to the whole eight hour shift. This differential is at the rate of 23.1 cents per hour compared with the 12 cents per hour shift differential paid by the government from 12 p.m. to 8 a.m. The Quebec hospitals pay a shift differential of $1 on evening shift for the full eight hours. This is 12.5 cents an hour. They are paying 12.5 cents an hour compared with the federal government paying 8 cents an hour and they pay 23.1 cents an hour compared with the federal government paying 12 cents an hour. I ask you, how in the name of
Supply-Labour
heaven these ridiculous rates paid by the federal government can be justified?
We pay the province of Quebec $200 million a year in equalization payments in order to help this have-not province. If they accept $200 million per year and can pay a differential of $1.85 per shift, surely to heaven the federal government, which thinks it is in a position to give $200 million a year to Quebec in equalization payments, should be able to match at least the shift differentials paid by the province of Quebec to its nurses. The province of Quebec pays its nurses a shift differential per week of $9.25 on the night shift but the federal government is only able to pay its shift workers a shift differential of $3.60 per week on the night shift. The province of Quebec is able to pay a shift differential of $5 a week and the federal government under comparative circumstances can only pay $2.40 a week for the evening shift. I cannot see how the Canadian government can ask nurses to work six hours in the evening for an extra eight cents an hour, which is 48 cents, because generosity such as that may ruin the country.
The first item in the estimates of the department refers to the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, to the administration of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, to the fair wages policy order and to the Female Employees Equal Pay Act. When we are discussing legislation such as those acts to which these estimates apply, it is only right and proper that I should refer to these ridiculous rates of pay which have been authorized by the Treasury Board, and demand that the Department of Labour take a hand in this matter. Does 8 cents an hour for six hours and 12 cents an hour for six hours measure up to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code? Do these rates measure up to the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act? Do they measure up to decent labour-employer relations?
In reading the opening statement of the Minister of Labour made to the house on May 27 when these estimates were first introduced, I note that he referred to the fact that his work falls largely into three sectors, two of which are labour management relations and labour standards and benefits. Later in his remarks he referred to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and stated as reported at page 5634 of Hansard for May 27:
I can say this, that the code has already had a very important effect in eliminating pockets of substandard wages-

June 22, 1966
Supply-Labour
I should like to see this code take effect in respect of these substandard wage areas relating to the 8 cent and 12 cent shift differentials paid in the D.V.A. hospitals and hospitals under the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Then the minister makes this interesting comment, as reported on the same page:
I should like to refer also to an increased activity in the woman's bureau of the Department of Labour. This provides a continuing focus in our department on policies and programs relating to the standards and conditions of work of women. The bureau aims...to promote working conditions in every industry throughout Canada that are conducive to the well-being of the women, and efficient production. The role of this woman's bureau is becoming increasingly important as more women, both married and single, enter the labour force.
I trust that I will not be criticized by anyone on this side of the house if I ask the women's division of the Department of Labour to consider this 8 cent an hour shift differential for six hours out of eight and the 12 cent shift differential for six hours out of eight compared with the $1.85 or 23.1 cent per hour shift differential that is paid in the province of Quebec on the evening shift and the $1 for eight hours or 12.5 cent per hour shift differential also paid.
Surely we can bring the federal shift differentials up to the same level as those paid in a province which is willing to be branded as a have-not province and gladly accepts $200 million from the federal treasury. This would bring these rates up to those which that province has set for itself as pie in the sky.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I do not believe that the comments I have made today are a reflection on the Department of Labour or on the Minister of Labour. I doubt very much if he is aware of the fact that wages of this kind are being paid. I draw your attention to the interesting comment made by the official of the Department of National Health and Welfare who sent me these xerox copies from which I have quoted. He makes this statement, that the responsibility for recommending amendments would rest on the staff of the Treasury Board. This is mighty interesting. I wonder if I, as an elected member of parliament, might not have some responsibility in recommending that the rates of pay under the heading of "shift differentials" should be altered and should be altered right away? I will never rest satisfied until the nurses of the Dominion of Canada are not only getting a decent shift differential but are

being paid day premium rates of pay for work performed on national holidays.
We talk about the tremendous shortage of
nurses in our hospitals. It is the most critical shortage in any single vocation in Canada, Mr. Chairman. It is a continuing problem for all doctors and all hospitals. It will never be settled until the rates of pay are commensurate with the services that these women give, particularly on the night shifts and when they work on holidays while other people are away enjoying themselves. I sincerely draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to these figures which, so far as I am concerned, were only disclosed on June 13. The minister made his opening statement on May 27. I am relying on his fairness and good nature to take the matter in hand right away.
When we tell the civil servants that when they get collective bargaining everything will be wonderful, we should warn them that there are many employees who have collective bargaining for whom conditions are not exatly perfect. You cannot accomplish much under collective bargaining unless both sides sit at the bargaining table and bargain in good faith. You can give the post office employees collective bargaining, but if you are not willing to raise the rates on mail matter you will tell the postal employees that you cannot raise their rates because you have not got the money.
If you are going to sit down with the hospital workers and tell them that you will only pay 8 cents an hour for part of a shift, then you are not approaching the labour problem in a fair manner when other employers who pay a shift differential are paying it for a full shift. These people have to be paid on a reasonable basis and not on the basis of this miniscule figure of 8 cents an hour for six hours on one shift and 12 cents an hour for six hours on another shift. I leave the matter in the hands of the Minister of Labour, since I believe he is a fair man. I do not belive he will delay in rectifying this ridiculous situation which has been placed on the record of the government by Treasury Board order of December 12, 1963, which became effective April 1, 1964.


