1966-10-28

NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling two copies of the text of a draft prepared by Admiral Landymore for presentation last spring to the special committee on defence, together with the actual presentation, the differences between the two texts being underlined.


Mr. Churchill:: Is there nothing cut out of
it? This is a full retreat.



NATURAL GAS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the statement made by the Prime Minister on October 7, 1966, I am now tabling copies of the formal agreement between myself as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources representing the government of Canada, and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd., embodying specific undertakings made by the company relating to its application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and licences for the exportation and importation of gas in connection with the great lakes project.
I am also tabling a letter dated September 22,	1966, addressed to me by Trans-
Canada Pipe Lines, containing the company's representations and the undertakings upon which the agreement is based.
Hon. members will recall that in August the National Energy Board reported to the governor in council upon Trans-Canada's application, indicating that it was prepared to issue a certificate and licences, and drawing attention to certain issues of public policy extending beyond its field of responsibility. On August 25 the Prime Minister stated that the government had not approved the issuance of these authorizations by the board, for
the basic reason that once the proposed pipe line system through the United States had been built it would almost inevitably become the main line, and that this would not be in accord with either the spirit of the policy laid down by parliament in the act incorporating Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd. or in the national interest.
Following this announcement Trans-Canada made the representations and the undertakings set forth in the letter of September 22 which I have tabled. The undertakings were as follows:
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
(1)	Trans-Canada guarantees that more than 50 per cent of the volume of gas required to supply eastern Canada will be transported through its main line traversing northern Ontario;
(2)	Trans-Canada also agrees to accept as a target that by the end of 1976 that figure would be raised to 60 per cent, and further agrees that its long range objective should be to transport 65 per cent of the volumes for eastern Canada through the northern Ontario facilities;
(3)	To carry out this undertaking, Trans-Canada would commence looping the northern Ontario line by 1970 and would complete this looping in stages thereafter in accordance with the development of the Canadian market;
(4)	Trans-Canada offered to deposit the shares representing its 50 per cent ownership in the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company with a trustee under terms and conditions acceptable to the government, to ensure that the company could never dispose of its interest in great lakes without the prior approval of the government of Canada.
In addition, Trans-Canada informed the government that American Natural Gas Company, its partner in the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company, guaranteed the purchase from this jointly owned company of an additional 100 million cubic feet of Canadian gas per day for a period of 25 years, commencing with 50 million cubic feet per day in 1969 and increasing to 100 million cubic feet per day in 1970. The company also referred to other good prospects it had for selling gas in the export markets.

October 28, 1966
Natural Gas
The National Energy Board was asked to comment upon these undertakings and representations, having regard to the reasons for the government's decision as expressed on August 25. The board, in its reply, was of the opinion that the undertakings by Trans-Canada would remove the possibility that the great lakes line might become in effect the main line of Trans-Canada and should put at rest the question whether Trans-Canada's participation in the great lakes project is consistent with the special act of parliament by which Trans-Canada was incorporated.
In summary, the board stated that in its view-
-the undertakings given and representations tnade by Trans-Canada are an adequate and acceptable response to the reasons given in the government statement of August 25 for not approving the certificate and licences sought by the company.
On October 4 the Prime Minister announced that having regard to the advice of the board already referred to, the government had approved the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity and export and import licences to Trans-Canada as recommended by the board, subject to the undertakings being incorporated in an agreement between Trans-Canada and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources acceptable to the minister.
The agreement I have tabled incorporates the aforesaid undertakings in such a form as to bind Trans-Canada to always maintain in Canada the main line for the supply of western Canadian gas to eastern Canada. These undertakings will be under the continuous surveillance of the National Energy Board and would be taken into consideration at the time of any future applications of Trans-Canada. There is also a clause stating that Trans-Canada will be liable to the amount of at least $1 million for each breach of the agreement. This does not imply, of course, any lack of faith in the desire or capacity of Trans-Canada to honour the agreement.
I would like to make it clear that this decision was taken solely on the undertakings given by Trans-Canada and not on the representations as to future exports, however attractive they may be. The house is also well aware that the National Energy Board Act provides that only gas which has been declared by the board surplus to the reasonably foreseeable requirements of Canada can be exported. No applications have been received covering these additional exports, and while the government has every confidence in the

future potential of our gas reserves, until such time as proper applications are filed and processed there cannot be any implied commitment in respect of future exports.
I believe that the great lakes project as now contemplated will provide growth markets for western Canadian gas and assist industrial development in eastern Canada. It will provide additional security for eastern Canadian consumers by having two lines by which western Canadian gas could be transmitted to them, and will also provide delivery by the shorter great lakes route to industrial markets and storage fields in southwestern Ontario.
May I express the hope that hon. members and the public will agree with us that the government was motivated in its decision by its desire to keep the line through northern Ontario as the main link between western Canadian reserves and eastern Canada, while providing for the maximum utilization of Canadian gas in Canada and in the export market, and the incentive for continuous development of our gas reserves.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made a very lengthy statement in respect of a decision that is of transcendant importance to this nation. There are two sides to this question. One is the marketing of our gas and the other is the assurance that Canada shall not place itself in a position where its major production will be available to the United States and ultimately denied to Canada.
The minister's statement provides one more kaleidoscopic example of the way this government acts. It received recommendations from the National Energy Board which was set up for the purpose of determining what is best, not for one part of Canada but for all of Canada. The recommendations of that board did not satisfy the government, so it refused to follow these recommendations. Representations were made and undertakings given by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, but the government again followed its accustomed course of turning a somersault.
This is the most amazing government in all history. In an international competition in the field of gymnastics this government would win without difficulty. It says one thing today and does the opposite tomorrow.
Are Canada's interests being protected? We find today that continentalism has become the keystone of this government's policy. Continentalism was preached in the days of
October 28, 1966

Macdonald. He stood against it and assured us that Canada would be an independent nation. There are interests in this country which believe our resources should be shared with other nations. We believe that the first consideration in respect of our resources should be a Canadian consideration for Canada's welfare.
The government has adopted the same policy in respect to our water resources. The Prime Minister announced that we were going to make water available to the United States; he made that suggestion during the last election campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: This subject is part and parcel of the whole picture. Let me point out that the Prime Minister said our water resources should be made available to the United States, and that is the kind of policy that is inherent in what this government-
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


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


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister rises on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is this; that the statement made by my colleague had to do exclusively with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. It had nothing whatever to do with water policy. The injection of comments on totally irrelevant matters is becoming a habit and I suggest a bad habit with the right hon. gentleman, which should cease. He should obey the rules as all the rest of us obey them.


John George Diefenbaker: If irrelevance were ever taken away from the remarks of the hon. member he would have nothing on which to stand. I find these remarks an example of that. I can understand how exacerbated the sensibilities of the hon. member are because I think he agrees with the stand I am taking, though the rest of his cabinet does not. This is the attitude that is governing this administration today. We have it in connection with the automobile agreement. We have it all along the line.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I raised a serious point of order, and I hope the Chair will rule on it.
Natural Gas


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the right hon. Leader of the Opposition knows the rules to the same extent that I and all hon. members know them. He knows what should guide ministerial statements and comments on ministerial statements. The statements themselves should not provoke debate, and the replies should not be in the form of a debate. I suggest to the right hon. gentleman and to all hon. members who take part in this discussion on a ministerial statement that comments be limited to the specific points raised in the ministerial statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I agree with that, but there are statements that provoke a challenge to this country. They should be answered by this party and on behalf of this party-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman is getting excited.


John George Diefenbaker: If this system is to be followed, that every time I rise I am faced with facetious remarks from the hon. member and others, those remarks should be followed by remarks from our side.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Well-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. On three successive occasions recently when I have raised a point of order with which Your Honour has agreed, the right hon. gentleman has immediately followed with a personal and unwarranted attack on me. I suggest, sir, that the right hon. gentleman should try a little self control, should try to obey the rules and should not get so excited, because he is going to need all his energies in November.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it is time we returned to the statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course I cannot allow that statement to go unchallenged.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well-


John George Diefenbaker: Your Honour allowed the hon. member to make his statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister raised a question of privilege. I rule that there is no question of privilege and I think

October 28, 1966
Natural Gas
we might make more progress if, the minister having been ruled out of order on the question of privilege, we returned to comments which are relevant to the statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Minister of Transport is out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: I am so in agreement with your expression of opinion, Mr. Speaker. There was no question of privilege. Thank you. I was pointing out, sir, that these things are part and parcel of this policy of conti-nentalism which will alternately destroy the independence of this nation, the economic independence; and when economic independence goes political independence goes. Do they challenge that, over there, after following the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) for a period of three years?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This seems relevant.


John George Diefenbaker: Sir, this is why 1 say this question should be examined and examined carefully. Are Canadian interests being protected? We should not take the say-so of any minister of this government in this regard. Second, what is being done? Will it undermine the future development of western Ontario and northern Ontario? Those are great areas that require and will require an ever increasing amount of our gas resources.
These are serious matters, and my suggestion is that the government, in the interests of the Canadian people, should make provision whereby this agreement would be submitted to a committee of parliament for examination. We want to know what is in this agreement. Are Canadian interests protected?


An hon. Member:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: That is essential, because this represents a very wide divergence from the policies of 1956. We want to know why. We want to know that there will be no adverse effect on the economy as a whole, and that Canada's future demands will be met. We want to be assured that no part of Canada, no part of western Ontario or northern Ontario, will be sacrificed in its development by a policy which represents a marked divergence from the policies of the past 12 years.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, on August 25 the Prime Minister issued a statement that the cabinet had

decided to reject the application of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to build a line through the United States. On October 4 the Prime Minister issued a statement saying the cabinet had reversed this decision and decided to approve the granting of this permit.
Shortly after parliament resumed this session I asked the Prime Minister whether he could give the reasons for this reversal, and his answer was that there had not been any reversal. Yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told the house that he would make a statement today in which he would persuade hon. members that there had not been a reversal of policy. I must say that after listening carefully to the minister's statement I am more convinced than ever that there has been a complete and unjustifiable reversal of policy.
In his statement of August 25 the Prime Minister gave several reasons for the government's rejection of the application by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. The first reason was:
The basic point, however, is that once a 36 inch pipe line system through the United States was established it would almost inevitably become the main line.
Now the minister says this objection has been overcome by virtue of the agreement he has just tabled, in which Trans-Canada Pipe Lines agrees to limit gas passing through the United States section of the pipe line to 50 per cent


An hon. Member:: Less than 50 per cent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -to less than 50 per cent of the natural gas which will be transported each year from western Canada for use in eastern Canada. I would ask hon. members to look carefully at that phrase. I will quote it from the agreement the minister has tabled. Section 2 of the agreement says:
Trans-Canada will cause more than 50 per cent of the total volume of natural gas transported in each year by it from western Canada for use in eastern Canada to be transported through the northern Ontario line.
o (11:30 a.m.)
I draw the attention of the house to the fact that it is not more than 50 per cent of the gas going through the line but more than 50 per cent of the gas which is to be used in eastern Canada. The simple arithmetic is that the northern line, which I am told is now operating at capacity, is a 30 inch line. The line to be built through the United States is a 36 inch line, and I am told by gas experts that a 36 inch line has 44 per cent greater carrying capacity than a 30 inch line.
October 28, 196$

It is a complete fiction to say that a 30 inch line is the major line and a 36 inch line with 44 per cent greater carrying capacity is the branch line. It may be true under this agreement that in terms of the amount of gas which is going to reach eastern Canada more than 50 per cent will go through the northern line, but in terms of the volume of gas put through the line there will be 44 per cent more gas going through the southern line, running through the United States, than through the northern line. It is therefore completely misleading and specious for the government to argue that a 30 inch line is going to be the main line and a 36 inch line is going to be the branch line. The government has not met its own objection.
The line which is now being approved by the government will be the main line, and the requirement that Trans-Canada will twin its northern line, commencing in 1970, means that for 15 years this government has placed a moratorium upon industrial and economic expansion in northern Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This line is operating at capacity now. There are great industrial projects in prospect in northern Ontario. Where do they propose to get the gas they need for the next 15 years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Obviously because of the second line there will be more room for volume going to northwestern Ontario.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister will have plenty of time to debate this, and I assure him we will give him every opportunity before this session is over. I point out to him that the first objection the government initially had to this project, namely that the American line was going to be the main line, has not been met by the agreement which the minister has just tabled.
The second objection which the Prime Minister stated on August 25 for rejecting the Trans-Canada application was:
The government does not believe it to be in Canada's best interest that the future development of facilities for bringing western Canadian gas to its eastern Canadian markets should be located outside Canadian jurisdiction, and subject to detailed regulation under laws of the United States which are naturally designed to protect the interests of United States citizens.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, in what way does this agreement which the minister has just tabled meet that objection? That objection still
Natural Gas
stands, completely unanswered and completely unaltered by the agreement which has just been filed.
The most compelling reason the Prime Minister gave on August 25 for rejecting this application was as follows:
Another factor of importance in the government's decision relates to the national policy approved by parliament, of having main gas transmission lines constructed in Canada, a policy which is reflected in the act incorporating Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd. That act provides that the company may "within or outside Canada-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Within or outside Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -construct .... pipe lines .... provided that the main pipe line or lines .... shall be located entirely within Canada."
That provision is contained in section 6(a) of the act. The Prime Minister was perfectly sound in making the observation that the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Act prescribes that main lines which are going to be built within or outside Canada must be approved by parliament, and we contend that this line is a main line. It is going to be the major carrier for at least 15 years or more, and we contend that the government has no power by order in council to approve the construction of this line without first submitting this agreement to parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the government proceeds to put this agreement into effect and to authorize Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to build this line through the United States, I maintain it is doing so in contravention of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Act, that it has no power to authorize the construction of this line without submitting this agreement and the letters of intent to parliament for approval, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that we will fight on this issue and we shall insist that this matter be submitted to parliament. Surely a party that went through the humiliating debacle of the pipe line debate in 1956 is not going to fall into the same booby trap again.


John George Diefenbaker: Are you being facetious?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They have a genius for it, but I am giving them an opportunity not to make the same mistake. I am saying to the government that it had better withdraw this order in council and submit this agreement to parliament in the form of legislation, in order that parliament may have an opportunity to express its opinion and to concur in that agreement or disagree with it.

October 28. 1966
Natural Gas
The other reason the Prime Minister gave on August 25 for rejecting this application was:
-approval of this application might give rise to future difficulties where United States regulatory-authorities might be put in the embarrassing position of having to resolve a conflict between their duty under United States laws and their desire to co-operate with Canada.
In what way has this agreement met that objection? I submit it has not met it at all. The Prime Minister wound up his statement of August 25 by saying:
This has been a difficult decision in a very complex matter. However, the gas transmission industry is a public utility on a vast scale, and is important to Canadian national well-being. The development of its main links between west and east should, we believe, remain wholly under Canadian jurisdiction.
With that statement of the Prime Minister I wholly concur, but I want to know why the government has reversed its position; why a great public utility of tremendous importance to the people of Canada and to the future industrial development of eastern Canada, a supplier of markets for western Canadian gas, should not remain wholly within Canadian jurisdiction. I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that the government has reversed its policy and has not given the house one convincing reason for so doing. We can only conclude that once more this government is backtracking under pressure, and we would like to know from whence that pressure comes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: From the consumers; from the producers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are not satisfied with this statement from the minister and we are going to insist, and keep on insisting, that this matter be submitted to parliament as required under section 6(a) of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines legislation. We ask the government not to hide behind a lot of subterfuge but to come out into the open, place this matter before the house and give parliament its undeniable right to decide whether this application of Trans-Canada should be accepted or rejected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that during the debate, in connection with the statement

made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Hon. Mr. Pepin), we are forgetting that the federal government is not the only party to this agreement and we should also take into consideration that the Alberta provincial government is another participant, the producer of natural gas distributed on the one hand through northern Ontario-we are told through a 30-inch line-and on the other hand going through Emerson in Manitoba, through the United States, re-entering Canada at Sault Ste. Marie by means of a 36-inch line.
I believe that the important thing is not so much to know whether it is a 30-inch or a 36-inch line, whether a 36-inch line has a greater carrying capacity than a 30-inch line, I think everyone agrees on that point. I feel that, under the present circumstances, the important thing is to find out whether natural gas production in Alberta is large enough to meet the needs of Canadians and also sufficient for exportation purposes. If this fact has already been established, then our present discussion is useless. If the point we wish to make is insufficient production, which I doubt because we have, in the northwestern part of the province, the well-known 30-inch line going through northern Ontario, and natural gas is available to all industries which want to use it, production is adequate and it has been confirmed that the demand can be met throughout Canada without interfering with our exports.
Mr. Speaker, I feel, as I said a while ago, that it is not solely up to Ottawa or the various parties in this house to decide what must be done with the natural gas in Alberta. We must take the provincial government into consideration as we did in the case of British Columbia in connection with water, as we do in the field of natural resources in Quebec and Ontario.
We should then, first of all, respect provincial autonomy and authority, reach an understanding with them and find out whether Canadian needs are really being met adequately; then, if we have surpluses, what is to keep us from building a 45-inch pipeline for exports to the United States if we can do it without being accused of being Americans or of having been bribed by the United States, and so on?
The reference here is to trade with a country which is south of Canada, that is obvious; we do not trade only in natural gas, but also in many other commodities.
October 28, 1366

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think this question ought to be considered in depth, certainly, to determine whether the production is actually sufficient and then come to an agreement with the government or authorities of Alberta to decide on the best procedure to develop this natural resource that is natural gas now being produced in Alberta. I do not see any purpose in dragging on this debate, in throwing at each other epithets that I do not find too kind under the circumstances, because we have had successive Conservative and Liberal governments. The Conservatives made the same kind of agreements with the United States.
In closing, what we have to know is whether the supply can meet the demand and then export our surplus to promote industry and the development of our Canadian natural resources. I believe that is the solution.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, one of the great reserves in Canada's natural resource wealth is western gas. These reserves are increasing each year. With the discoveries now being made in northern Alberta and the explorations being carried on in the Northwest Territories and British Columbia it is obvious that our surplus gas reserves go far beyond any needs of Canada for the foreseeable future. These resources must be made available to Canadians first, but the verified surpluses must likewise be made available to the export markets.
If we do not do this we will be cutting off our nose to save our face. It is not a question of Americanism one way or the other; it is a question of sound economics. You do not store something in the bowels of the earth which you will not have any use for, if you can make economic use of it elsewhere. We are agreed that there must be built-in guarantees to fill the needs of eastern Canada and northern Ontario. In this particular case, however, I must commend the minister for the decisions he has taken in rejecting the first proposal of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and turning it back for a new proposal containing certain basic requirements which he considered essential.
It is known to us that the National Energy Board approved the first proposals. The government in overruling those first proposals in this instance has shown what to me seems to be good judgment; because certainly the proposals we now have and which have been approved in my opinion are not a rejection or turning back on what was said originally in
Natural Gas
August, but are an improvement. This is a completely new proposal which has been strengthened and certainly guarantees the rights and needs of Canada much better than the first one ever did. The changes are substantial; you cannot overlook them, but the resulting proposition which we have had outlined to us by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in my opinion represents a very sound basis so far as Canada is concerned.
The present northern pipe line must remain as the main transmission line for Canadian gas. This is what the proposal guarantees. As the market in eastern and northern Canada develop, this pipe line is to be twinned. Assurance has been given by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines that the looping of the present line will begin by 1970 and be completed as the markets demand. What can be more sensible than this? What is the use of building it before it is necessary, so long as we have the guarantee that it will be done when it is required?
The requirements that are demanded of the Great Lakes Transmission Company, so far as the volume guarantees are concerned, are likewise sound, because this does guarantee a certain flow of gas on the new line but still retains the northern line as the main line so far as the volume which reaches eastern Canada is concerned.
So, although gas is guaranteed for any development in northern Ontario or eastern Canada, there are some outstanding benefits inherent in this proposal which were not contained in the original proposal. I think eastern Canada should take very close cognizance of these benefits.
The price of gas to eastern Canadian markets will be reduced because the cost of construction of the line will be less, and because the extra size of the line is going to be used up in meeting the needs of the available export markets in central and northern United States. This tremendous potential in the United States market is something to which we should not close our eyes. Our balance of trade deficit with the United States this year is more than $1 billion. Here is an opportunity with our surplus gas to reach into Detroit, St. Louis, Chicago, Indianapolis, and other areas in northern and central United States. This will have a tremendous effect on the imbalance of trade.

October 28, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
As I listened to the arguments presented by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam I failed to find the logic that his arguments customarily contain. The act, as far as I understand it, specifically states that there can be auxiliary lines constructed as long as the main line stays in the United States-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Lewis:: Yes, in the United States.


Robert Norman Thompson: -in Canada, regardless of whether the branch line is in the United States or not.


David Lewis: The truth comes out.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, such a silly remark about something that is as economically sound as this project just does not make sense. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam talks about pressures. What about the pressure of logic and sound economics; does that not enter into it? I believe this is a sound agreement. It is good for us all; it is good for Canada and it is good for our trade imbalance. Let us face it on that basis.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-242, concerning the labeling of hazardous household products.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Dean Howe: Mr. Speaker, the conception of this bill was in the knowledge that many children every year become seriously ill or even die due to the improper use of many everyday household products. This bill would provide for the labelling of these products as being hazardous when improperly used, by either ingestion or inhalation, in the hope that responsible persons would keep such substances out of the reach of children.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this situation

does not ordinarily arise on the orders of the day, and I hope the Minister of Transport will restrain himself. I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will convey to His Excellency the Governor General the good wishes of this house. I do not know how serious is his illness, but I am sure the house would want to convey to him a message of good wishes, good cheer and appreciation of the fortitude and exemplary manner in which through the years he has carried out his duties as Governor General of this country.


Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I say that His Excellency the Governor General has been suffering from a virus infection. There is no cause for concern. He has entered hospital for a routine check-up and it is anticipated that he will be back at Rideau Hall within a very few days. I shall certainly ask the Prime Minister to convey to His Excellency the Governor General the very generous observations made by my right hon. friend and so strongly supported by all members of this house.
May I say for those who sit on this side of the house, that we concur in the view that His Excellency the Governor General has discharged his difficult and important responsibilities with great distinction. In the discharge of those responsibilities he has been wisely helped by this charming wife.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The Governor General has our affection and our admiration. We recognize in him the highest embodiment of what he represents, the crown and its majesty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party would like to associate themselves with the comments of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Acting Prime Minister. In addition to the high office which General Vanier occupies, as an individual, we hold him in high regard and deep affection and' certainly hope he will have a speedy recovery.
October 28, 1966



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I ask whether in view of the fact that section 6 (a) of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Act requires that main lines built inside and outside of Canada must be approved by parliament he will undertake to bring before parliament the agreement which he tabled earlier this morning.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to sound like a know-it-all, but my impression is that the hon. member does not have the right interpretation of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Act. This act incorporates the company and establishes standards that the company has to live up to. It is then the responsibility of the National Energy Board in its over-all capacity to make decisions on projects presented by any company either incorporated by special act or otherwise. The board sends these decisions to the government, and it is left to the governor in council to agree or disagree with them.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I really do not believe we are obligated under this act to submit to parliament any projects that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines may undertake now or in the future.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether it is not correct that the Prime Minister in his statement of August 25 gave section 6 (a) of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Act as the very reason the cabinet could not approve the application of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines without submitting the matter to parliament for approval?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The act says that pipe lines can be built inside or outside Canada. We have now the case of a pipe line that could be built partly outside Canada. Section 6 (a), if my memory is good, goes on to say that the main pipe line must be in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is "lines", plural.


Jean-Luc Pepin: "Line" or "lines". This is exactly what would happen in the present case. The northern Ontario pipe line when looped will be the main pipe lines.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, when looped.


Jean-Luc Pepin: When looped, and we have just made sure that it will be looped-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When?


Jean-Luc Pepin: -by forcing, because of the undertakings I have referred to, the company to begin looping by 1970. This is the very centre of the operation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Commencing 1970.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Commencing 1970. You would not impose on the company anything that was not rational, would you? I would not. The government did not.


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether he can give an undertaking that no further steps will be allowed to be undertaken until the agreement and the surrounding documents have been referred to the standing committee on industry, research and energy development for consideration by that committee? I think this is a proper request in view of the circumstances.
I will supplement that request by saying that I would urge the government not to get into the same position in which it found itself in connection with the automotive agreement, and that it ensure that the standing committee study this matter first.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I agree in part with the hon. member. He is surely aware that the estimates of the National Energy Board have not yet been passed by the committee. It is up to the chairman and the members of the committee to ask the National Energy Board to testify before that committee and explain the report it gave to the government. The minister is quite willing to explain the government decisions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question, the minister's answer does not really deal with my request that the minister, by way of a motion, specifically refer this agreement to the standing committee. Only in that way can that committee have the proper authority to deal with it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The chairman and the members of the National Energy Board are due to return to the committee. I would not think that up to now questions put to the members of that board have been curtailed in any way,

October 28, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry and I am sure the same will be true in the future.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not like the defence committee.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: On a
supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether it is correct that the matter is now before a federal commission in the United States and that no decision has been taken on it up to date?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is quite right.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I add to the answer I gave yesterday?
The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) asked me if statements similar to that of the hon. member for Port Arthur had been made by other members and I said no. It seems he added "or other representations". I should have answered that there actually had been other representations and very eloquent ones, from several members of northern Ontario, particularly from the hon. members for Kenora-Rainy River and Cochrane (Messrs. Reid and Habel).



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Labour.
First, however, I should like, along with my colleagues, the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin), the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Messrs. Diefenbaker and Douglas), to wish His Excellency the Governor General a quick and complete recovery and, at the same time, pay our respects to Mrs. Vanier.
My question to the Minister of Labour is as follows: Is the minister now taking steps to ensure respect for the right of association of federal employees wishing to belong to a particular union in preference to another? Can the minister give us the assurance that the freedom of the employees will be respected in their choice of a union?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly give that assurance. As you know, Your Honour, last 
night this matter was dealt with at some length in the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Labour. I hope to make a short comment on it when the discussion of my estimates is resumed, but I might say now that there are two sides to the problem. There is not one but several briefs now before a cabinet committee for study. Under the act the minister has no power to take action; he can only make recommendations to his colleagues in government one way or the other. The recommendations have been placed before the government, and they are now under study.



DELAY IN RETROACTIVE PAYMENTS TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['My hon. friend knows that this question was not asked for the purpose of eliciting information; it was designed to embarrass. That question has been asked a number of times and a reply has been given, the most complete replies have been given to the distinguished and affable member for Winnipeg South Centre so many times that I am sure he knows them by heart.']
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Is the minister aware of the fact that railway employees have not yet received their retroactive pay increase and is he able to tell the house when they will get it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, for giving me warning that he would ask this question. I am informed that the railways have advised my office that the employees, including those who are covered by collective agreements, will receive their increased rates of pay not later than the October 31 payroll period, and that retroactive payments will also be made in a lump sum during the month of November.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of defence. However, before asking the question I would like, on behalf of my party, to join the leaders of the other parties, including the official opposition, in extending our sympathies to His Excellency the Governor General and our best wishes for his quick recovery. May I say at the same time that we are convinced, as I am sure all the members of this house are of the tremendous service the Governor General has rendered and is rendering to this nation as we approach our centennial year.
October 28, 1966

My question is as follows. In view of the contemplated reduction of NATO forces by the United States and Great Britain, is Canada considering the reduction of its forces which now, together with their dependants in Europe, number well over 20,000?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): No, Mr. Speaker, it is not considering such a reduction beyond what was already announced. This is a completely hypothetical and erroneous report.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question either to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or to the Minister of National Defence, whichever is in a better position to answer it. In view of the fact that it has been announced that China has fired a guided nuclear missile, has the government any information regarding what type of missile this was? Do they know whether it was a short range missile similar to the Honest John, a medium range or intermediate missile, or a long range intercontinental ballistic missile?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my hon. friend not to ask me at this moment to give him details on the full character of the missile. Perhaps I could have a private talk with the hon. gentleman.
However, I would like to say that we regret this development which indicates again the unwillingness of the Chinese Peoples' Republic to participate in the nuclear test ban arrangement. We hope that events will cause that country, and others which are not at present adherents to the pact, to agree to participate in this agreement in the interests of stability and peace in the world.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister said, I am sure we all regret this development very much, but I think it is vital for us to know in general what range of missile this was. I am not asking for the details but merely for an indication of which of these four types of missiles was involved in this case.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can deal with this matter later on.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether it would not be a very good idea for Canada to set an example to China by honouring our commitment to withdraw from the nuclear field entirely and dispose of our nuclear weapons?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have a strong conviction that in many ways Canada is setting an example to many countries of what they should do in the international realm.


John George Diefenbaker: Not in the field of nuclear
weapons.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the last question addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will his government live up to the solemn promise made by the Prime Minister to withdraw from the field of nuclear weapons?


An hon. Member:: The minister does not answer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the minister answer my question or is he too frightened?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend should not be so tempestuous on a Friday morning.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And you should not be so verbose.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: My hon. friend knows that this question was not asked for the purpose of eliciting information; it was designed to embarrass. That question has been asked a number of times and a reply has been given, the most complete replies have been given to the distinguished and affable member for Winnipeg South Centre so many times that I am sure he knows them by heart.



UNITED NATIONS


[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 Canada at the present time the co-sponsor of any resolutions at the United National general assembly?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, as I think I
October 28, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry told my hon. friend a couple of weeks ago, we are now discussing with the Irish delegation and with other delegations a resolution which we hope will receive a number of co-sponsors, and which will then be distributed, regarding peace keeping operations.


Mr, Nesbitt:: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister did not quite understand my question. I asked him whether at the present time we are co-sponsoring this resolution, and whether there are any other resolutions of which we are co-sponsors.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are considering the co-sponsorship of two resolutions.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister a simple question. Are we now the co-sponsor of this resolution and are we now the co-sponsor of any other resolutions? I am not asking the minister whether we may be the co-sponsor at some time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will read my replies he will see I have answered his question.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: May
I ask the Solicitor General whether he has received as yet the interim report of Mr. Justice Ouimet dealing with the question of the construction of maximum security facilities.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: have received an interim report on this matter from Mr. Justice Ouimet, but in fairness I should point out that he was not able to consult with all the members of the committee with whom he wished to consult at the time he made his interim report. I gave an undertaking that it would not be released until he had an opportunity to meet with me. This meeting will take place within the next two weeks. I hope at that time I will have his full report bearing on this important subject.


David Orlikow: I should like to ask the minister if, when he receives that report, it will be released to the parliamentary committee so they can consider its recommendations.