Mr. Macaluso:: May I have permission to put a short question to the Minister of Labour? It is a question and not a statement of any kind. As a result of information that has come to me, I ask the minister if he can inform the committee whether the R.C.M.P. searches which are now going on about the
June 22, 1966

premises of the Seafarers' International Union are in fact related to alleged irregularities on the part of the present officers of the Seafarers' International Union? I think the minister will appreciate the importance of this matter which I am bringing to his attention. I put the question as a result of information which I left the house in order to receive and I certainly hope the minister can make a report on this situation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, it had been my intention to try to deal with points raised by individual members at the conclusion of all their remarks. I must confess, however, that in view of certain publicity that has resulted from the events to which the hon. member has just referred, namely, the searches that were made earlier today by the R.C.M.P. and may still be going on, I thought such a question might have been put to the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice earlier this afternoon. However, I do believe that the members of this committee and the public generally are perhaps entitled to some information at this time, in view of the wording of the question which has been put to me.
I wish the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice were here to give the answer, but they are not so I will try to answer. I can only say that it is not the practice of the Department of Justice or the Solicitor General to supply information about active investigations. However, I can say, and I think I should say in view of the way the question was worded, that the searches that are being made today are not related to the present officers of the S.I.U. but are related to the activities of the past president, Mr. Hal Banks.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, is rising to speak on the estimates of the Department of Labour I want to make it clear at the outset that any remarks I make about labour do not arise out of frustration as a result of past employer-employee relationships between this member and the minister, but perhaps rather reflect the general frustration one feels about employer-employee relationships in Canada today and the inactivity of the government in trying to resolve them. In the few minutes we have left before private members' hour, I must say I am somewhat surprised that the minister has brought forth the estimates of his department at this stage. In many ways he reminds one of the saying about certain individuals who tread where angels fear to
Supply-Labour
walk, especially in view of certain strike settlements that have dominated the headlines and the Canadian economy for the last four weeks as well as the pending strikes and unsettled labour situation which will dominate the Canadian economy and the Department of Labour during the summer months and early autumn.
Perhaps the minister might deserve credit for his courage in bringing forward his estimates now if there were no other labour disputes on the scene. However, if the purpose in bringing forward the labour estimates now is to cloak the disputes of the future and choke debate on the pending labour problems, then I suggest the minister is to be criticized for attempting to get the labour estimates passed at this time. In view of the participation directly or indirectly, and in both cases about which I am talking it became direct in the last stages, of the federal government in negotiations which resulted in the approval of a 30 per cent increase over two years for the workers in two recent labour strikes, the federal government has been a party to a precedent for the settlement of labour problems in Canada for the next while. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this precedent is going to be in effect an economic albatross that will be hung around the neck of not only the Minister of Labour but the government as well.
This 30 per cent increase in dollars and cents alone will bring wages close to the minimum wage ceiling in certain provinces. On what basis was the 30 per cent arrived at? I had some experience on the west coast with school boards and when settling wage disputes one looked at all the relevant factors. You looked at the increase in the cost of living, the increases in wages, the increase in productivity and you arrived at a contract that took all these factors into consideration. When you approve a settlement which involves a 30 per cent increase in wages over two years, over a contract that was settled two years ago and was satisfactory at that time, then you have the height of irresponsibility.
Unemployment may have been the bane of the former Conservative government and certain members of the present government stood up day after day and criticized the Conservative government about it. I believe it is the duty now of the opposition to stand up and, on a more specific aspect of the labour problem, bring before the house and the people of Canada valid criticism of an area in which the government has become involved

June 22. 1966
Supply-Labour
and with which it is going to have to live. I am afraid that, like the ancient mariner, the albatross is going to choke the government when it attempts the settlement of other labour disputes.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We had an exhibition here by the Minister of National Health and Welfare the day before the longshoremen's strike was settled. The strike was then in its 38th day and there were 143 ships tied up in Montreal harbour. The minister stood up in the house and gave a learned exposition of the philosophy of collective bargaining. No one could take exception to that just as no one could take exception to the hon. member for York South saying this afternoon that people had the right to strike. However, Mr. Chairman, an exposition on the philosophy of collective bargaining by a minister who was the former minister of labour in the 38th day of a strike which tied up the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec, is something like the minister standing up and expressing his approval of motherhood. We are all in favour of collective bargaining and we are all in favour of motherhood. However, even dear mother, if she stalled her car on a highway and backed up 143 cars behind her, would be liable to a reprimand or to some help from the authorities. Even mother, if she stalls her car at an intersection when the green light is on, would be either reprimanded or given a little push by the authorities.
The mere fact that these authorities would reprimand mother would be no sign that the institution of motherhood was being attacked. In so far as mother with the car is concerned, you might take one police officer and help move her down the road. Here, however, we had the fantastic situation of the government, with all the cabinet reorganization that is going on, allowing five ministers to participate in the negotiations, including the Prime Minister. Referring again to the analogy with mother, I say that one officer might move the car if he knew what he was doing rather than have the whole police force help to move that little car down the road. I wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare were here because I felt some provocation to stand up and question him on his statement but the rules of the house did not allow it. How can the Minister of National Health and Welfare say that the process of collective bargaining, which is fine in principle, is working after a strike of 39 days, after 143 
ships have been tied up and when the government finally intervenes to help?
We had midnight seances. We on this side of the house thought that seances were a thing of the past in government. Here we have four or five ministers, including the Prime Minister, having meetings and looking for guidance. Finally, as a result of one fact or another, they resolved the longshoremen's strike. After the dissertation by the Minister of National Health and Welfare there was tremendous applause. The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes remarked on this applause. I must say it rather got me. It would have made my grade 6 teacher feel great. I wish she could come here some time. I think she would have a lesson to teach all of us. She taught school for 52 years in one school. This is a fact. She happened to teach the man who was the principal, she taught my father and she taught many people before she retired two years ago. She believed in the principles of reading, writing and arithmetic. She had many pithy sayings and many fables. I know hon. members would be interested in one of the fables. I refer to that fable about the empty vessel making the most noise. I believe this could be applied to the applause which greeted the minister's dissertation on the philosophy of collective bargaining.
The minister's dissertation on the philosophy of collective bargaining was certainly punctured by having all those vessels tied up and this strike prolonged. I suggest that somewhere along the line the good of this country must transcend the competing and conflicting interests of combinations or groups of economic units. I am very sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not here, because he was a very good professor. I am afraid he forgets, as other members of the government forget, that they are not professors now. They do not have to preach economic philosophy. They do not have to talk around the rights or wrongs of collective bargaining. They do not have to read textbooks on the subject. They are in the position of power and in the position of government. They are not in the classrooms but in the seats of authority where they should act. And they should act, and not agonize, in order to settle strikes before they happen rather than surrender responsibility after they have occurred.
That is just what has happened with hon. gentlemen across the way, and I am afraid with the Minister of Labour, certainly in the case of the longshoremen's and the St.
June 22, 1966