Lawrence T. Pennell: As I indicated on an earlier occasion, I would be pleased to attend, together with my officials, before the committee and discuss the matter with them.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I have a question for the Secretary of State. Has the government yet responded to the urgent and repeated requests by the directors of the Fathers of Confederation memorial building for a financial contribution sufficient to allow this valuable national centre to continue its splendid artistic, cultural and educational work?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister announced last night, I think, that the federal government is increasing its grant to the confederation centre at Charlottetown. The house will know that no provision was made for any operating assistance by the federal government when the centre was conceived and erected. Since that time it has been supported partly by an annual federal grant of roughly $100,000 and partly by large contributions, considering the population of the island, by the province of Prince Edward Island, as well as substantial contributions by individuals who were interested.
Recently the trustees found they had come to the end of these resources and made a plea to the federal government to increase its assistance. Under my immediate predecessor there had been for one year an increase in the grant to $150,000. It became apparent that the $100,000 annual grant was not going to be sufficient so the Prime Minister announced that there would be an additional payment this year of another $100,000, making a total of $200,000 for this year to meet the immediate needs and assure the continued operation of the centre. All employees who have been given notice, I think for November 5, will not have to be discharged.
Then as a long term solution, since this is the only such centre in Canada and one which was constructed by federal and provincial funds from all the provinces, the federal government has made a very generous offer to pay a sum equivalent to one half of the deficits hereafter in perpetuity, but not to exceed $175,000 a year. It is hoped that this, together with the increasing sums to come in from those who are using the centre, both tourists and island residents, will assure the continued utilization of the centre on an increasing level to the benefit of the island and Canada as a whole.
October 28, 1966


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: I wonder if I could ask the Secretary of State whether this proposed arrangement by the Prime Minister is agreeable to the government of Prince Edward Island, since I believe it will require, from them an almost equal amount to cover the operating deficit.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, the provincial government is, I suppose, always pleased when it knows that the federal government and other sources acknowledge the benefit to the whole country, as well as to the island, of this structure and the continuing activities therein. I have some reason to believe that the premier is pleased with the additional money that will be forthcoming, and I assume the trustees of the centre are pleased as well.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: May I ask a further supplementary question. Inasmuch as the announcement suggested the payment of $175,000 per year would be in perpetuity, or half the deficit, is it known that the deficit this year will likely be in the neighbourhood of $350,000?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that such a detailed question should not be asked at this time.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week, in his usual mild manner, he complained that I had not given him notice of a question, so I sent him a written communication to the effect I would be asking him a question again soon. This is it. Will the minister indicate to the house what is the situation with regard to South-West Africa, the action on the part of the United Nations with regard to that portion of Africa, and the implications, if any, for Canada in any future action that might be taken?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank my hon. friend for the detailed notice of his question. I am sure he gave me notice simply because he wanted this to be a further manifestation of the deep bond of friendship that prevails between us.
Yesterday the assembly, with only three abstentions, accepted a resolution that had been put forward by some 40 sponsors calling for an end to the mandate administered by 23033-584J
Inquiries of the Ministry South Africa in South-West Africa on the grounds that a policy of apartheid had been followed and that South Africa, as the mandatory power, had not lived up to the obligations of accountability to the general assembly. Canada strongly supported this resolution which indicts South Africa for practising apartheid. The mandate will now become the responsibility of the United Nations. A commission of 14 member states will be set up pursuant to this resolution to determine what action should follow this widely accepted resolution in the general assembly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether there has been any response from North Viet Nam following the firm promise made by the President of the United States at the Manila conference that as the military forces of North Viet Nam are withdrawn, as infiltration ceases and the level of violence subsides, the Americans would withdraw their troops. In view of the fact that this offer clearly indicates that the United States does not intend to expand its forces but again has shown its desire for peace, is there anything to indicate that what has been done has softened in any way the ungiving attitude of North Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My right hon. friend was kind enough to mention that he proposed to ask this question. I can say in reply that we have not yet been informed of any official reaction by the government of North Viet Nam to some of the conclusions at the Manila conference. There have been stories in the newspapers that the assurances given by the governments of all the combating forces in Viet Nam at the conclusion of the Manila conference-those that took part-were not acceptable to the other side. There is yet no official indication of this. I should like to say that the assurances, given the right conditions, will be met by the United States and others involved in South Viet Nam. I am sure they would withdraw their forces after six months. I hope these assurances will have the effect of removing from the minds of certain countries with whom we have had discussions the doubt that the United States will remove
October 28, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry its forces from Viet Nam following the conclusion of a negotiated settlement.


John George Diefenbaker: As a result of this declaration on the part of the United States, which in fact means that within the six months period the people of North and South Viet Nam will be able to determine their own form of government, would this not be an appropriate time for Canada to once again send Mr. Chester Ronning to North Viet Nam, where he apparently enjoys respect and regard? He could place before the people of North Viet Nam once more the determination of the United States to bring about peace if North Viet Nam will accept what, on the face of it, is a most reasonable declaration by the President.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, we are making a careful assessment of the reaction of the other side to the conclusions of the Manila conference. I met with Mr. Chester Ronning at the United Nations on Wednesday morning, and I can assure the house that the Canadian government is prepared to keep open the channel which Mr. Ronning established if we feel, in the light of information at our disposal that such action would prove capable of meeting the objectives this government has in mind in its efforts to try to bring about a negotiated settlement.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the government would obtain the advance information referred to by the minister but, whether there is hope or not, the fact that on two previous occasions Mr. Ronning has been in North Viet Nam would indicate some possibility in this regard. Whether or not his efforts are successful, any effort by Canada to bring an end to hostilities in Viet Nam would be a great contribution to world peace. Mr. Ronning is certainly one person who might be successful.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I fully concur in my right hon. friend's appreciation of Mr. Ronning's services. Let me assure him that the channel which was established in March continues to be open, with the concurrence of all sides. I would not like to go beyond that at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question. In light of the information 
he received from the United States government in clarification of the President's declaration in Manila, is there any indication that the National Liberation Front could form a part of the government in South Viet Nam, or is that possibility ruled out completely?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The communique issued by the participating governments does not make any reference to the Viet Cong. I should remind my hon. friend of what the President of the United States said some months ago, and of what Mr. Goldberg said two weeks ago at the United Nations, that this question of representation of the Viet Cong at a conference does not constitute an insurmountable problem.



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. On Monday I asked the minister about an investigation into an accident involving the Manseau 101. It was understandable at that time, because of the complexity of this matter, that the minister did not have any information readily available, but I now wonder whether he can bring us up to date on this situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. An investigation was made in the first instance by Captain Lehaye of my department, and he has made his preliminary report. On the basis of that report my departmental officials have asked the Department of Justice to hold a public inquiry or a formal investigation under the provisions of section 558 of the Canada Shipping Act. Of course I should not like to predict the length of time this inquiry will take, but we intend to move as quickly as possible.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question. Does the minister have any idea when the commissioner to head this inquiry will be appointed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I feel quite confident that my colleague the Minister of Justice, who has heard the hon. gentleman's question, will show the greatest possible zeal in appointing a commissioner to undertake this very important task.
October 28, 1966


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that nine of the ten victims of that accident were French speaking, and in view of the fact the accident took place close to Quebec city, will the minister consider the appointment of someone from the province of Quebec who is knowledgeable in the French language?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Let me say that the accident of the Manseau 101 dredge involved employees who were resident of my own city, and I am very keen to attempt to obtain the best possible commissioner to investigate this matter. I will certainly look into the hon. member's suggestion that a French speaking commissioner be appointed.

CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL BOAT HARBOURS ON NAVIGABLE WATERS On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport, following a recent statement, whereby from now on works on navigable waters would come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. Would the minister tell us whether this also includes the construction of marinas on navigable waters in Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That question involves major policy, and I do not think I should answer it before giving it some study.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Could the minister tell us why the price of propane gas is always increasing?


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



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Transport. In view of the severe and critical shortage of railway livestock cars in western Canada, which is depressing the market for feeder cattle there, will the minister indicate for the benefit of sellers and buyers of these cattle what response he has received to his representations to the C.P.R. regarding this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, 1 hoped to receive a reply before I came into the house today, but perhaps because we met this morning I came into the house before it was received. I am not aware that a reply has been made, but I did make representations in a most urgent manner to supplement those of the right hon. gentleman yesterday.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister tell us whether there is any problem involved in cleaning or disinfecting these cars before they are returned to western Canada and, if so, is any action contemplated to expedite this process?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I am not able to answer that question without first obtaining some information, but I will make inquiries at once.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question arising out of the answer given by the Minister of Transport regarding the shortage of rail cars. As I stated yesterday there are, I think 15,000 head of cattle concentrated in a relatively small area near Pincher Creek and Fort Macleod-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And Brooks.


John George Diefenbaker: These cattle have been gathered together for shipment, and there is a tremendously serious situation developing. I know the minister is conversant with this situation. Will he impress upon the C.P.R. the need for available cars?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I may be excused from service in the House of Commons as soon as orders of the day have been concluded I shall do so at once.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: The Minister of National Defence is
9238	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry hoping for a question. I would ask him, is it the intention of the government to keep in operation some of the older ships of the Royal Canadian Navy in view of the serious gap of six years in the replacement program for the navy, as disclosed in the testimony which Admiral Landymore intended to give to the defence committee but which he was prevented from giving by the action of the minister's staff?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker. The frigates do not offer the operational capability which would justify the expenditure of the money and manpower involved. With respect to this gap, I think it is something like the missile gap; it is hypothetical so far as capability is concerned. As I have assured my hon. friend before, in its primary role of anti-submarine surveillance the navy now has the greatest capability it has ever had in peacetime.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to reject entirely the expert testimony of a professional witness such as Admiral Landymore and accept the amateur explanation of the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or to his parliamentary secretary. Has the minister's attention been drawn to yesterday's press report to the effect that suicide now ranks only after accidents and cancer as a cause of death among young adult Canadians?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is because of the government.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Have the officials of the department confirmed this? If so, is there a study under way or will a study be instituted to look into the causes of this disturbing situation and bring about a program to combat it?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much if that question can be answered at this time.


Mr. Siarr:: Bring it up in caucus.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may want to place that question on the order paper.


October 28, 1866


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The question period has expired.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
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:: Order, please. The house again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of Labour for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1967. Shall vote No. 1, to be found at page 200 of the blue book, carry?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, since I first spoke on these estimates in late May some 20 members of the house have participated in discussions, some more than once. They have raised very interesting and some very important matters, and I should like to comment on some of them.
One line of thought, one constructive suggestion has been common to several of the speeches made in the house during this debate. I refer to expressions of opinion by the hon. members for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, Red Deer, Halifax, Notre-Dame-de-Grace and Villeneuve, among others. They share concern as to whether there is enough serious research and advance analysis by the officials of the Department of Labour in order to prevent industrial disputes, as opposed to trying to settle them after the stoppage of work has occurred. I think the house and the Canadian public should have the advantage of this information.
It will be recalled that when the estimates first came before the house, on May 27 I think, a number of very serious strikes affecting the national economy were either in progress or on the eve of breaking out. Since then it may be recalled that parliament had to be especially convened to deal with the railway strike.
While these work disruptions resulting from unresolved labour disputes were of serious concern, I think it is important that members of this house should look at them in their proper perspective. It is interesting to note that in actual experience a relatively small percentage of labour disputes in Canada have ended in strikes or walk-outs. We wish that none had happened but, as I say, the
October 28, 1966

percentage of cases where work stoppage has occurred has been relatively small.
For the past fiscal year just prior to April 1 last, 103 disputes were referred to conciliation officers of my department, no less than 67 of those being settled with the help of those officers without even a conciliation board. Another 29 disputes were later settled by conciliation boards set up by my predecessor and by myself. In all, 90 out of 103 disputes during the last fiscal year were settled. This, I submit, is a creditable record.
Since April 1, 1966, the beginning of this fiscal year, 38 disputes have been settled as a result of the efforts of the departmental conciliation officers in Ottawa and in the field. Another 14 disputes have been settled by conciliation boards, and another four by special mediation efforts. At present 23 disputes are in the hands of conciliation officials or conciliation boards, and we hope these disputes will be amicably settled. One or two disputes are rather disturbing, but I hope that with the assistance of the trained officials and others who are engaged in the mediation process a solution will be found.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow the courtesy of a question at this stage?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: Could the minister tell the committee how many man days were lost by reason of strikes in our country in 1965, also in 1966 to the latest date? The minister has that available, and I think it would be very helpful to know it. He is giving a most interesting dissertation on the subject matter to which he has devoted himself unceasingly, and I feel that this information would be most beneficial.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thank the right hon. gentleman for his suggestion, which is a helpful one. I am sure my staff can readily provide that information, and it will be available within a very few minutes.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


David Orlikow: Could we have figures showing the amount of time lost as a result of accidents, illness and unemployment?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am not sure that we shall be able to get those figures for the whole of Canada. We can undoubtedly give them fairly soon in respect of the field which comes within the federal domain. However, if they are available I am sure my officials will provide them before the discussion of these estimates concludes.
Supply-Labour
I have indicated that the development of further efforts to prevent work stoppages is a major matter of concern to us. This was a theme common to the remarks made by several hon. members. I wish to assure the committee that for the last several months we have been taking steps in the department to substantially strengthen our staff resources not only in Ottawa but elsewhere, and I am sure hon. members have read with interest of at least two or three of the appointments which have been made in the last few weeks.
I may say it has been clear to me almost from the day I took office as Minister of Labour that more attention must be paid to the basic issues which are raised in the course of the bargaining process. We must do a great deal more research. I believe it was the hon. member for Halifax and also the hon. member for Red Deer who put their fingers on this point. A great deal of work needs to be done so that more information will be available when crisis situations may arise. I may say that the department has made every effort to increase its sources of information so we may be kept abreast in this field, more particularly as to the effect technological changes have on bargaining negotiations. Such research involves looking into the whole question of technological change and its relation to employment. It also involves research into wages and productivity.
One of the most interesting things to have come out of our research in the last six months, at least in my opinion, is evidence of the grave discrimination which is to be found in the wage pattern in different parts of Canada. Many references have been made to the wage increase given to the longshoremen employed in the St. Lawrence ports. Very few people in this country know that within 90 days or so of that settlement increases, which were long overdue, had taken place in various parts of eastern Canada. One such increase went as high as 71 per cent over three years in order to bring the wages paid by that particular firm-and it was a sizeable firm-into line with what was being paid by other firms in the same industry in the province concerned.
I well remember the remark made by my parliamentary secretary when, in the course of the debate on these estimates, objection was taken by one hon. member to a 30 per cent increase-"Thirty per cent of what?" Mr. Chairman, 30 per cent of nothing is

October 28, 1968
Supply-Labour
nothing. If an industry or a firm is underpaying its employees, why should they not be brought to the level the circumstances warrant? The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, I think it was, referred to this point and I entirely endorse his remarks in this connection.
I do not wish to discuss, at this time, all the remarks which were made by the 20 members of the committee who took part in this debate at an earlier stage. Many of the points made were common to a number of the speeches; for example, the one to which I have just referred. One reason why I do not propose to do so is this. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that on the three previous occasions when these estimates were before the committee we were in the midst of an atmosphere of strike. When the estimates were first considered the longshoremen's strike was in progress in Quebec. The second time they came up that strike was still in progress and an Air Canada strike was threatening. When the estimates came before the committee in June we were facing the possibility of the disruption of railway services. The reports of the first two conciliation boards were made public at about that time; at least the contents of those reports were disclosed at about that time. This is all behind us now, happily, and there is no necessity for me to deal with the comments which were made at that time, helpful and constructive though some of them were.
There are a few points in the debate, however, which might warrant special reference. First there is the matter raised yesterday by the hon. member for Lincoln, who referred to the automobile pact and its effect on employment in communities in Canada where the automobile industry is the major source of employment. I can only say that two of my colleagues and I have held one or more meetings-I have attended three-with representatives of the United Automobile Workers and with the mayor of the city of Oshawa and a delegation from that city, and that another meeting is to take place on Tuesday next when we hope further information will be available and we shall be able to discuss with the delegates some of the points which have arisen out of previous discussions. It is of the utmost importance that workers who are displaced-and there has been some displacement-through the operation of the automotive pact should be treated fairly by finding alternative employment and 
the provision of their just dues arising from TAB or any other form of assistance to which they may be entitled. I am hopeful that out of our discussions next week will come a solution to this particular problem.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Yesterday, as well as on an earlier occasion, the hon. member for York South stated that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act had been found wanting, at least in certain fields. He referred particularly to disputes in the transportation field. Hon. members will perhaps recall that in my opening statement on May 27 I referred to this same fact and invited constructive suggestions from members of the committee by way of advice so that we might be able to apply in finding a solution for this very difficult problem. I may say it was because of the peculiar difficulties that seemed to be associated with national transportation-railways, air lines, other fields of transportation and allied activities, and in this connection I am thinking of the longshoremen on both coasts-that the Prime Minister, after consultation with his Minister of Labour and others, was prompted to establish the task force which was announced a few weeks ago, and which is to be headed by Dean Wood.
Last night the hon. member for York South put forward some suggestions. He was one of the few to do so. I am not saying they provide all the answers, but they merit consideration and will be referred to this task force for study. I share the hon. member's view that the government does not expect to find an answer to this problem within a few months. If the task force was going to work on the problem for only two or three months it would not have been appointed. This is a matter that should be studied in depth, and I am looking forward to a helpful report. Perhaps we will get a progress report within six months, but if the force is able to deal with it fully in such a relatively short time I shall be one of the most surprised men in Canada.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Comox-Alberni for his congratulations to the Minister of Labour and more particularly to the officials of the department for the part they played in arranging and conducting the I.L.O. regional conference in Ottawa in September.
The hon. member raised one point which I think merits an answer at this time. He drew attention to the problem connected with
October 28, 1966