Lawrence seaway strikes. In regard to the longshoremen's strike, the minister asked the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes if he knew what the government did for the longshoremen. I would ask the minister what the government did for the seaway workers. I think that their acquiescence in the settlement of the seaway strike was more than an indictment of the inactivity of the government.
The position of the longshoremen did involve some cross-currents at first. But in the seaway strike the government appointed a Senator renowned for his prescience and knowledge of international law, but who I suggest, with all respect to him, has not mediated a labour dispute for years. Perhaps the minister would tell the house when this Senator last mediated a labour dispute, let alone a dispute affecting anything so involved and important as the St. Lawrence seaway. I suggest that the St. Lawrence seaway strike involves and indicts the government even more.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member would want me to comment on the fact that he has referred to the St. Lawrence seaway strike three times. That matter was a dispute; it was never a strike.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The minister is quite correct, Mr. Chairman; it was not a strike and I thank him for that correction. But my point about the pending strike on the St. Lawrence seaway and/or settlement negotiations is this. The minister asked the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes to list all the things he had done. We on this side had been asking day after day what the government was doing. It is now clear what happened. So far as the St. Lawrence seaway is concerned there was never any intention to negotiate. It was merely a case of filling in a blank cheque; and that is what happened.


Mr. Mackasey:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does the hon. member, as a representative of a party which is supposed to be of pro-labour as well as pro-management sentiment, disapprove of the package deal that the employees of the seaway obtained with regard to parity of wages with those working on the United States side? Is he saying in effect that he disagreed with that settlement?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am saying this, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Finance suggested certain principles should be followed to restrain
Supply-Labour
inflation; his words were rather to "put a brake on prosperity". By the government's acquiescence and involvement, its capitulation and surrender to the seaway workers, it has broken the philosophy of any budget which the Minister of Finance is trying to sell to the Canadian people.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Would the hon. member permit another question? I was interested in his answer. Is he suggesting that one step to prevent inflation is to deny labour an increase in wages?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No, Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting any such thing. I see it is almost five o'clock or past five o'clock, and this question is so frivolous it has upset me. I would suggest to the hon. member that so far as I am personally concerned the government stated that because of inflation the 11 per cent sales tax could not be removed and that they could not give $25 extra to the old age pensioners because of inflation. Yet a month and a half later, instead of putting the brake on prosperity, they stepped on the gas pedal cf inflation and agreed to a settlement amounting to 80 cents an hour over a two-year period. In contrast, the increase for the old age pensioners would have involved only 80 cents a day.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
So far as I can see this government is not showing leadership or responsibility to the Canadian people at large. I am not speaking for labour or against it; neither am I speaking for or against business. I am speaking on my concept of a body of people. I think labour is aware of this situation too. After the strike was settled I was passing through Montreal the next day and I happened to read in the Montreal Star that one of the labour leaders had described it as a "fabulous settlement".
I would ask the hon. member for Verdun-let us play tit for tat so far as questions are concerned-whether he believes in and agrees with a 30 per cent settlement in any negotiations in which he has been involved, and would he have made this settlement?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It would depend. Thirty per cent of what?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is the difficulty of asking questions-
June 22, 1966

Suggested Promotion of Trade The Chairman: Order, please. It being five o'clock shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Ontario may be reluctant to make this request because a member of his own party was speaking at five o'clock, but in view of the extreme importance of the subject matter may I suggest that we postpone private members' hour for today and spend the time between now and six o'clock dealing with the Department of Labour estimates?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we have quite a
number of speakers who want to speak on the estimates of the Department of Labour and I do not think there would be sufficient time to complete them before six o'clock. I know there are two or three speakers also from the New Democratic Party who want to speak on these estimates.


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



ATLANTIC PROVINCES-NEW ENGLAND STATES AND WEST INDIES-SUGGESTED PROMOTION

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of taking an initiative in promoting increased trade between the Atlantic provinces and such traditional market areas as the New England states of the United States and those islands formerly comprising the British West Indies.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by expressing a word of thanks to the house, especially to my colleague, friend and cousin, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), who on Monday saved my spot or position on the order paper. Perhaps my position otherwise is not of the kind that can be rescued but I appreciate the action of the house and especially that of my colleague.
The motion which I have presumed to bring to the attention of the house this year is similar to a motion which I have brought forward on previous occasions in preceding parliaments. My earlier version was couched [Mr. Nowlan.j
in the terminology once used by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) when he sat on this side of the house, which called for considering the advisability of establishing free trade between Canada and a portion of what used to be known as the British West Indies.
Since I have not succeeded in having that motion adopted even with the minister on that side, I have changed the terminology and therefore the direction of the motion somewhat and I am now suggesting that consideration be given to freer trade between my area, the Atlantic region, and some of its traditional areas of trade and of close relations other than trade, and I mention the New England states and the West Indies islands.
There has been, as hon. members may have noticed, in recent months some interest, especially in the province of the minister of health and welfare, Nova Scotia, in the question of considering out-and-out free trade between the Atlantic provinces of Canada and the New England states. A resolution was passed in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly to have this matter considered. There has also been some discussion involving the governors of some of the states of New England. It is not surprising that this interest has been stimulated to a degree by what has taken place in other parts of the country, namely, the establishment of what one might describe as free trade on a commodity basis. It is argued that if free trade between southern Ontario and northern Michigan in the form of the automotive free trade agreement can be operative, then so might free trade on a broader regional basis, namely, between the Atlantic provinces and New England, be considered.
There are, of course, difficulties in this situation. There might be some difficulties so far as control of the commodities are concerned once they have been exchanged vis-avis domestic trade.
With regard to New England, we must surely all be convinced that the economy of the Atlantic region of Canada is lagging, that it is continuing to lag, and that the lag between our area and the rest of Canada is broadening rather than narrowing. So if any way can be devised whereby we can facilitate the shipment of our goods and stimulate the output of our industries, this way should certainly be considered.
June 22, 1966

When I last spoke on this subject I suggested that we had perhaps reached the stage where another full-fledged commission of inquiry into our economy was in order, something of the scope and comprehension of the White or Duncan commissions. If such an inquiry were launched this general question of the stimulation of our trade should certainly be one of the subjects to receive attention.
I am not going to deal any further with the question of trade with New England, Mr. Speaker. I should like to confine the rest of my remarks more particularly to the other area which is mentioned in the resolution, namely, the West Indies.
It is not surprising that this initiative should come from one from the maritimes. Perhaps it is appropriate that it should come from one who is a resident of an island. The ties of sentiment, and of more than sentiment, between the maritimes and the West Indies are old. They used to be very strong and there are many of us who wish that they were stronger now.
This resolution is based on two considerations. The first, and I say this quite unabashedly, is the desire for an improvement in the economy of the Atlantic provinces. The stimulation of our seaborne trade is a very obvious factor in any such improvement. I do not have to belabour the house with statistics relating to this aspect.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Second, it stems from my own conviction that we must quickly upgrade our interest in the West Indies for reasons other than selfish or economic motives. There is a growing and, to me, disturbing disillusionment among some of the leaders in the West Indies. There was a very interesting and I think useful gathering at Dalhousie University last month in which leaders of the West Indies and of the maritimes participated. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) delivered an address. This meeting was a hopeful sign.
But if one reads the reports of this gathering one finds that the leaders of the West Indies, although in Canada, were not reluctant to make statements such as: "Canada is dragging its feet in the field of external aid." Those leaders suggested that they were hoping for some greater initiative in the development of broadening trade between the two areas.
We all want to be hopeful about the larger gathering which is to take place in Ottawa on
Suggested Promotion of Trade July 6. Being very hopeful I trust that this session will have adjourned for the summer recess before then so that nothing will interfere with the success of the meeting. We want to see that gathering successful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope we will get medicare through before then.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: That gathering will be between the heads of the Caribbean commonwealth countries and our own head of government. They will sit down to look in broad perspective at the problems of the Caribbean area and at the possibilities and prospects for improving relations, trade and other things between Canada and this area.
I do not want to raise any bogies and point out the great dangers existing in West Indian communities, now approaching political independence, owing to many of them having economies that fall far short of being viable. Some communities have achieved political independence. Indeed, some of the leaders of these areas point out the dangers which might develop in such a volatile part of the world because of such great economic poverty, political uncertainty and, shall we say, a proximity to a very dangerous part of the world, namely, Mr. Castro's Cuba.
We are concerned with these things as we look out to the world because we are a state which justifiably prides itself on its diplomacy. We seek to make our contribution in the field of foreign policy. Sometimes we almost suggest that we know the French better than the British know them although the British have dealt with the French for centuries. We sometimes suggest that we understand all sorts of people better than does the United States, which comes in close and daily contact with them.
I suggest that if there is any part of the world in which for us there is a combination of unique opportunity and superior ability to do something, it is in the Caribbean area. I know of no part of the world in which a limited degree of Canadian economic aid could be so helpful as in this area. I know of no part of the world where the failure of the have nations, to use that expression, to participate to the full could be more dangerous and explosive.
All that this resolution attempts to do is to stimulate what I think is a latent Canadian friendship and Canadian interest in the West Indies and the current problems thereof. There is a reservoir of good will between our peoples. There is a maximum of opportunity.
June 22, 1966