statutory holidays. Under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code a certain number of statutory holidays are prescribed each year, and workers must be paid for those days whether they work or not. But if they do work, depending on their respective collective agreements they are to get time and a half or double time. However, the condition for receiving this time and a half or double time pay is that they must have worked 15 days during the previous month.
As most hon. members know, and as I certainly do after my experiences of the last three or four months, longshoremen work for a number of different employers. They may work for as many as four or five employers during the course of 15 days, and there was a serious legal question as to whether they would be covered under the act.
This question arose during negotiations between longshoremen and employers on the west coast, and in an exchange of telegrams later made public in the press if I remember correctly, I gave an assurance that if a solution could not be found in negotiations, as is done in other fields of endeavour where employees working for three or four firms qualify for unemployment insurance credits, at a very early date in this session I would cause a resolution to be placed on the order paper to deal with this matter. I repeat that assurance now, and the resolution will appear at a relatively early date, depending on our progress with the legislative program now before the house.
The same hon. member inquired about the progress being made by the industrial commissioner who was appointed to inquire into two issues that arose at the time of the settlement of the longshoremen's strike. These involved increased productivity, the possibility of reorganizing gangs, the size and use of slings and different other types of equipment, and job security.
Quite frankly I was disturbed and disappointed with the reports that I got during the first three or four weeks this inquiry was under way. At the outset the commissioner was confronted with a series of legal submissions, and objections were raised to his jurisdiction. However, I am happy to say that notwithstanding the fact that the first month or five weeks seemed to be taken up with this legal by-play, encouraging progress seems to have been made during the last several weeks. The longshoremen and their counsel are co-operating with the commissioner, and the inquiry is progressing satisfactorily.
Supply-Labour
The hon. member for Lapointe, and later on the hon. member for Trois Rivieres, dealt with the jursidictional dispute, or rather the request for certification by one of the affiliates of the C.N.T.U. in connection with the activities of the C.B.C. A hearing took place on this matter, I think in or about December of last year, to which several unions were parties. The union affiliated with the C.N.T.U. first asked to be certified as the bargaining agent for French speaking employees in the province of Quebec, and later at the actual hearing amended their request to cover all the employees of the C.B.C. in Quebec.
This matter was considered at some length by the Canada Labour Relations Board and following precedents which it had built up over a period of 20 years, it decided that since C.B.C. activities were national in scope they were similar to those of railway and air line companies. On that ground it decided not to fragment the unions on the matter of bargaining. After all, the idea of bargaining is to try to get the best possible terms for employees, and the board felt it was more appropriate that the bargaining should be conducted by an organization that is national in scope rather than a regional organization.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to break into the train of thought of the minister at this point, but I am wondering whether we might recess for lunch at this time and then carry on. I do not usually make these suggestions, and I should like to expedite the business.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I appreciate the suggestion and I may say that no one would welcome a break at this time more than I, but because of the possibility of a supply motion this afternoon I should like to avoid any possibility of having these estimates go over to another day. I will shorten my remarks. I think this may be the most effective way of getting clear of the estimates of the Department of Labour.
Not only have briefs been submitted by the C.N.T.U., as pointed out by the hon. member for Lapointe and the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres last night, but also a very strong brief was presented by the C.L.C. and its affiliated organizations. Another brief was presented by the Teamsters' Union, representing many thousands of members in this country. I believe there are some 40,000-odd in the Teamsters' Union, 200,000 in the C.N.T.U., and 1,250,000 in the C.L.C. The

October 28, 1986
Supply-Labour
views ot these organizations have been heard and briefs are being considered by a committee of cabinet. I can tell all hon. members that there will be an early meeting of this cabinet committee, on which there are several representatives from the province of Quebec. The date of this meeting had been arranged before the hon. gentleman raised this question. There will be further discussion at that meeting and possibly decision, but I believe it is more likely there will be serious consideration of the arguments advanced previously by the three different interested groups.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question of the minister? Would the minister agree that when a dispute between the C.L.C. and C.N.T.U. is submitted to the C.L.R.B. and there are three members of the C.L.C. sitting on the board and only one member of the C.N.T.U., it is not completely fair to have such a dispute presented to that board.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The question the hon. member has just put is one of the very questions the cabinet committee of which I am a member will have to decide. I do not think it would be fitting for me to give an answer today to that question. I can assure him that the submissions he made last evening were put forward on a prior occasion by the representatives of the C.N.T.U. and there was an answer from the opposing group. Whether or not it was a satisfactory answer remains to be seen. There was, however, a strong reply put forward by the C.L.C. The arguments the hon. member advanced last night will be considered by the committee.
I think I have dealt with all points that were outstanding, because many of them were disposed of by the settlement of the disputes. I should now like to give the information that was requested by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition concerning the number of strikes and walk-outs and the number of days that were lost in the last five or six years. I have that information before me. In 1961 there were 1,335,000-odd man-days lost. In 1962 there were roughly 1,418,000 man-days lost; in 1963, 917,000 man-days; in 1964, 1,580,000; in 1965, 2,323,000. I will have to give the figures for this year by months. I have the figures for the first eight months. For the month of January the figure is 139,450; February, 237,920; March, 354,250; April, 441,130; May, 332,450; June, 389,730 and July, 812,720.


Mr. Dinsdale:: He is filibustering.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If answering a question asked by the leader of my friend's party is filibustering, then I am participating in a filibuster. I am giving the information asked for. I make no apology for the alleged filibustering under the circumstances. In respect of the figures requested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I am afraid I cannot furnish these today but I give him positive assurance that we will write him after we have checked with the workmen's compensation boards of the provinces and obtained necessary information.


David Orlikow: Before the minister finishes, Mr. Chairman, would he deal briefly with the question raised by the hon. member for York South last night? I know the minister realizes there is great concern about this matter in the labour movement right across Canada at the present time. Is the government giving active consideration to it and, if so, along what lines and when may we expect legislation from the government on the matter of injunctions, particularly ex parte injunctions?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I had intended to deal with this matter and I am glad to be reminded of it. The question of resort to the courts or rather the use of the injunction remedy in the courts in the case of labour disputes has become one of the most newsworthy items in the Canadian press in the last 12 months. From my experience as a lawyer I can only say that when you have a legal agreement and there is no remedy in damages it is open to either party under the law-and th;s has been so for several hundred years-to resort to the courts and request assistance by way of injunction. I would be the first to admit that in many cases injunctions have been granted on an ex parte basis without perhaps the depth of thought and debate in court that there should have been.
In many cases where injunctions are involved I think there would be a great deal of merit in what the hon. member for York South said last night about parties being called into court and having to testify before the judge and be cross-examined by the judge concerning the effect of the injunction, why it is necessary and the nature of it. There is a good deal of merit in this. I can only say that since this has been the law for many decades it is not something which is of easy solution. Even the constructive suggestions put forward by the hon. member for York South yesterday may not be the answer.
October 28, 1966

They may help in the same way the suggestions made by the Minister without Portfolio last night may be helpful. This is a matter which in my humble opinion should be referred to the task force headed by Dean Wood. He should be asked to develop it. This matter is not only of concern to members of this house in the federal field. As the hon. member for York South says, it is of more direct application in the provinces. Of the strikes to which reference was made yesterday I would say that nine out of 10 were strikes which came within the provincial domain. This matter involves consultation between the provinces and the federal government, and I think it is something the task force should be asked to direct their attention to on a priority basis.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring as briefly as possible to the minister's attention a matter which is of concern to a number of miners in my constituency in a particular community and surrounding area.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
I might say that these people were very disturbed when they learned through the press that this situation had developed. This story appeared in numerous newspapers, but I refer particularly to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, October 18 last:
Zinc Producers Cutting Output, Cite Oversupply.
Some oi Canada's zinc producers are cutting back production because of increasing inventories in the non-Communist world.
Cominco Ltd. of Montreal said it will close temporarily its HB mine at Salmo, B.C., beginning Nov. 1, because the industry has moved into a period of surplus supply.
The article goes on to mention other zinc producers who are contemplating similar action. The closing of this mine will affect about 100 miners and their families, some of whom have had their homes in Salmo and the surrounding area for a good many years and others are purchasing homes at the present time.
I am informed that the union and the community have entered a strong protest against the decision to close the mine with the company concerned and the minister of mines of the province of British Columbia. I believe that was their first step. I am also advised that Canada Manpower Service is taking an active interest in the developing situation at H.B. Mine which is due to close November 1 this year. I am informed that Mr. Bristo, the manager of this government 23033-5851
Supply-Labour
agency, has stated "that the manpower ability program will consider loans to the men, and resettle them at other points of employment". Mr. Bristo later said "that shifting the men to other places of employment could not be done indiscriminately, that there are men who have owned their homes for more than 10 years, and that they may not be able, or may not want to move." He went on to say that there are humanities to be considered as well as statistics and economic trends.
It is on those grounds that I appeal to the minister. The members of the union feel that the federal government has some responsibility in this matter, first because one of the main reasons given for subsidizing the building of the Pine Point Railway by the former Progressive Conservative government was to save foreign exchange. I quote from the minutes of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, No. 9, Thursday, September 21, 1961:


Mr. Baldwin:: Is it a fact that Consolidated Mining and Smelting have made it abundantly clear that they will require this addition of 215,000 tons down at Tadamac in order to maintain their operations at a proper economic level? Both the president and the others in Consolidated Mining and Smelting said that if this occurs in two or three years they may have to import from outside this country foreign concentrates.
Mr. Balcer, who was minister of transport at that time, replied as follows:
That is correct; the import of foreign concentrates would have meant the export of Canadian dollars to quite a heavy rate, and also it would have meant the lowering of production at Trail. Taking all these facts into account, I think this is a good venture for the Canadian economy.
The second reason for the objection of the union and the community is based on the knowledge that the Pine Point Mine, which is operated as a subsidiary of Cominco Ltd., still enjoys tax exemptions provided in the Income Tax Act. You cannot blame them for that. Naturally, as a result of these exemptions that mine can produce at a lower cost that the H.B. Mine at Salmo, B.C. Officials of this company have said they are closing the mine because of its higher cost of production.
It is on these grounds that the miners affected believe their lives are being disrupted indirectly as the result of federal government policies. They are very concerned about this fact. I have just received the following telegram from Mr. L. King, executive board member of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers' Union:
Urgently request meeting with appropriate government authorities in Ottawa concerning mine closures.

October 23. 1966
Supply-Labour
I know that the minister, who comes from British Columbia, will be very interested in this problem which, as it were, developed overnight. I am asking him whether he could arrange a meeting at the first opportunity among the appropriate government ministers or authorities and the representatives of the union, who intend coming to Ottawa, with a view to discussing this very urgent problem.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to assure the hon. member that I will bring his eloquent plea, one that from the humanitarian standpoint certainly merits consideration, to the attention of my colleagues the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Manpower. They perhaps have a more paramount interest than I do, although as a minister from British Columbia and as Minister of Labour especially I will gladly take this matter up with them and see what can be done about arranging a meeting at an early date.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact, in connection with the discussions that have taken place about the use of injunctions, that in my opinion the work that will be done in the weeks or perhaps the months directly ahead by former Mr. Justice Rand will certainly be very helpful. He has been appointed, as I think all hon. members know, as royal commissioner to look into the question of the use of injunctions. Because of his very broad background, his experience as an attorney general, subsequently as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada and as a conciliator and inquirer into important industrial disputes, his contribution to this study will be very worth while.
There is another matter I should have mentioned because it was raised twice by the hon. member for York-Humber. I refer to the question of shift differential for prevailing rate employees. I assure the hon. member that the Department of Labour has for years under my two predecessors, the hon. member for Ontario and the hon. member for In-verness-Richmond, and even earlier, strongly favoured a shift differential for prevailing rate employees. The difficulty in the particular case referred to by the hon. member for York-Humber is that the nurses involved are employed by other departments of government; they are civil servants. I hope that they will get help if they need it. Certainly when the collective bargaining legislation is adopted, they will be able to have their [Mr. HerridgeJ
viewpoints put forward in a very forcible way through the representatives they choose to take part in the discussions.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, just a few words about the remarks made a little earlier by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) when he dealt with the situation existing within the C.L.R.B. and about the right of association.
This morning when I asked the minister if the right of association would be respected, he told me that he could not take a decision himself but that he could make suggestions. I would like to know, therefore, if he intends to suggest to the cabinet that the C.B.C. employees should be free to choose their labour union, whether it is the French or the English section, it does not matter.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
There is at the present time the C.N.T.U. which represents workers. I understand that labour leaders can fight each other to get to represent the workers in their own way or according to the standards of their respective association. I understand that within the Canadian National Railways or Air Canada, the same labour union prevails throughout Canada. But if it is otherwise, as far as the C.B.C. television and radio networks are concerned, is the minister ready to suggest that the labour union freely chosen by the employees, not one imposed on them, be recognized? That is all the C.N.T.U. is asking for, nothing more.
There is another matter I should like to point out to the minister. He told us a while ago that in the last twelve months we have had to face rather difficult working conditions and strikes. It is true. Indeed, Air Canada barely avoided a strike. I should like to know whether the minister is aware of the fact that such Air Canada employees as did not strike, precisely because they had accepted the government proposals, have not yet received their retroactive salary increase. Has the increase they were granted been paid yet? Last week, at Dorval Airport, Air Canada employees asked me: When will the government pay us? We have been waiting for several months and the government does not seem to budge. That delay may again cause threats of strike at Air Canada.
I should now like to deal with another matter. The minister may tell me that it falls under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec. I am referring to the General Motors
October 28, 1966

plants at Sainte-Therese, where an automobile workers strike is under way at present. The main reason for this strike is the wage differential existing between automobile workers at Sainte-Therese, as compared to the workers at Oshawa, in the province of Ontario. Even though this is a field of provincial jurisdiction, I feel the Minister of Labour could at least meet with the officials, the senior officials of the General Motors company and ask them to explain why wages are lower in Quebec. Quebec automobile workers at Sainte-Therese get lower pay to do exactly the same type of work as their counterparts in Oshawa, Ontario, who nevertheless get higher pay.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that, under such circumstances, the federal Minister of Labour could at least suggest to the General Motors company to deal with its employees on an equal footing in all provinces. The cost of living is just as high in Quebec as in Ontario; it is also high in the other provinces. The family bread-winner must face up to his responsibilities at Sainte-Therese de Blain-ville just like in Oshawa or Toronto.
In such instances, we are not asking the government to dictate wages, but to make General Motors officials realize that they must, whenever possible, grant equal consideration to their employees in all provinces.
Those are the few remarks I wished to make for the minister's information.
Last evening we heard the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) express his admiration for the member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), the minister's parliamentary secretary. I intended to bring up the matter, but I shall let it go at that for now.
Mr. Chairman, I called the minister's attention to those few points and I would ask him to tell us what his officials and himself can do in order to settle strikes which, as I know, are more the concern of the provincial department of labour, but which might be settled more easily with some help from Ottawa.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, may I deal with the three matters raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve? I will reverse the order and answer the last one first because it is still fresh in my memory.
First, let me say that I do have some knowledge of the problem regarding the auto workers at Ste-Therese. I am sorry to say
Supply-Labour
that the strike has been in progress for several weeks. A request for parity in wages has been put forward by the union lawyers, or at least for a narrowing of the gap in the 'wages of different employees of the company. I think the hon. member would be the first one to appreciate that it would be rather difficult for the federal Minister of Labour to inject himself into a dispute of this nature, which is solely within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. However, I can give the hon. member the assurance that I will get in touch with the provincial minister of labour and if he thinks I can be of assistance I will do whatever is possible, but only at his request and with his full approval.
With regard to the situation of the Air Canada employees and the statement that they have not received some retroactive pay which is coming to them, I have had no previous knowledge of it but I will look into the matter. However, perhaps the explanation lies in the answer given this morning by the Minister of Transport in connection with the railway employees. The minister gave an assurance that the pay would be retroactive. I understand that all the cheques to the railway workers are to go out before the end of November. Whether or not the same situation exists in this case I do not know but I will bring the matter to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Transport.
With regard to the first question put to me by the hon. member with a smile on his face, namely, whether I intend to make a recommendation on the C.N.T.U.-C.L.C. dispute, I think the hon. member, who has been in this house longer than I, knows that it would not be proper for me to say whether or not I have made a recommendation because one never knows what will be the cabinet's decision. To commit oneself might be an indication of a lack of unanimity in the cabinet. However, I will keep in mind the arguments that were put forward by the hon. member for Villeneuve and by others both last night and today and I can assure him they will be fully considered by my cabinet colleagues and myself.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say to the minister that I was bitterly disappointed by the answer he gave to my question with regard to the government's intention concerning the amendment of the law having to do with ex parte injunctions used in labour disputes in general. I have had some knowledge and experience of the pace at which the

October 28, 1966
Supply-Labour
task force moves. After all, this government is not the first one to have appointed Dean Woods, for whom I have a great deal of respect, to look into labour management problems. Dean Woods was appointed by the Conservative government of Manitoba to look into labour management problems there and, if my memory serves me correctly, I believe that was two years ago. To my knowledge the number of recommendations of any import which the Dean Woods committee has made in Manitoba could be written on the head of a pin. If we have to wait that length of time for answers from Dean Woods on the question of injunctions, then I can tell the Minister of Labour that there will be more strikes, more picketing and more people in jail long before Dean Woods comes up with a recommendation.
I also wish to say that I expect we will get a good report from Mr. Justice Rand. His work in the field of labour relations is of great importance. Years ago he made some very valuable recommendations. It seems odd to me that when the minister spoke he was so careful to point out that this is a difficult question which will take time and a great deal of effort. After all the Minister without Portfolio, who according to press reports is a man with a future in the Liberal party and one of the possible future leaders of his party, did not think it a very difficult matter. He made a great speech at the recent Liberal convention. Perhaps the speech he made and the resolutions which were passed at that convention were of no greater importance than those which were passed on bilingualism for civil servants which the Prime Minister pushed aside as being of little consequence.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
I have here a report from the Toronto Telegram for October 12, 1966. I should like to read a couple of paragraphs from it which summarize the kind of thing the Minister without Portfolio said at that conference:
The federal Liberal party voted today to abolish ex parte injunctions as part of a daring program of labour reform aimed at winning workers votes.
In a hectic marathon session that ended at 1.30 am the party endorsed a senes of resolutions presented by Minister without Portfolio John Turner The program involves a revolutionary approach to labour-management disputes.
Then the article goes on to outline what happened at the Liberal convention in these words:
In outlining it. Mr. Turner, the youngest and one of the fastest rising members of the cabinet, urged the party to recognize the need ''to modernize the whole method of handling labour disputes."