Suggested Promotion of Trade However, our external aid is not nearly what it should be. I do not think we have explored the possibilities of stimulating trade between the Caribbean and our country. We have let the "Lady" boats go out of existence and we have not replaced them. It looks as though private industry is not able or not willing to replace them. We should consider perhaps if it is not sufficiently important for Canada to return to some form of subsidy whereby we can use the Atlantic to carry goods north and south between these two areas.
We have made one forward step in developing air contacts. There are other forward steps. But I do not think we shall ever fulfil our destiny with respect to the West Indies if we look at the West Indies only as somewhere to have some fun in the sun if you can afford it, where you can drink good rum if you like it or put molasses on your bread if you are sufficiently old-fashioned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am old-fashioned.


An hon. Member:: We will drink to that.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have said enough. I want to give others an opportunity to speak. I want to leave time for a vote so that the government may go to the conference on July 6 with a unanimous House of Commons behind it in order that the people of the Caribbean may realize that we all here are interested in their welfare, and that we all want to take the first forward step in improving trade conditions between their important region and ours.


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Restigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, in his notice of motion the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) suggests that trade be increased between the Atlantic provinces and our traditional markets in New England and the West Indies. I feel that I must agree in principle with the proposition and I wish to take this occasion to put forward an extremely interesting proposal now promoted by a Montreal businessman, Mr. Kenneth Patrick, who is a former maritimer. I believe that Mr. Patrick's proposal is dynamic, colourful and makes a lot of sense. I am not saying that the government should adopt it in toto or immediately but I am saying that the proposition deserves the most sympathetic and active consideration.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Patrick's proposal is that Canada assume the role of a senior partner of the newly independent states, that we invite

them to join us in a monetary and customs union and that we assume responsibility for their defence and external affairs. This may appear to be a dramatic proposal, and no doubt it is, but I suggest this is one more reason for looking at it closely. It could very well be the kind of stuff which would place Canada in the world spotlight as a nation with initiative and imagination. I believe the challenge was made exactly to our size.
The West Indies have now arrived at a period of decision and this is exactly the time when Canadian assistance could make the difference between prosperity and disintegration. The proposal to which I am now referring deals only with the eight islands commonly known as "the little eight", which include Barbados, the three Leeward Islands -Antigua, St. Kitts and Montserrat-and the Windward Islands comprising Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenada. The population of these eight islands is slightly above 700,000. The total land area is about half of Prince Edward Island. These islands are but three hours away from Canada by air. As a matter of fact, they are closer in terms of air distance to the capital of our country than Ottawa is to many Canadians both east and west.
The main principle behind the proposition is that these islands need our assistance and that Canada needs the West Indies. The timing of this proposition is of some importance because the Prime Ministers of these islands will be meeting with our own Prime Minister here in Ottawa next month. Moreover, Barbados will become an independent commonwealth country very shortly and Antigua will also become a self-governing state in free association with Britain. The other islands will soon achieve the same status. The year 1966 or 1967 should see the end of a century of colonial rule. These islands will be looking for a direction, a destiny, a new alliance, co-operation with other states. It is therefore the right time for Canada to become interested in dealing more intimately with these newly independent governments.
These islands need Canada because they need a new influx of capital, they are short of know-how and they will want new markets. Canada needs their climate. Canadians already provide 40 per cent of the tourist business of these islands. Under a monetary union it will be as if Canadians were spending their own money at home. This Canadian money can be used for purchases from Canada and as much needed capital for the industrial development of the islands.
June 22, 1966

The West Indies also produce now or can be placed in a position to produce goods which we are at present purchasing elsewhere. Because of the prevailing climate, which is probably the most favourable in the world for the 12 months of the year, they can produce agricultural products to be sold in Canada for an amount close to half a billion dollars a year. These figures are bound to grow with an increase in Canadian demand and an increased capability to produce on the islands. This is about the sum of money which Canadians spend every year seeking the sun in all parts of the world. The fantastic sums which Canadians now spend purchasing food outside the country and as tourists represent a drain on our balance of payments position which could partly be solved by customs and monetary union with the West Indies.
As I have said, the proposal includes our being responsible for external affairs and defence. Canada already staffs embassies throughout the world. It would seem that not much greater expense would be involved should these islands wish to be represented by our diplomats.
As to our assuming our responsibility for defence, here again arises a proposal which is worthy of consideration. We are at the present time organizing a mobile force to stand in readiness for brush-fire wars anywhere in the world. It would appear at the present time that these small wars are most likely to occur in countries with tropical or semi-tropical climates. Such being the case, why should our mobile force not train in tropical or semi-tropical climates, exactly the conditions provided by these eight little islands? Our Canadian military personnel in the West Indies would not only be in a position to get some experience in such a climate but would also provide some measure of defence to the islands. That, of course, would result in substantial economic benefit to the islands. Our armed forces personnel have already built roads, airports and other public works in many other areas of the world. Why could they not concentrate on these islands?
Our crown corporation, Air Canada, is already carrying heavy traffic during the winter to these islands. Other arrangements could be arrived at to carry not only passengers but air freight which would be of benefit both to Canada and to the West Indies.
Such a proposal for a monetary and customs union with the West Indies should be based on direct assistance and investment by
Suggested Promotion of Trade Canada for a definite period. An investment of some $20 million by way of a soft loan concentrated in one small area such as the West Indies would have a tremendous impact. It would be an investment which would bring dividends to Canadians in the near future. Canada has experts and trained personnel in various departments such as agriculture, fisheries, transport, public works, central mortgage and so on. Some of our trained people could bring fabulous assistance to the people of the West Indies. They could advise them on building homes and industries, on producing and packing the goods we cannot produce here and which we are now purchasing elsewhere.
As I stated before, the matter is of some urgency because these islands have already reached or are approaching their independence and the time for us to bring assistance and to assert our leadership is now.
Two winters ago I was in Barbados and I realized then for the first time how friendly these people were to Canadians. They probably enjoy dealing with us because we share some of their traditions and because Canadians are known as not being racially prejudiced. Many of the West Indies leaders are graduates from Canadian universities and there are more West Indies students in Canada now than in any other country.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
These islands have a long tradition of English and French culture. Barbados and Antigua have had the English culture and tradition for three centuries. St. Lucia is a bilingual country with both our official languages, French and English, and the civil code of St. Lucia is the Quebec civil code.
The Patrick proposal which I have just described has merited considerable constructive consideration in many newspaper editorials across the country, and I would like to quote from two of them. The Financial Post of June 4, 1966, had this to say:
Yet what form should this take? More aid would help. So would more soft loans. But is this enough? An imaginative program that would go much further is now being actively promoted by its author, Montreal businessman and one of the founders of Canadian Aviation Electronics, Kenneth Patrick. With the enthusiastic support of the little eight, Patrick suggests a form of Canada-West Indies integration, which would include the Canadian dollar as the standard currency throughout the islands, the removal of all customs barriers, the basing of Canadian troops in the islands for training, and the establishment of Canada as the official representative of the islands in other countries.
June 22, 1966

Suggested Promotion of Trade
It is a fresh and iconoclastic program and deserves the serious study it is now receiving in official Ottawa circles. But plainly there are troubles for everyone lurking beneath its attractive surface.
Is Patrick proposing that Canada become the new colonial power to replace Britain? If there is to be a single currency and no customs barriers, Ottawa would have to insist on maintaining considerable control of business and financial activities in the islands. This could be resented. So could the presence of Canadian troops over any long period. Would External Affairs recruit West Indians for Canada's foreign service to speak for the islands and for Canada?
These points should be discussed in official Ottawa. Canada must make clear what it requires from the islands in return for any such commitments on our part. That is the sort of talk that is needed next month. If we send the West Indians home again without having shown a real desire to talk business, we stand to pay a stiff price in later bitterness and lost opportunities.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is not that we should necessarily adopt the Patrick proposal but that it should be studied very closely by the government. It is a striking proposal, it has the merit of being new and it deserves the attention of parliament and the government.
I should like to conclude my remarks by quoting extracts from a recent editorial in the Barbados Sunday Times of June 5, 1966, entitled "Conference With A Difference":
For the second time in 40 years delegates from nearly every West Indian territory will gather to discuss relations with Canada. On the last occasion the conference was held in Ottawa without any preliminary discussion in one of these colonies. This is in modem parlance, a conference with a difference. On the last occasion the West Indies joined in establishing the Canada-West Indies trade agreement which lasted for many years and which was disrupted by the second world war. At that time all the territories were under the administrative heel of the Colonial Office. Today three of these are independent nations and the others are on the verge of independence judging by the recent offer of the British government.
As we have pointed out, many of the then dependent territories are now masters in their own house.
It is in this spirit that we enter consideration of an agenda which must bind us for good or ill to the Canadian people.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak in this debate in a manner that no doubt will justify a headline, this being a case of rare unanimity within the house, because I would like to bring the support of our party to this resolution and also to commend not only the hon. member who moved it but the very constructive speech that has just been made by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Dube).