He stressed the Liberal party must "draw deeply from the rank and file of the labour movement".
It is the first major speech the young minister has made to the party since joining the cabinet. Some observers interpret it as an unofficial entry into the party leadership sweepstakes.
The hon. member for Hamilton East is quoted in this article as saying:
The whole weight of this program will be to render injunctions unnecessary.
Then I find this in the article:
"I'm ashamed that this convention has assumed so little time for the cause of labour.. .that we can't find more than half an hour to devote to the working man," shouted Verdun M.P. Bryce Mackasey.
The convention passed a resolution to the effect that the Liberal party favoured wiping out ex parte injunctions. It is not surprising that that is the attitude they take when you consider the matter because, after all, what are ex parte injunctions? I think the minister will agree with me when I say ex parte injunctions are a complete contradiction of the basic principle of British justice under which every person who is accused of a crime has a right to a hearing on the charges against him and to make a defence.
What is an ex parte injunction? The employer, or the lawyer for the employer, who is well paid, of course, goes before a judge with an affidavit alleging that certain things have happened. There is no questioning of the person who makes the affidavit and the person against whom the allegations are made is not present. The judge issues an ex parte injunction either prohibiting the right to picket or limiting that right very sharply for four days. At the end of four days the strike may have been lost.
Without going into the question of the use of injunctions in labour disputes, as my colleague the member for York South did last night, in my opinion there is no reasonable defence of ex parte injunctions except one, and that one is very important to the Liberal party with its close connections with big business interests in this country. I refer to the fact that ex parte injunctions are very useful to employers who want to smash strikes. I suggest to the minister that despite the fact the Minister without Portfolio made such an impassioned speech to the Liberal party convention, despite the fact the Liberal party convention passed the resolution, it is going to be a long time before this minister introduces any legislation such as that promised by the Liberal party convention.
October 28, 1966

What about injunctions in general, Mr. Chairman? I am not going to repeat the very reasoned arguments advanced by the hon. member for York South. It may be that the minister will disagree with me, but I believe there is no room at all for the use of injunctions in labour disputes. I am not a lawyer and it may be that I do not realize all the ramifications, but I believe that if there is difficulty on the picket line, if a picketer breaks a law or intimidates somebody, if a picketer uses violence against somebody, we do not need an injunction because he can be charged under the Criminal Code.
I say, therefore, that I see no useful purpose being served in labour disputes by injunctions. However, even if the minister and the government do not agree, why could the government not introduce very soon the kind of legislation recommended in the most practical and very moderate suggestions made by the hon. member for York South? What is happening in this country is that, although under the law of the federal and provincial governments workers have a right to strike, although under the provisions of the Criminal Code workers have a right to picket when they are on strike, the courts are more and more limiting the right to picket. I do not want to be critical or use unparliamentary language, but I suggest it is no accident that none of the judges in our courts have had much experience with labour-management relations. Most of them have a great deal more experience in corporation law than they have in labour matters. What would have been considered legal picketing five years ago is now, by one ruling after another of the courts in Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia, becoming illegal.
I suggest to the minister that the recent actions of the Ontario courts and the recent actions of the British Columbia courts in sending people to jail for periods up to six months, whose only offence was that they exercised what they considered was a legal right to picket, are not likely to help produce an atmosphere of friendship between labour and management. On the contrary, it is going to worsen labour-management relations. It must inevitably create a feeling amongst union members and their leaders that the only way in which they can achieve their aims is to be militant and tough. This is particularly true because labour union members and people in general in this country now have gone to school long enough to be able to read. When they compare the attitude of the courts
Supply-Labour
and the way our courts deal with workers involved in strikes or disputes with management with the way in which the courts deal with management when it consistently breaks the law-I refer to the anti-combines law-it is not surprising that the workers are beginning to feel there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
After all, Mr. Chairman, the secretary of the Vancouver Labour Council has been sentenced to a jail term of six months, I believe, because he broke the law. He ignored a court order not to picket. We have four large companies in this country, Bathurst Paper, St. Lawrence Corporation and Hinde and Dauch, which on two occasions to my knowledge have been convicted of violating the anti-combine laws. I have only named three of the four. In the case of the secretary of the Vancouver Labour Council and the others convicted in the Lenkurt case, as well as those convicted in the Tilco case in Peterborough, the government prosecuted the charges and asked for severe sentences. The courts co-operated and Mr. Justice Gale made a very eloquent observation as to the rights-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, who has participated in this debate on at least two other occasions, but he is now talking about a purely provincial matter. The processes of law were initiated by the provincial authorities. The federal government had no part to play in those cases at all. I submit that it is a waste of the time of this house for the hon. member to make statements of this kind which have reference to other jurisdictions.


David Orlikow: What the minister says is true, Mr. Chairman, but what I said earlier is that the cases I mentioned are not likely to be the last. The minister should listen to his colleague, the Minister without Portfolio, who presented an eloquent argument in this regard. He should also read the speech made by the hon. member for York South last night. That hon. gentleman said that if the federal government would amend the Criminal Code we would not have a recurrence of the type of prosecution to which I referred.
I should like to urge the minister to take appropriate action in this regard and I urge him to pay attention to what has been said by the Minister without Portfolio. The Minister of Labour may be convinced that what I am saying is nonsense, but what I have said

October 28, 1966
Supply-Labour
is in effect a repetition of what his colleague said. That hon. gentleman did not suggest that a study which would take a year or two should be made but that some action should be taken now.
The cases to which I referred fell within provincial jurisdiction under the anti-combine laws, but I believe the working people would be a good deal more sympathetic toward these laws if the directors of the violating companies were also given jail sentences.
I cannot understand why the minister was so upset, because the prosecution of violators of the anti-combine laws seems to be one of the jewels in the Liberal party's crown. This statute is apparently considered by that party as an outstanding achievement. The government should ask the courts to impose jail sentences on the directors of the violating companies. If workers violate court injunctions and are sent to jail, then directors who violate injunctions should receive the same treatment. Surely that is a reasonable suggestion.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have abused the privileges to which I am entitled or my rights as a member of this house in speaking two or three times during this debate.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to comment at any length in reply to the hon. gentleman. I have already put my views forward and that should be sufficient. The hon. member began by saying that he was bitterly disappointed at the minister's earlier statement. Let me say, however, that I am not aware of a single statement made by a member of this government or the former government during the more than four years I have been here about which the hon. member has not been disappointed.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity, during examination of the estimates of the Department of Labour, to remind the minister (Mr. Nicholson) that the federal labour legislation is no longer adequate, having regard to the development of labour rights and industrial techniques.
I know that the minister and his department are considering admendments and probably readjustments, but the government will have to speed up those studies and hasten the decisions, before the outbreak of violent conflicts in this country. We find that, especially during the past few years, Canadian workers have become truly dynamic and that they are

organizing within their framework, in a more peaceful atmosphere, let us hope, between the leaders and the various local units.
We see, for example, that at the beginning of 1966, the total number of union members in Canada reached 1,736,000, that is an increase of 9.3 per cent over the previous year. The unionized workers represent 30.7 per cent of all non agricultural salaried workers and 24.5 per cent of the total labour force in Canada.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
Locals of the Canadian Labour Congress have an aggregate total of 1,282,000 members, that is 74 per cent of all union members.
The Confederation of National Trade Unions, better known as the C.N.T.U., numbers 188,000, which represents 11 per cent of all union members.
These figures, already submitted by the hon. minister on behalf of his department, show that Canadian workers are organizing rapidly and that they represent a very important and very substantial part of the labour force. Therefore, our labour legislation -particularly federal legislation dealing with federal government employees-should be adequate, more up-to-date and should correspond more closely to the needs of Canadian workers. It was noticed, during certain strikes this year, particularly the longshoremen and railway employee strikes-mention is at present being made of a conflict between Post Office Department employees and their employer-that there are deficiencies in negotiation procedures, which ordinarily precede any strike action by the workers, and that nothing was provided to prevent these wide-ranging strikes which necessarily paralyse the Canadian economy.
This afternoon, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk to the minister mainly about a conflict which puts the C.N.T.U. in a very difficult and unfortunate situation. The problem dates back several months, to January 1966, I believe. The C.N.T.U. has serious grievances against the decisions of the Canada Labour Relations Board. I am not saying that the government did not deal with that problem, but I feel that the solution or decision is too long in coming. As a matter of fact, the cabinet was able, as far back as February 16 last, to receive a C.N.T.U. delegation which proved that its demands and complaints were justified. And since February 1966, the government has been making studies, according to its own statements. I am not against the ministers and the government studying seriously the various problems submitted to
October 28, 1966

them, but I think that they are taking too long. Eight months ago, a ministerial committee was set up precisely to study, find a solution and probably anticipate amendments to the Labour Relations Act with regard to the justified grievances of the C.N.T.U. Mr. Chairman, eight months is a considerable length of time and no decision has been announced yet and the Canadian public, not only the workers who are members of the C.N.T.U. and of all other labour unions, but the Canadian public wonder about the slowness with which decisions are made and solutions to those serious problems are found.
This cabinet committee was created, but did it sit frequently? I understand that the minister informed the house the other day that he had had to wait for some time for the translation of the briefs. I believe that the minister should take certain initiatives when organizations or groups delay in presenting such briefs to the cabinet committee in both official languages. The problem has reached a crucial point, perhaps the point where it is going to explode, which I do not desire, but recently we have had the leaders of the C.N.T.U. state that, failing a quick and immediate cabinet decision, the C.N.T.U. would consider withdrawing from all federal agencies where it represents at present several thousand federal employees.
That would be a most regrettable decision, and I think this situation will probably occur if the government continues to procrastinate. The government should not study the matter too long, and the word "study" should not be used to delay decisions. To use an old cliche the departments should not resort to an ostrich policy.
I was reading recently a humorous book which we have here in the library, called Le Jacassin and written by a Frenchman from France, on definitions of politicians and political institutions. I found the following sentence excellent: The ostrich is the only animal highly endowed with political acumen.
Mr. Chairman, if, faced with great problems and complex demands, the government hides its head in the sand, on pretext of thinking and studying, and if these studies take months, the government is, in fact, resorting to an ostrich policy which it should abandon in several fields.
We have raised the question of the C.N.T.U. these last few days and particularly this week, because representatives of the union met with parliamentary representatives
Supply-Labour
in room 112N last Tuesday night. As legislators responsible for the settlement of the problems of Canadian workers, it is important that we take the opportunity today of dealing with the matter in detail with the hon. minister, and that we ask and wait for at least an assurance from him that this matter will be dealt with quickly.
The C.N.T.U. protested particularly against a decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board. The union has protested against several decisions, the first one, when it sent representatives to Ottawa last February concerning a group of C.B.C. employees in Montreal.
The Canada Labour Relations Board refuses to recognize the C.N.T.U. as a bargaining unit, because that labour union according to the interpretation of the Canada Labour Relations Board, would not represent a bargaining unit from the national point of view.
That decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board is a gross discrimination because that federal organization refuses to recognize the freedom of the individual, the freedom of the workers. It is neither for the government nor for a government agency to establish the top of these ministerial preoccupations, labour structures into which, later on, the workers might be integrated. No, it is a basic right, the basic right for a worker to choose with his colleagues, the union which will represent him. It is up to the worker to constitute those unions, to decide their composition and their extension.
In some countries there is a turn of mind which is similar to the stand and the interpretation of the Canada Labour Relations Board. For instance we know that if we put the question in the political context, in Russia there is only one political party. I think that a Russian citizen can become a candidate, but a candidate within a single party. In Russia, that is a national unit, from the political point of view.
So, is this the type of philosophy that the Canada Labour Relations Board wishes to perpetuate in Canada-allow only one bargaining unit at the national level? While our country can, in all respects, cultural as well as economic, be divided into five main districts, and into many other districts in some respects, it is inconceivable, in view of the Canadian mosaic itself, that the bargaining units shall be limited on the national level, when section 2 (3) of the Industrial Relations

October 28, 1966
Supply-Labour
and Disputes Investigation Act should be amended.
That is the conclusion the government should reach: amend, define and clarify subsection 3 of section 2 of the Act, in order to allow bargaining units at the national, local and administrative levels. This policy would be consistent with the changes occurring in labour legislation and mean a recognition of the labour union freedom. And this policy would dissipate so many conflicts that already exist or are looming ahead.
I hope the minister will take into serious consideration the suggestions submitted by several members.
Other grievances arise at the Canadian Labour Relations Board. The C.N.T.U. representatives complained that the proceedings and discussions within the federal organization were in English only. Now, I understand that the minister, quite recently, in answer to a question I put to him in this house, said that there had been simultaneous translation at the last hearing; I conclude that was not very long ago.
Well, that is not enough. That is not the only thing we want. We want consecration, recognition and practice of true bilingualism in all federal organizations in Ottawa, not only in parliament, not only in the house or in the senate, but in all federal organizations.
I think that the government should consider itself duty bound to appoint to those important commissions which should promote the development of harmony between Canadians instead of dissension-
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I rise on a point of order. We are discussing the estimates of the Department of Labour, not an anticipated report of the commission on bilingualism and bicul-turalism. I have tried to refrain from interrupting but for the last several minutes we have been discussing matters which are certainly not germane to the Department of Labour.


Maurice Allard: and another important Canadian labour union had three, whereas there were three representatives of the employers and the chairman.
Now, that it has a single voice, the three representatives of another large labour union or labour group are in favour.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
And we know it because Mr. Jodoin does not hesitate to hold press conferences to say that the negotiation unit must be interpreted as it is now because it suits the labour union which he has been representing for many years and because he is aware also that this is choking the rival labour unions, the C.N.T.U. for instance.
As Mr. Claude Ryan put it so well, the membership of the Labour Relations Board constitutes a real denial of justice when the members are called upon to make a decision.
Therefore, the interpretation of negotiation unit which appears in section 2 (3) should be redefined. The membership and structure of the Canada Labour Relations Board should also be revised.
I am asking the minister to be kind enough to consider those claims. He should not wait for the conflict to get worse. We have met federal members from Quebec belonging to all parties. Last Tuesday evening, the C.N.T.U. officials were accompanied by other radio and television people, and we could feel that this particular trade union was suffering deeply. And when these officials had threatened a few days earlier to withdraw from federal organizations, if justice was not rendered according to their claims, we sincerely believed that they would make good their threat.
This, to my mind, would be a backward step for Canadian workers' vital interests as well as for federal employees, and also a backward step in the national union and good harmony which must be encouraged and furthered in this country.
In the labour field, as in many other areas, cultural duality comes to the surface, it comes so much to light that when the C.N.T.U. representing a group of employees on the French network of C.B.C., was not granted union recognition by the Canada Labour Relations Board, the Montreal employees of the French network, together with labour leaders of the C.N.T.U., whom we well know, realized they would enjoy greater security and could better improve their working conditions, in accordance with their culture, by adhering to the C.N.T.U. labour union rather than to the national union and,
Supply-Labour
thus being affiliated to international unions who were not much concerned about or, probably, not at all interested in the duality of cultures and particular problems arising in the province of Quebec, which is a province different from the others, not only from the economic and administrative point of view, but from the labour view point, where culture and language at work are concerned.
Those who sat on the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, and who had the opportunity to ask numerous questions to witnesses who appeared, Mr. Ouimet, among others, when he was president of the C.B.C. received answers which brought out the fact that, for similar programs, on the French and the English networks, more money was spent on the English network than on the French network. And we were given the opportunity, while meeting with employees of the C.B.C. French network in Montreal, to realize the problems they had to face as French Canadians and employees of the C.B.C. Well, it is this attitude which the C.N.T.U. reflected. And the C.L.R.B. still refuses to grant it the right to negotiate for these people.
I hope the hon. minister, at the very beginning of next week, now that the ministerial committee has received the documents, and translation of a certain number of other documents, will use its influence-


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up.


Mr. Barneil:: Mr. Chairman, when I checked yesterday's Hansard this morning it became obvious to me that for some reason part of what I had to say last night was almost completely unintelligible to the reporter and I would ask the indulgence of the committee to put the record straight. I understand that during the time when I was called out of the house for a little while today the minister did make some comment on what I had said. I only hope that when I read today's Hansard I will find he commented on what I said, not on what I was reported as having said.
As reported at page 9211 of Hansard, about the middle of the first column, I was making some reference to a situation involving the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union. Commencing at that point in my remarks I would like to repeat something of what I said last night. What I did say was along these lines: Earlier this year some of the members of that union went to

October 28, 196S
Supply-Labour
jail because they refused to work on a statutory holiday as prescribed by the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. In view of the obscurity so far as the words relating to the definition of employer are concerned, I think some explanation should be given at this time as to what changes in the law the government has in mind to prevent a recurrence of this situation.
It is my understanding that the minister at one time assured us that if this matter was not resolved through a process of collective bargaining he would take it upon himself to bring in, for the consideration of parliament, amendments to the code to alleviate this situation. It is also my understanding that negotiations resulted in a new agreement between the longshoremen and the employers on the west coast which did not deal with this question of statutory holidays. At this time I should like to ask the minister when he expects to introduce appropriate amendments to cover this situation.
Perhaps the minister will also indicate what progress is being made by the commission which was appointed to look into the difficulties being experienced in the St. Lawrence River area regarding manning and so forth. This whole subject was left unsettled following the settlement of the strike which took place there this year. It would be beneficial if we received some progress report in this regard from the minister.
I should also like to hear from the minister a progress report on what he described as a taskforce operating under the leadership of Dean Woods of McGill University. For a long time, certainly since before the present minister assumed office, we have been told that proposed amendments to the present Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act have been under consideration. Surely by now the minister can tell us when the government will have proposals ready to place before parliament.
When the minister is replying on this matter perhaps he can relate his comments to the suggestions made earlier by the hon. member for York South concerning special railway and transport labour legislation.
Having made those comments or corrections, Mr. Chairman, before I resume my seat I would also like to suggest to the minister my own personal view that his estimates for next year might perhaps be profitably referred to the committee on labour and employment so that a study of the estimates can

be made of a somewhat different nature than has been possible during this calendar year, which I am sure most of us will agree has been a rather turbulent one in his department. I am sure we all hope that next year we may have a suitable opportunity to enter into a more detailed study of the operations of his department such as could be given in a standing committee. It would serve to increase our understanding and perhaps produce some useful suggestions from members as to how operations of his department might be more profitable in the future.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, we all can benefit from experience. I most certainly agree, this being the fifth or sixth occasion that we have had on these estimates, that it might be more profitable to refer them to the committee. I also share the hon. member's hope that labour-management relations will be in a little quieter tempo next year than they were this year.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I spoke about the problem raised and created by the Canada Labour Relations Board which deprived some workers, some citizens of Quebec and Canada of their freedom to choose their own representation and bargaining unit.
Well, I have here a news release from the Department of Labour, No. 6475, dated October 21, 1966, and entitled: "Canada Labour Relations Board orders representation vote by C.B.C. production employees". Those are the employees who, at the end of 1965 or the beginning of 1966, asked the Canada Labour Relations Board to allow them to change their bargaining union and give their allegiance to a new labour union which, at that time, was affiliated to the C.N.T.U.
I will now read the news release, Mr. Chairman, because I think that it should be put on record to prove the bad faith of the Canada Labour Relations Board in that particular case. I quote:
The Minister of Labour, Honourable John R. Nicholson, announced today that the Canada Labour Relations Board has ordered that a representation vote be taken of certain employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at various centres across Canada who are affected by an application for certification made to the Board by the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
October 28, 1966

It is the Canadian union of public employees that asked for a vote on the matter of representation. I will now resume reading the news release:
The Board directed that the names of the applicant union and also the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada,
Known as the I.A.T.S.E.
which presently holds a collective agreement with the C.B.C. covering the employees in the bargaining unit involved, should appear on the ballot.
The board requested that the names of those two unions, that is the one which is asking to represent the C.B.C. employees and the I.A.T.S.E. which formerly represented the C.B.C. employees, be entered on the ballot.
I now resume reading the news release:
The decision of the board followed a two-day public hearing of the parties concerned on September 7 and 8, 1966, during which the Board received evidence and argument put forward by the two unions whose names will appear on the ballot, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as the respondent employer, and also two other intervening unions. Syndicate general du cinema et de la television (C.N.T.U.), and the Canadian Wire Service Guild Local 213 of the American Newspaper Guild.
I will come back to the news release a little later. Right now I would like to point out that the union affiliated to the C.N.T.U. is not allowed to have its name on the ballot. The C.B.C. employees are not allowed to choose between all the competing unions, especially when the Syndicat general du cinema et de la t&evision, affiliated to the C.N.T.U., indicated on behalf of the C.B.C. employees, about ten months ago or so, that they wanted to be represented precisely by the S.G.C.T. affiliated to the C.N.T.U.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that there is bad faith and something abnormal in this case.
Here is another quotation from that news release:
The application affected 1,584 employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Of these 1,200 are employed in Montreal and Toronto, and the remainder at nine locations from Vancouver, B.C., to Corner Brook and St. John's, Nfld. The group consists of production employees employed in 53 job classifications including such classifications as set designer, graphic designer, carpenter, painter, film editor, film cameraman, make-up artist, costume designer, seamstress, film librarian, and stagehand.
Mr. Chairman, there are 1,584 employees within the C.B.C. in the various categories I have just mentioned in the news release, some of them working for the French network and some for the English network.
Supply-Labour
As was so well mentioned by those I quoted, namely Gerard Pelletier, responsible for an article in the January 26, 1966 issue of the Montreal Star, and Jean-Marc Leger, in an editorial in Le Devoir of January 24, 1966, there are social and cultural differences between the French network employees and those of the English network. I quoted from articles of those two gentlemen, one of which is a full-time journalist, and the other less so, to the effect that there are regional, social and cultural differences between the two networks.
And yet the Canada Labour Relations Board insists on denying the employees of the C.B.C. French network the right to choose their union freely, and this is shown once more in the press release of the Department of Labour dated October 21, 1966, which I have just quoted.
Several months ago, on the insistence of the C.B.C. employees, the C.N.T.U. asked to represent them as bargaining agent. The vote of the employees was rejected at that time. They were plainly dissatisfied with their union. Another body, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, sent to the Canada Labour Relations Board a request for certification as bargaining agent of the C.B.C. employees. Since the C.B.C. employees were still dissatisfied with their former union, I.A.T.S.E., the Canada Labour Relations Board ordered a representation vote to be taken among C.B.C. production employees, the very same workers who, ten months earlier, had been refused permission to choose a new union because it was affiliated to the C.N.T.U. Today, they have now been allowed to do so, because this is another union, but affiliated to the C.L.C. in the same way as I.A.T.S.E.
Mr. Chairman, I feel, and you will undoubtedly agree with me, that this is completely out of keeping with union freedom. Does freedom for the employees to choose their own union mean that they are free to choose only among those unions affiliated to the C.L.C. and that they will no longer be free to choose among unions affiliated to the C.N.T.U.? I am not against the C.L.C. in any way; no. All I want to do is stand up for union freedom and freedom of choice for the workers, whatever their trade or their field of endeavour. They should be free to choose their union.
I am not favouring the C.N.T.U. over the C.L.C. Not at all. I am standing up for the C.B.C. employee, who must be left free to choose his own negotiating unit, whether it

October 28/ 196&
Supply-Labour
be a C.L.C. unit or a C.N.T.U. unit. In the present case, the C.B.C. employee is not free to choose, since only two names are allowed to appear on the ballot, namely, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. These are the only two names permitted. And even though the Syndicat general du cinema et de la television affiliated to the C.N.T.U. made the same request on two occasions to the Canada Labour Relations Board, the name of the Syndicat general du cinema et de la Television is not allowed on the ballot.
Mr. Chairman, we wish to protest against such a situation. The minister admitted a while ago that the C.N.T.U. had voiced some protests following the decision by the Canada Labour Relations Board and he stated that following these protests, a committee headed by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) had been set up within the cabinet to study the question. Several times during the last few months, we have asked the committee if it was ready to report on its study sessions. The committee appointed by the cabinet has been studying the problem for eight months.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a question of privilege affecting the rights and privileges of every member of this house. As is well known, under the rules the discussion of estimates and supply motions is limited to a very few days. There are 265 members of th's house and each one of them is entitled to the opportunity to take part in this discussion. I have raised no objection to the hon. member for Lapointe talking as often as he likes, but when he is now repeating the same arguments that he advanced at length last night on two different occasions I submit that he is abusing the privileges of members of this house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour has just said that I spoke yesterday on two occasions. That is not exactly in accordance with the facts, because I spoke only on one occasion; the other time it was on a question of privilege, in order to rectify some erronous translation given by the Chair. Therefore, I shall ask the Minister of Labour not to mislead this house by saying that I spoke on two occasions. Yesterday, I only

spoke on one occasion on the subject and I shall ask the Minister of Labour to correct his statement so as not to mislead the house. Besides, he just has to check in yesterday's Hansard to realize that I am strictly telling the truth.
Now, I am not repeating what I said yesterday, I am only following up the argument mentioned at noon by the Minister of Labour following my intervention yesterday, and I am just coming to that after a summary of new developments, mainly the press release of the Minister of Labour that was published recently and that I did not have in hand yesterday, since I obtained it only this morning, and after hearing the Minister of Labour answer the arguments I put forward yesterday, I am simply coming back to that.
In my opinion, the Minister of Labour would be very ill-advised to suggest that I am delaying uselessly the business of the house, because I am certainly not the one to have taken up most of the 52 hours allowed for the study of the estimates of various departments.
As I was saying, the Minister of Labour told us this afternoon that the committee set up by the cabinet would submit its report shortly. Well, I say to the minister that we have been expecting that report for the past eight months without getting it. If the ministerial committee appointed to look fully into-the matter raised today, namely that the Canada Labour Relations Board may have flouted the union freedom of Quebec workers, can wait eight months before correcting that situation, I feel that members of the house can take at least one day to protest against the activities of Canada Labour Relations Board and also against the slowness of the minister and of the committee appointed to inquire into the fact that the union freedom of workers is being flouted. If the minister can take eight months to consider such a problem, I feel a member can take one hour to protest against the incomprehensible and unjustifiable slowness of the ministers in looking into a problem involving union freedom and individual freedom.
Mr. Chairman, I moved an amendment yesterday. Besides, the minister told us, I believe, that the cabinet committee was expected to submit its report shortly. I say, therefore, that the estimates of the Department of Labour should not be passed until the committee of ministers has reported on the problem now being raised in the house.
October 28, 1966

Those estimates, and especially item one, should not be passed as long as the ministerial committee set up to study that problem has not submitted its report.
Why? Because the first item precisely reads as follows:
Administration of the Industrial Relations Act.
And it is precisely under this legislation that the Canada Labour Relations Board operates and that it will cost the Canadian taxpayer in 1966-67 the total amonut of $594,900, with the salaries of officials and administrators accounting for $367,000.
Well, Mr. Chairman, if an item of $594,900 is passed to enable the Canada Labour Relations Board to encroach upon the rights of Canadian workers, then I say that it is the right, the duty and not only the privilege of any member of this house to protest and refuse to vote the necessary estimates for the operation of this Canada Labour Relations Board, if this Board uses public funds to encroach upon the union freedom of the people.
Mr. Chairman, this amount is included in item No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Labour and 1 want to protest against the fact that today an amount of $594,900 will be passed to pay for the expenses of the Canada Labour Relations Board.
On the contrary, I believe those estimates should stand and should not be approved before the cabinet committee, appointed especially to deal with this problem, reports on it. And that is the reason why I should like to present a motion similar to that of yesterday, but which is in order this time. Unfortunately, my motion is in French only and hand-written; I have no copy, since an adequate staff is not always available when it is necessary to get such things done quickly. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe):
That the amount mentioned in vote No. 1 under the item "Administration of the Industrial Relations Act" be reduced to $1.
The purpose of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is not too reduce the salary of the hon. minister to $1, not to reduce the other amounts in vote No 1 to $1, but merely the amounts mentioned under the item "Administration of the Industrial Relations Act". Its purpose is precisely to implement this act governing the Canada Labour Relations Board and I do not believe we should vote an amount of $594,900 for the Canada Labour
Supply-Labour
Relations Board. I even believe $1 is too much for what this Canada Labour Relations Board has done.
Mr. Chairman, I know the question is being considered by the ministerial committee, but I feel that this committee has delayed enough already. We have just learned from the hon. minister that the report of the committee is about to be tabled. But nevertheless, as I said before, I do not think that we will be able to pass the item that I wish to have reduced at the present time, before the ministerial committee tables its report.
In concluding my comments, I would simply say that the ministerial committee is still considering the situation and I would like to refer its members to two paragraphs of a brief presented to the committee by the C.N.T.U. Paragraph 34 reads as follows:
It is unbelievable that the Canadian parliament would appoint such an organization (C.L.R.B.) whose aim it would be to grant privileges to one union.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
It is unthinkable that the federal cabinet would remain a helpless witness to such a glaring violation of the right of association: it is unthinkable that the cabinet would be helpless before such a staggering inconsistency.
And in paragraph 35, I also wish to quote the following sentence:
Judicial equality before the law cannot be denied. Groups of workers cannot be forced to become members of decaying unions, under the pretext that they are established "coast to coast".
I will end my comments by quoting Marcel Pepin, general president of the C.N.T.U., who says in the preface to a small booklet entitled "Trade Unionism and freedom at C.B.C.":
The French network of the C.B.C. is, for all practical purposes, established exclusively in Quebec. Employees of the French network, dissatisfied at being represented by a far-away union which is practically unknown to them, inefficient, unable to understand them, and unable to provide them with a framework wherein they can really express themselves, have decided to withdraw from the organization which holds them prisoners and join the C.N.T.U., which will give them the opportunity to run their own affairs.
So, they say to themselves, why could not a French network, which is for all practical purposes a distinct section from the standpoint of language, working procedures, administration, geographical situation, personnel, concentration of manpower in one area of the country, why could it not be considered as an appropriate negotiation unit? No answers the C.L.R.B. It would be in accordance with reason, the workers' will, and the principle of union freedom, but the Canada Labour Relations Board (three to one) is against this.