I think this resolution is extremely valuable. It has dual purposes, both of which we should approve and which certainly are very close to our hearts. Part of the resolution deals with the problem of regional development and I believe that we who come from all parts of Canada should take the question of regional development much more seriously than we do. The whole principle of regional development is one that is given a fair amount of Up service. We talk about regional development, regional balance and regional fiscal equality. These are slogans to which lip service is traditionally given in Canada, but we have failed to carry out any policy of regional equality or regional development.
I remind the house of what was stated in the 1965 annual report of the Economic Council of Canada:
Our analysis has shown that over a period of almost four decades embracing buoyant expansion, a severe depression, a prolonged war and a period of revived national growth, the regional problem in Canada has remained essentially unchanged. Large inter-regional disparities in per capita income have stubbornly persisted despite various forces working towards better balance. These have included significant redistribution of population, far reaching adjustments in the structure of economic activity at the national level, and certain public policies aimed at greater equalization of regional incomes. Against such a background, the narrowing of income disparities and the achievement of this result consistently with other basic economic and social objectives, remains one of the most difficult issues confronting the country as a whole.
It is my view that what is required is an integrated strategy of development in which the points brought forward by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) have to play their part in bringing about an adjustment of trade policies to open markets for the products of the Atlantic provinces. This, of course, is only one aspect, but it is futile for us to adopt inconsistent policies, to adopt policies of regional expenditures and incentives for regional development on the one hand and on the other hand adopt trade policies which militate against effective regional development. I think we must adopt the principle of what I call population retention.
I am happy to say that there are many people who have come to my constituency and to the Toronto urban area from the Atlantic region. I personally welcome them but I do not believe it is a healthy movement.
In the period 1941 to 1950 the Atlantic region suffered what has been described as a negative migration of 76 persons per thou-
June 22, 1966	COMMONS
sand while Ontario enjoyed a positive rate of 65 per thousand. In the period 1951 to 1960 the negative rate for the Atlantic region was 56 persons per thousand while the positive rate for Ontario was 131 per thousand. Naturally I am not objecting to the growth and development of my own province of Ontario.
I am happy to see this. But if it is caused by a forced migration, a migration forced by economic circumstances from a part of this country which has the resources and the ability to retain its population, then I say it is an unhealthy situation and all parties should accept as part of their platforms a definite policy of what I call population retention.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I do not mean by that that within the regions there is not room for manpower policies which will enable people to move from a depressed sub-region, if I may call it that, into another. I do mean that these large-scale migrations from one province to another are a totally different thing, and I think we should consider the social implications. Only too often this type of migration results in not too happy circumstances within the urban areas to which the migration comes. Sometimes, however, this is due to such things as slum conditions of which we have no reason to be proud.
This resolution deals with one aspect of the matter, that is, the trade policies which are appropriate to a policy of regional development. I believe this is extremely important to confederation as a whole. As I said, this resolution has a dual purpose. The other purpose encompassed within the resolution is the development of trade and other relations with the former British West Indies. I say nothing about New England. I should like to say, however, a word in support of what already has been said concerning our responsibilities and opportunities in Canada in respect of the West Indies.
It seems to me, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska when he referred to a press clipping from the Globe and Mail, that there are many problems to be looked into. Some form of free trade and some form of governmental assistance on a long-term basis I think are part of our international obligation. This would be beneficial not only to the islands concerned, the West Indies, but to Canada itself.
Yesterday, along with some other members of this house I visited the St. Hubert base in Quebec. As I think most hon. members who
DEBATES	6779
Suggested Promotion of Trade are familiar with matters of defence know, we are changing our defence plans and they now call less for static defences in say the European theatre of war and much more for what is referred to as a mobile force which can be moved quickly to any part of the world. Many of the areas to which such a force may have to be moved under our United Nations obligation or under some other obligation so that we can play a peacekeeping role and perhaps contribute tremendously to peace in the world are regions which are tropical or subtropical.
In Canada, with snow for a great part of the year, we cannot produce conditions of a tropical nature which our troops should have if their training is to be adequate. I am quite sure that those who are responsible for our defence policies, and particularly our mobile command, would welcome the opportunity to discuss with our friends in the West Indies the possibility of leasing training grounds. This is a prospect which should be mutually beneficial and indeed might be an addition to the security of that part of the world.
Although I know it is the usual custom of the house to talk out private members' resolutions, I do not believe there is one hon. member in this house who cannot approve of the resolution before us. It is a resolution which merely speaks of the government considering the advisability of taking the initiative in promoting increased trade. If this house were to approve of the resolution instead of throwing it out, it seems to me it would be a most encouraging instruction concerning the will of parliament on the two subject matters mainly involved, namely, regional development as it is applicable particularly to the Atlantic provinces on the one hand and international development as it affects our relations with the West Indies on the other. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I commend this resolution and I hope we will be given the opportunity to show our approval by an actual vote.


Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to say it generally seems that during private members' hour matters such as this are talked out. If this is our procedure, then certainly it is a procedure which should be altered-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Richard Joseph Cashin: -particularly when we are considering a resolution like this one. I would very much like to see the house come to a
June 22, 1966

Suggested Promotion of Trade decision on this resolution. I know that privately all of us agree with its substance. At this moment I do not know whether this will come to pass but I hope it does. In the event that it does not, I think that today's proceedings on a matter about which there is so much agreement should suggest to us that we are impairing the reputation of this institution by continuing the process of talking out all private members' bills and ail private motions as a matter of procedure. There definitely are cases such as this one when we all agree that the motion really should be passed by the house.
For the next few minutes there are a number of things I should like to say because, along with other members, I had an opportunity this year to visit Trinidad to attend the regional conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. This was a great opportunity to meet with parliamentarians from this area. The impression I came away with was a very distinct one. In this area of the world the people recognize the difference between Canadians and other nationalities and they like the difference. At the same time, however, they are looking to Canada not only for increased aid and more soft loans but also for a deeper involvement on the part of Canada in their area.
I believe it is in the enlightened self-interest of our country to become more involved in this area. I read an editorial recently in the St. John's Evening Telegram which made reference to the proposal discussed by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Dube). It pointed out that six or seven years ago the government of Newfoundland subsidized a boat to travel from Newfoundland to Jamaica. This does not seem to be the kind of thing a provincial government should be doing but the sort of effort which should be expanded and promoted by the federal government in general and more particularly the other Atlantic provinces.
We do have opportunities for trade in this area. I think we must recognize that as these islands, particularly the major ones such as Trinidad and Jamaica, attempt to develop their own internal economies their traditional approach to trade may vary. We may find, as 1 believe we have, that we will lose some of our markets there because they are trying to develop their own secondary industries. I believe this presents us with the opportunity of becoming more involved with them in

their internal development so that we can assist them and at the same time help expand our own markets. So this is not something we should do because of a moral obligation we may feel for underdeveloped nations. In this particular case, as in perhaps no other, it would be very much in our self-interest and I believe this should be the basis of our approach to this area.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
In the past