October 28, 1966
Supply-Labour
These are my final observations, Mr. Chairman. I hope the hon. Minister of Labour will take my comments into consideration when he reports for the cabinet committee.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Mr. Gregoire moves:
That the amount referred to in Item No. 1 entitled "Administration of the Industrial Relations Act" be reduced to $1.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Maurice Rinfret: The question is on the amendment. Those in favour please say yea.

Is the hon. member for Sherbrooke rising to vote or to address the committee?


Maurice Allard: I wish to say a few words, make a few remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) was actually standing before you called the vote.


Maurice Rinfret: I have just recognized the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard). I ask the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) to resume his seat.


Maurice Allard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the hon. member for Villeneuve for providing me with an opportunity to submit a few remarks on this amendment.
As was very ably explained by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), it is not so much a matter of reducing the minister's salary, but rather to emphasize the importance of the problem caused by labour relations between unions such as the C.N.T.U. and others, and the Canadian government and federal agencies.
This afternoon I had an opportunity to speak on item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Labour. I do not want to be redundant with the same remarks. However, I have just been informed that, in my Sherbrooke riding, a small group of union members who do not belong to the C.N.T.U. have presumedly raised a strong protest against the stand I took recently in the House of Commons, with regard to the grievances

raised by the C.N.T.U., and last Tuesday night, in room 112N, they came to meet the labour leaders of the C.N.T.U.
Well, I want to say that I am not at all interested, Mr. Chairman, in disputes between labour unions when I endorse the views and support the grievances presented by unions on matters of principle, on the freedom of the worker, on the individual freedom, on the fulfilment of the worker's right, which he exercises through any union whatsoever.
I want to say clearly in this house that I am not the defender of the C.N.T..U, the C.L.C. or the F.Q.W., no matter the initials. It is a matter of principle. And when we ask the Minister of Labour, again by this amendment, to speed up the studies and the business, and to amend section 2 (3) of the industrial relations and labour disputes act so as to define in detail a collective bargaining unit and to give us the size of a local and administrative extension, it is because the problem is urgent.
Evidently, we learned through the newspapers this morning that the representatives of the F.Q.W., the federation of Quebec workers, in response to the action taken by the C.N.T.U. this week, are supposed to come next Tuesday evening, I believe, to meet us, the federal members for Quebec. They will submit to us their views on Bill C-170 and other grievances. They will probably air their views on the unit of negotiation and will insist so that it is considered only from the national standpoint.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I should be delighted to attend that meeting in Room 112-N Tuesday evening. I hope to see there the few F.Q.W. union leaders who, while I was away from my constituency, denounced my anti-labour attitude in press releases, and wrongly so since I fight for the freedom of workers and am in no way interested in disputes between unions. I hope to see them in Room 112-N so that I can answer their charges properly.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I fail to see the connection of the hon. member's remarks with the amendment before the committee.


Maurice Allard: Here goes, Mr. Chairman. I greatly appreciate the interventions of the
October 28, 1966

hon. minister. When I spoke this afternoon, he interrupted me. He could not see how my speech tied in with my chiding of the Canada Labour Relations Board for failing to hold its deliberations in the two official languages, of the government for not taking into consideration, when appointing members to the Board, of our dual culture, and for not appointing bilingual members. The hon. minister could not see the connection when I spoke of a federal agency under the Department of Labour.
Again, in my comments on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe, and dealing precisely with the union grievances with regard to the Canada Labour Relations Board, the hon. minister fails to see the relation with the present debate.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that one of the two of us suffers from intellectual myopia in addition to the physical myopia which afflicts us both.
I am of the opinion, Mr. Chairman, that I am not out of order in my comments and in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Lapointe.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I shall have to make a few remarks about various subjects regarding the item in the estimates of the Minister of Labour, under consideration at this time.
I fully agree with those in favour of freedom for the union people to join a union of their choice. I share 100 per cent their views and I shall not enlarge on this subject because I fully agree with the remarks made by those who have discussed that subject.
I should like to deal with another question, that of the unemployment insurance offices. Some unemployment insurance offices have to be moved. In the area where I come from-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but we have before us an amendment which was moved by the hon. member of Lapointe (Mr. Gre-goire). Therefore, I should ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the amendment which is now before the committee. If the hon. member wishes to talk about unemployment insurance, he will have the opportunity to do so later, when we consider the item concerning unemployment insurance which is item No. 1 under the heading unemployment insurance commission.
Supply-Labour


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, since I am not completely in order, I apologize. Nevertheless, I should like to say that I supported the amendment and that I will vote for it, if it is not ruled out of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I want to say just a few words on this amendment intended to reduce to $1 vote No. 1 of the department of Labour. This amendment is the result of the dilatory tactics of the department and of the ministers who are on the committee which is looking into the union problem within the federal civil service. Mr. Chairman, if I disagree with the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), it is because of a problem between the C.N.T.U., the Q.L.F., the C.N.P.U. and the C.C.R.O. This is not a problem for the ministers to settle. The unions should try to get along with one another. In my opinion, the minister, the ministers and the government would not object to the bargaining unit. And I think that the way to get to the bargaining unit, while respecting the right of association of everybody, would be for the unions to try to reach an agreement between themselves. As soon as these unions have reached such an agreement to set up a bargaining unit with the employer, that is the federal government, then the hon. member for Lapointe will have no reason to move an amendment intended to reduce to $1 item No. 1 of the department of Labour.
I disagree with the hon. member for Lapointe in that respect and I will certainly vote against the amendment he moved because I would have preferred an amendment suggesting to the various unions in Canada to start getting along with one another before requesting the government's intervention.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that I have not many copies of my amendment, because I would have sent one to the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). I think he did not understand the amendment I have moved.
He did not receive it, and my amendment is exactly the contrary of what the hon. member for Villeneuve just mentioned. I rise only to inform him. I did not propose to reduce item No. 1 to $1, but I proposed to reduce, within item No. 1, only the part in which subsidies are granted to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, in the amount of $594,900, while the total amount of item No. 1 is $4,539,100. Now, I do not suggest that this amount be reduced to $1, but

October 28, 1966
Supply-Labour
only that portion of the item respecting the administration of the Industrial Relations Act. And the reason I pick out this particular item is because these amounts allow the Canada Labour Relations Board to operate. This amount is allotted to the Canada Labour Relations Board.
Now, I would like to explain why I have reduced only this amount to $1 in my amendment. It is, because this problem has not been raised by the unions, by the workers, or by the minister but by the Canadian Labour Relations Board. And today, the unions can no longer solve it, the minister has to solve it, because he is responsible for the Canadian Labour Relations Board which gave rise to that problem.
The member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said that the minister did not have to solve this problem, but that the unions should reach an agreement among themselves.
It is true that it is always better when the unions can agree. But, here, in the case involved, the employees of the C.B.C. were members of a union called:	International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada. Their business agent was far from the C.B.C. employees in Montreal; he did not take care of their interests and did not remain in contact with them, as was said by the employees themselves, They received letters in English and, if they answered in French, their letters were returned with a note asking them to write in English. When it was time for the C.B.C. employees to sign a new contract, two years ago, I believe, it had to go through the International Alliance of United States and Canada, whereas the C.B.C. employees had prepared a contract in French, to be signed with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The contract was translated into English, and badly, by this agent who lives far from Quebec. There were mistakes in translation exactly like the one which occurred last night, when I introduced an amendment. The contract was signed with the mistakes left in the English version. This was the last straw, and the C.B.C. workers told us: We no longer want to belong to the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada.
Then the C.B.C. employees applied to the C.N.T.U., formed a union called Syndicat general du Cinema et de la Television, and asked it to represent them. The new union
[Mr. Gregoire.i
said: fine; we will see whether we can find enough members among you who want to leave the American union and join us, and if there are enough, we will send a request to the Canada Labour Relations Board. The majority of C.B.C. employees voted in favour of this.
The C.N.T.U. then appeared before the board, which refused its request saying that it did not allow the Syndicat general du Cinema et de la Television to represent the C.B.C. employees. Therefore there was no vote. The C.N.T.U. protested that the employees were still dissatisfied and had requested another vote. Another union then contacted them, the Canadian Union of Public Employees. The C.B.C. employees were told: we can represent you, we are also affiliated to the C.L.C.
On October 21, the Canada Labour Relations Board allowed the C.B.C. employees to vote, but insisted that only two names appear on the voting paper, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada. The C.N.T.U. tried to get its name on the voting paper, but its request was denied. This meant that the Syndicat general du Cin6ma et de la T616-vision, affiliated to the C.N.T.U., was excluded from the vote.
Therefore, the problem there was not created by a misunderstanding among the unions, or by the minister. It will not be solved by improved relations between the unions. The law says that for a vote to be taken, for the employees to choose their own union, the vote must be approved by the Canada Labour Relations Board, and in this connection the Board rejected the request of the C.B.C. employees.
What else can we do? Who must be blamed? The unions, no. They have done their best, at least the C.N.T.U. The C.L.C. is doing its best under the circumstances. The minister? The problem has been laid on his door-step, and he must settle it. The problem is so acute that a committee of seven ministers has been set up to deal with it. But who must be blamed? Who has posed the problem? It is the Canada Labour Relations Board.
It is for that reason and after those explanations that I said to the member for Villeneuve that I would like to see him vote with us on that amendment. I told him that the purpose of the amendment was not to
-October 28, 1966

reduce the total amount of item No. 1 of the Department of Labour, but only a part of it, that is about 10 per cent of the item. The whole Department of Labour's estimates amount to $10,513,400, item No. 1 amounting to $4,569,100. We cannot reduce everything. The only detail involved and that is mentioned in the amendment, is that concerning the application of the Industrial Relations Act; the Canada Labour Relations Board is responsible for the problem.
1 say that those who are responsible for that problem do not deserve $594,900; hence, I ask that it be reduced to $1. When the minister comes back with the report of the cabinet committee, presided over by the hon. Mr. Winters, if the decision is right and if the Canada Labour Relations Board wants to comply with it, then I will not object to the item being re-introduced. But that could not be done unless the adoption of the items is postponed until after the cabinet's decision and as the procedure does not allow me to do that, I take the means available to me under the procedure. I ask that that detail only and not all item No. 1 be reduced to $1. I ask this for the reasons I just outlined to the member for Villeneuve, and I hope I did so in all sincerity after giving him all the facts.
I hope he will agree with us that the Canada Labour Relations Board acted wrongly when it decided to deprive the General Union of the cinema and television affiliated to the C.N.T.U., as well as C.B.C. employees, of the freedom to choose their bargaining unit. If it acted wrongly, it would not be normal to vote once more an item of $594,000 for its sole purposes but that this amount be reduced to $1 until they mend its ways.


Maurice Rinfret: Is the committee ready for the vote on the amendment?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Villeneuve asks me a question, which I may perhaps, put to the Minister of Labour, because it does not appear on the statement issued by his department. I should like to know when the vote will be taken to appoint a representative for the C.B.C. employees in accordance with Order No. 6,475 of the Canada Labour Relations Board.


Maurice Rinfret: Is the house ready for the question?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the explanations given by the hon. member for Lapointe
Supply-Labour
are rather elaborate and certainly mean something. The hon. minister must realize the importance of the matter, that is, what the reasons were for the denial of C.N.T.U. when the vote was taken allowing the C.B.C. employees to choose their union.
I now understand, partly as a result of what the hon. member for Lapointe said, that the two unions the member for Lapointe just named must have protested or exerted pressure upon the Canada Labour Relations Board so that the C.N.T..U would not be accepted. There again, Mr. Chairman, we have a conflict between unions. I maintain that when unions start agreeing amongst themselves, pressure can be brought to bear on the Canada Labour Relations Board and problems will be solved far more easily than they are now.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to explain something about the last point brought up by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). The Canada Labour Relations Board is made up of nine members, namely a chairman appointed by the Department of Labour, four employer representatives who are not government appointees, and four labour representatives. Now, of the four labour representatives three are delegated by the C.L.C. and one by the C.N.T.U. Inevitably, they disagree, three against one-


David Réal Caouette: Who chose them?


Gilles Grégoire: It is the government and the Department of Labour who ask the C.L.C. to appoint three members and the C.N.T.U. to appoint one. When it is time to make decisions, one union is represented by three members and the other by only one. Even though they wanted to agree, the most powerful union, the one with three members on the Board, does not have to agree with the smaller union which has only one representative. It only has to make the decision which is carried by three votes to one. It is as simple as that.


David Réal Caouette: Is it a fight between unions?


Gilles Grégoire: It is a fight between unions, but I do not call that a fight when it is a majority vote by three to one. It is no longer a fight but it can give rise to strife. The manner in which the Canada Labour Relations Board makes its decisions results in strife, which is quite understandable since

October 28, 1966
Supply-Labour
three of its members represent a union and only one represents the other. The more powerful is then easily tempted to get the better of the smaller one and say: "Let us vote, we are three". And they win the vote. A board was therefore established, the Canada Labour Relations Board, wherein are to be found all the seeds of disagreement. It is precisely the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, embodied by the Canada Labour Relations Board, which is fundamentally wrong and has given rise to disagreement and wrangling. That is what we cannot stand and that is why we are asking that the amount of $594,000 appropriated to that item be reduced to $1.
Mr. Chairman, I would like the member for Villeneuve to admit that if the cause for disagreement were removed from the Canada Labour Relations Board, there would be less strife and wrangling between the unions themselves. By reducing the item to $1, it may be possible to eliminate that cause for disagreement and wrangling between those two unions.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I must remind the member for Lapointe that even though the Canada Labour Relations Board asks a large union to appoint three members and the C.N.T.U. to appoint one, the total number of members belonging to either union must be taken into account.
If the C.L.C. has five times more members than the C.N.T.U., it seems quite normal to me that there should be more representatives of the C.L.C. than of the C.N.T.U. within the organization; it seems to me that it is perfectly democratic. But the fact remains that the labour unions or the labour leaders should start by agreeing among themselves and if the principle of labour unionism becomes blurred, that is when the quarrelling begins. Even if there are five against three, or five against one, if they really understood the aims of labour unionism, we would not witness the quarrels which are at the bottom of what we are discussing now.


Gilles Grégoire: It is true that the C.L.C. has five times more members or almost than the C.N.T.U.; that they should have proportionally the same number of members on the Canada Labour Relations Board, that is fine, but when that board which has three C.L.C. members because its membership is larger and one C.N.T.U. member because it is smaller, is asked to decide whether or not the C.B.C. employees can choose their own labour

union, then the dice are loaded; those employees go to the Labour Relations Board and say: "We want a ballot", because they want to be represented by the C.N.T.U. The C.L.C., represented by three members, says no. It has a membership in Canada of 1,200,000 while the C.N.T.U. has only 200,000 members. Therefore, the employees of the C.B.C. do not have the right to join the small unions. They are voted down three to one, so they are forced to join the larger union.
Would you call that good representation? The member for Villeneuve cannot accept it. It is that principle that I object to: to have a Canada Labour Relations Board with labour representatives, in a greater number to represent the C.L.C. than the C.N.T.U. because the C.L.C. represents more workers than the C.N.T.U., without that board being left free to decide and to judge which union will represent such and such groups of employees; that is what I cannot accept.
And I think that the member for Villeneuve will not accept the fact that the majority, on account of its greater number of people, may select the representatives of another group.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question? Those in favour of the amendment, please stand up.