this was indirectly referred to by the hon. member for Greenwood, (Mr. Brewin)-Canada has tended to look inward. Our national policy has seemed to favour the central region of Canada. I agree with him that expanding trade between the Maritimes and New England can help in regional development in Canada. I am encouraged to think that there are at least two factors at work which should help us move toward this goal. One is our sense of obligation and the other is the move generally throughout the world toward freer trade. I believe it would be very much in the interests of the four Atlantic provinces and also of Canada if we explored new avenues and took a greater interest in our approach to the problems of the West Indies, not as another country which we have to assist but as a country which has a special and unique relationship to ours and one which we can help in a special and unique way.
Before sitting down I should like to say that perhaps we might investigate the possibility of setting up a sort of Caribbean development board with representation from Canada and the countries in that area, which might in an indirect way be modelled on the Atlantic Development Board. In this way we could help these islands co-ordinate their own internal efforts for development, provide them with funds and also provide them with people who could institute these various programs. I believe this might be a step in the right direction. The suggestion of Mr. Patrick is one worthy of further study.
I am sure that all of us in this house agree that there is a great opportunity here for Canada. I hope that the coming conference to be held on July 6 will find our government taking an imaginative and understanding approach to this great challenge.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to round out the roster of speakers for the four Atlantic provinces, that area of Canada which would benefit most by increased trade with the West Indies and a new pattern of trade in
June 22, 1966

that area. It gives me pleasure to second the motion so ably proposed by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) and to speak briefly on it.
First I should like to echo the point made by some of the other speakers, that there is no reason in the world why we cannot pass this resolution before six o'clock because it is in fact a fait accompli. As the last speaker mentioned there will be a conference in Ottawa in July between the Canadian government and officials of the area known as the British West Indies which will deal with the subject matter of the resolution presented by the hon. member for Queens. We need have no qualms that governments are going to fall or be put in impossible positions if we accept the intent of this resolution. As hon. members will recall, the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) had a similar resolution on the order paper some years ago.
Recently in Halifax a three-day conference was held at Dalhousie Univeristy which was supported by the Canadian national commission for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the Institute of Public Affairs of Dalhousie University. It had the blessing and, indeed, the association of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. It considered Canada-West Indies relations and the possibility of establishing an institute somewhere in Atlantic Canada. I understand that this possibility is still being studied. We all hope that Atlantic Canada will put its actions where its talk has been in the past. That may sound like a cynical observation, but we have received criticism in Atlantic Canada for talking too much and doing too little in the matter of better relations, trade-wise and otherwise, with the West Indies. I hope we will take the initiative in this regard and show the rest of the country that the words uttered here this afternoon have substance.
I suggest that the British West Indies delegation to the meeting to be held in Ottawa in July will make several concrete proposals, some of which have been developed by Mr. William Demas who is associated with the office of the Prime Minister of Trinidad. His suggestions deal first with tariff measures to improve trade with the West Indies. He suggested at the conference in Halifax that Canada make available more agricultural representatives to assist agricultural development in the West Indies. This, of course, would be a boon to trade between the two
Suggested Promotion of Trade countries. If they grow more they can sell more to us.
The other point I want to make relates to the warning that has been given by the education minister of Barbados, Mr. J. Cameron Tudor. He spoke at the same conference to which I referred and said that a free society will not long be retained in the West Indies if rescue operations are not set in motion immediately.
I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Halifax Mail-Star of Saturday, May 21, which reports Mr. Tudor as
follows:
He warned that the west could not expect the maintenance of the democratic tradition in the West Indies if democracy was unable to get the area out of its economic coils, and added that Canada could play a leading role in assisting the area.
I think there is a challenge here and that if we do not meet it we will be doing a grave disservice to our own country and to an aspiring democratic area which could go the other way unless we ourselves take action. It is with great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that I second the motion presented by the hon. member for Queens.


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the intent of this resolution but I should like to state that the government has this matter in hand and our trade prospects under review. The government is concerned about improving trade between various parts of Canada and the rest of the world. I am concerned, however, by frequent expressions of opinion along these lines which are regional in character. These opinions have been expressed not only in the Atlantic region but also in western Canada. They relate to regional free trade arrangements involving one or two provinces and other parts of the world.
These opinions are not to be taken seriously. It would certainly undermine Canada as a nation if we were to take seriously the possibility of the establishment of special trade arrangements between other countries and particular regions or provinces in Canada. In western Canada we have heard members of provincial governments speak in this manner.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.

June 22. 1966
Business of the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I should like to say something about the subject matter of the debate that has taken place in the last hour. The government will take cognizance of the apparent unanimity in respect of this important subject matter. It is of importance and concern to the government and is receiving active consideration. I might say that I have a personal interest in this subject, having had a somewhat similar motion on the order paper some years ago.
I should like to indicate the business of the house for tomorrow. We propose to call legislation in the following order: First, item No. 65, second reading of the Canada Student Loans Act; item 71, second reading of the Customs Tariff bill; item 70, the Excise Tax
bill; item 49, the public utilities transfer tax resolution; item 73, the Canadian dairy commission bill; item 76, the crop insurance bill and item 48, the Canadian Livestock Feed Board resolution. If time permits we will proceed with item 62, second reading of the Canadian Film Development Corporation bill.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
If the resolution concerning the small Canadian National branch lines is on the order paper tomorrow we may ask that it be considered later in the day so that the resolution can, if it is agreeable to the house, be passed and the bill circulated. Then we would have the bill available for next week.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 23, 1966