Gilles Grégoire: Could we have the result, Mr. Chairman? Those who voted for the amendment-I believe there was the hon. membsr for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latu-lippe) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). And I think it only proper that it be put into the record.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Those in favour of the amendment, three; those who voted against, 46.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have a simple question to ask the Minister of Labour. A good number of members of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen in my riding are concerned about the appointment of their former Canadian vice president, Mr. Kelly, to a position in the Department of Labour, particularly prior to the completion of negotiations between the union and the companies as provided for in legislation recently adopted by this house. Can the minister inform the committee if this appointment was made through the Civil Service Commission, also what position Mr. Kelly holds
October 28, 1968

and what salary he receives or will receive when he takes up his appointment?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, considerable thought was given to whether this appointment should be announced. I, with the officials of my department, was very impressed with Mr. Kelly as a man of ability, integrity and experience. Following the death of the late assistant deputy minister, Gordon Cushing, we were looking for a senior official in labour circles conversant with labour problems. We wanted to bring him into the department. Mr. Kelly's name was one which had been put forward, among many others. His name was submitted to the Civil Service Commission some months ago. The Civil Service Commission approved his appointment within the last ten days.
It would have been unfair to Mr. Kelly and to the labour movement if the announcement had not been made then. As the appointment was being made by the Civil Service Commission, his continuing position of responsibility meant that he had to advise his associates in the labour movement and the railways that he was accepting this position. I think he did the correct thing, and I think the matter was handled properly. I cannot give the exact amount of the salary. I believe it is in the vicinity of $17,500 or $18,000, but the exact amount can be obtained. It is not secret.
This appointment was made by the Civil Service Commission, and I may say that I have heard nothing but commendation from the railway unions and other representatives of the labour movement as well as other Canadians, about this appointment.
Item 1 agreed to.
(The following items were agreed to:) DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR la. General administration, $272,400.
5. Payments of transitional assistance, in accordance with regulations approved by the Governor in Council, to workers in automotive manufacturing and parts industries who become unemployed as a result of the operation of the Canada-United States agreement on automotive products, $1,500,000.
Annuities Act-
Supply-Labour
The Depuly Chairman: The committee will now proceed to vote 1 under the title of "Unemployment Insurance Commission", to be found on page 522 of the blue book. '



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
1. Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act including recoverable expenditures on bo-half of the Canada Pension Plan, $35,393,200.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would make a brief statement on the item dealing with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In particular, will he tell us what is happening to the long promised reassessment of the legislation. When I say "long promised" I have in mind that it four or five years now since the Gill committee made its report. There have been many suggestions concerning amendments which need to be made to the act. I hope it will not be necessary to appoint another committee or royal commission. At any rate, will the minister tell us what is the present situation with respect to the possibility of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is true that the report of the Gill committee was made some years ago. It is a coincidence that I happened to be one of those who appeared as a witness before that committee and expressed certain views.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I am in good company I was there too.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: At that time there was a recession and unemployment was a matter of grave concern. The fund was exhausted or on the eve of exhaustion. This situation no longer exists, and I shall probably have a word to say about that later. But conditions have changed since the Gill committee submitted its report, with the result that some months ago the Prime Minister announced the appointment of an interdepartmental committee to embark on an intensive study of this subject including, of course, the Gill committee report and all the other changes and developments which have taken place since that time.
10. Administration and government's contribution to annuities agents pension account in accordance with regulations made pursuant to Vote 181, Appropriation Act No. 5, 1961, $1,169,600.
Government employees and merchant seamen Compensation-
15. Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $147,700.
I may say that I have received the report of this interdepartmental committee. I have read it and made some notes on it but I have not yet submitted my notes for consideration by my cabinet colleagues. I can assure the hon. member and other interested members of the committee that the report of the interdepartmental committee together with my

October 28. 1966
Supply-Labour
comments will be placed before the cabinet at an early date.
I can assure the hon. member that changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act are recommended. I cannot go beyond that. The extent to which there will be amendments will, of course, depend on cabinet recommendation and, later, on the views of this house and the other place. I was impressed by this study. It is a voluminous one containing at least 50 or 60 points which merit serious consideration when this matter does come before the house. Having regard to the many urgent items which are on the legislative program for this session, I doubt that it will be on the list of matters to be dealt with this session, though I hope it will be at the next session of this house.


Mr. Rapp:: When the minister answered my question regarding unemployment insurance for agricultural labour he said his department is now working on the necessary regulations and it is hoped to make them public at an early date. Has any progress been made? If not, I should like to suggest to the minister that seasonal farm labour should be included.
The agricultural industry in the west is highly mechanized and many farmers are unwilling or unable to hire farm labour for 12 months of the year. Men are usually employed in the spring, during the summer and in the fall, but they are not employed for the whole year. I wish the minister would take into consideration the request that seasonal farm labour should be covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am pleased to inform the hon. member, knowing his special interest in this subject, that the regulations have been approved by the Governor in Council and sent for printing. I repeat the assurance which I gave him: it is the intention of the commission to bring in unemployment insurance for agricultural workers on April 1 of next year. The other suggestions which have been made by the hon. member will most certainly be brought to the attention of the commission.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the minister was making a realistic statement when he indicated that the chances of getting legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act at this session are not very great. I would remind him, however, that his predecessor, during the first session that the present government was in power, expressed

the hope-it was almost a promise-that we would get such legislation in the following year. It seems we must keep waiting for things of this sort from year to year.
However, I should like to ask the minister whether the report to which he referred is available to hon. members. I suppose his answer will be that this is an interdepartmental report and that it is for the government only. But one can always hope that the unusual will happen. In any case, may I ask the minister a question with respect to one aspect of unemployment insurance. In doing so, I express the hope that this is one of the matters which may be dealt with by the proposed amendments.
I refer to the many unhappy situations which arise when recipients of unemployment insurance benefits are called in for investigation and inquiry as to their availability for employment. I am sure my experience is matched by that of most hon. members. Many people in these circumstances give what they think are honest and straightforward answers and many have in mind what they believe to be their rights. Then they discover that because they have indicated they are not prepared to work for considerably less, say, than they were getting when they were last on the job, they are declared to have restricted then-availability for employment and their benefits are cut off.
In some cases we are able to get cases reviewed. But it seems to me there are too many cases of this kind, too many situations in which people are trapped, to use a strong word, into making statements which result in their being disqualified from benefits. This has been going on for some time, not only under this government but under the previous one. I had hoped the practice was waning, but a few cases have come to my notice just recently.
It seems to me that if people make themselves available and are prepared to answer questions directly they should not be penalized in the way in which many people, to my knowledge, have been penalized. May I put this direct question to the minister: is this one of the subjects dealt with in the report to which he referred? Is this one of the subjects which may be dealt with in the amendments to the act?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In answer to the first question put to me, let me say that the report in question was prepared primarily for the information of the Minister of Labour, though
October 28, 1966

it was expected it would go on to the cabinet generally-and it will. But I am afraid that, having been prepared with that end in view, it is not one that can be made public, because views that are pro and con are put forward, as the hon. member might expect.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
With regard to the last direct question put by the hon. member, it would not be proper for me to give an answer to the question because I would be indicating the contents of a confidential report that has been submitted to the government, and giving only part of it. I can only say that if the submission made by the hon. member has not been considered by the committee, then this would be most surprising. In any event, however, I can assure him that his views, as made clear here today, will be placed before the cabinet.


Michael Starr: What is the state of the fund now, in dollars and cents?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I cannot give the hon. member the state as of this day, but I can give him the figure as of March 31, the end of the last fiscal year. At that time we had a surplus of $136,789,471 in the fund, as compared with $40,496,762 at the end of the previous year. I think the hon. member, as a former distinguished head of the Department of Labour, would be interested in knowing that for the first time in ten years purchases rather than sales of investments have been made on behalf of the U.I.C., which reflects the satisfactory employment situation in the country.


Michael Starr: I am sure the minister could tell us the state of the fund as of the last two months? In the past his officials had these figures available every 30 days.


David Orlikow: A number of complaints have been made that in the reorganization, or I suppose rationalization, of the commission, a number of offices, particularly in smaller towns, have been closed. As a result individual workers living in those areas will have to be dealt with by mail. I am not asking the minister at this time for a list of the offices that have been closed, but could he indicate in a general way the principle being followed in the decision to close certain offices?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Since the functions of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and of the Canadian Manpower centres have been separated, the work remaining to be done in
Supply-Labour
the unemployment offices did not warrant the keeping open of the large number of offices that we had in all parts of Canada. This reason was further augmented by the specialized equipment that has been put in certain offices. The use of this equipment has increased over the last year or two, and even before some offices were closed, claims had been handled by mail, and had been handled quite satisfactorily.
I am told by the commission that there have been surprisingly few complaints received since the changes were made, and from experience the commission believes this is much more satisfactory than the former system.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, may I say in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Ontario that as of September 30 there was approximately $236 million in the fund.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks on unemployment insurance and also on the unemployment insurance offices that will be moved.
I shall ask the minister whether it would be possible to improve the situation of the unemployed while allowing them to work on farms, the farmers being in urgent need of help but deprived of the money necessary to pay the salaries asked by labour at the present time. Many farmers need manpower. In an area like the one in which I live, there are many unemployed, almost the whole year round, and the farmers are unable to hire them; they refuse to work for a few days, because they are afraid to lose the unemployment insurance payments and because they have to go through red tape to get registered again for unemployment insurance benefits.
Agriculture is in a state of stagnation and farmers need some hired help, but they are unable to pay for it. I would ask the minister whether it would not be possible to authorize the unemployed to go and work for farmers while they are receiving their unemployment insurance and the farmer could make up the difference. It would render a great service to agriculture and to farmers. This request has been made in various several places and by many farmers of my constituency. I ask the minister to take it into consideration.
Let us take, for example, the maple sugar operations in springtime. Many farmers need some hired help, because their income is not

October 28, 1966
Supply-Labour
high enough to pay full wages to those labourers. And a great number of unemployed could work, but since it is only for a few days, they do not do so, for fear of losing their insurance.
That would render a great service to farmers and to the maple sugar industry.
Now, some protests have been made to me in connection with the moving of the unemployment office from Megantic. I am asking the minister to take this matter into serious consideration. I live in a designated area. There is a large number of unemployed in our area. Some citizens are now compelled to travel 75 to 100 miles to go to the unemployment office. I believe that the unemployment office will be centralized in the city of Sherbrooke. Some citizens would then have to travel almost 200 miles to get there.
Mr. Chairman, this is not in keeping with our region and the citizens who will have to move do not appreciate it, since we are in a city where the population should be increased; we centralize and the population decreases. We have empty homes and their number is increasing. All those employed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission will also have to move to keep their jobs. Thus, this situation gives rise to economic problems for the municipality.
Also, Mr. Chairman, in our area as well as in many others, but especially in ours, the municipality has gone to considerable expense to set up a decent unemployment insurance office. The municipality needs its funds, and if the office is moved, this means an enormous loss for us, and the municipality cannot think of any other citizens or institutions that could occupy these premises and pay the rent they ask. These things are not right and they bring about losses for the municipality and the area.
Now, we speak of decentralizing industry, but we are doing exactly the opposite, Mr. Chairman. We resort to centralization everywhere. When a new industry must be established somewhere, well, we centralize it. It is located in large communities. We have not had the opportunity to benefit by any new industry being established in our community for many years; and there are even some that are moving into other areas. Some small industries of our area are moving to larger centres because it is more beneficial for them.
Now, I do believe that the unemployment insurance office should remain where it is for the good of the population of the county and

the region, because we cannot afford to lose it, as this would be disastrous for the region and the municipality.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we centralize and move everything into large centres, to the detriment of smaller communities. I believe that this policy might have some advantages, but it also has disadvantages.
Centralization, Mr. Chairman, is what we have been doing for several years, but the time has come to consider the situation in a region such as that where I come from, particularly when we have something useful. The region must serve a territory which is not densely populated but which is very big, and we need this unemployment insurance office in our community.
Therefore, before that office is moved, I ask the minister once again to give deep and serious consideration to this situation, not only from the point of view of economy and needs of our region, but also for the satisfaction of the citizens of our area.
Mr. Chairman, I would have many other things to say, but I do not want to extend the debate. I shall restrict myself to asking the minister once more to put our region on the social side and on the urban side and, as a little favour, I ask him to give our region an unemployment insurance office.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am sure the hon. member understands full well that the Unemployment Insurance Commission was created by parliament and is responsible to parliament, not to the Prime Minister and not to the government. It is an independent commission. The views of the hon. member, of other hon. members and of many other Canadians have been placed before the commission. On occasions when I have received letters I have made special representations to make sure that the advantages or disadvantages of a certain office are kept in mind. This, however, in the final analysis is the responsibility of the commission. The hon. member can rest assured that at least one member of the commission is in the officials' gallery. I am sure the hon. member can assume that his voice is not falling on deaf ears.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, I have a complaint I should like to lodge with the minister in respect of some correspondence which apparently emanates from the Winnipeg office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I received a letter from one of
Ociober 28, 1986

my constituents complaining about a form letter. I will read a paragraph of the letter I received from my constituent:
The circumstances leading to this letter were- the employee came to me, without receiving this book-
I assume he means the unemployment insurance book.
-from his former employer. His employer claimed he mailed it to the local office in Moose Jaw, and in the time it took to write and confirm the inspector arrived and issued a new book. Everything was in order and I thought under control when I received this form letter.
I have written to his regional enforcement officer in Winnipeg, but I do not consider I received a very satisfactory reply, and this is the reason I am bringing it to the attention of the minister at the present time. I will read part of the first paragraph of the form letter, and then I should like to read the second last paragraph and the last paragraph to which I object and to which my constituent objects:
A recent audit revealed that you failed to comply with section 80 of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations which provides that every employer who employs a person in insurable employment shall, within three days of that employee becoming so employed, require the employee to produce to him his social insurance number card and contribution record (unemployment insurance book).
The rest of this goes on to explain the penalties and so on, which is all right. The second last paragraph reads as follows:
The importance of this section of the regulations cannot be too strongly emphasized and I would ask that you comply with its requirements in future. In this connection, you are reminded that section 108 of the Unemployment Insurance Act provides severe penalties for failure to comply with the act and regulations.
I would say that up to this point the form letter is all right. However I should like to know from the regional officers on whose authority this last paragraph was inserted. I will read it:
A copy of this letter will be placed on your file, and if similar circumstances arise again, the fact that this letter was sent to you will be a factor to be considered in deciding the action to be taken at that time.
It seems to me that this is a direct threat to that merchant. I want to know how many of these letters have been sent out in the Winnipeg area and particularly in my constituency, because I resent a letter of this type coming from an official of the government to the constituents which I represent in this house. After all they are not in a position to 23033-586
Supply-Labour
threaten in this manner or hold an axe over someone's head. I am quite sure the minister will agree with what I say. I do not know whether he is aware of this letter and I do not know under which government it was authorized; but I think the minister should take steps to see that this type of letter and any other similar letters which come from his department should be eliminated.
If there has been an offence, I do not mind the officials pointing out to the offender what the penalties are, but I do not think an official should issue a threat. I should like to hear the minister's comment on this paragraph.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that I knew nothing of any such letter. I am very glad that he has directed the matter to my attention. I shall make a point of taking it up with the commission immediately. I can say quite frankly that personally I would be disturbed if I received such a letter, or if any friend or constituent of mine in Canada received such a letter. I can assure the hon. member that the matter will be investigated and I will advise him of the result.


John (Jack) McIntosh: In view of the minister's reply I will not pursue the matter at this time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a question relating to one asked earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg South in respect of the new system of direct mailing of unemployment insurance cheques, and so on. I assume that part of what lay behind the administrative change was the hope that it would be a measure of economy so far as administrative costs are concerned. I note that the proposed administration estimates for the commission for the current fiscal year are something approaching $3 million more than they were in the last fiscal year. What I should like to know from the minister is whether the current year's estimates were prepared with these administrative changes in mind; if not, will the requirements for the operating budget of the commission for this current fiscal year be as much as has been indicated in the estimates, or will there be administrative savings reflected in the estimates when we receive them for the next fiscal year?

October 28. 1966
Supply-Labour


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, the series of administrative changes in this regard certainly were taken into account when the estimates were prepared. Some of the changes, however, involve modifications in offices in certain centres. They involve the installation of some additional equipment in some new centres which are being consolidated. Where you had eight, 10, 15, 20 or in some cases 40 employees of the National Employment Service sharing an office with the employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, you consolidated. Office changes are sometimes made of necessity by taking a much smaller office in one location and installing additional equipment on the site. There were also substantial increases in salary, of course, last year which were taken into consideration.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with interest to the remarks of the minister because I think most Canadians, particularly those living in small areas, are interested in the changes that have been made. I suppose I was reminded of the supremacy of parliament when I heard the minister say that of course the Unemployment Insurance Commission is set up under an act of parliament and therefore cannot be monkeyed with by the government. If this is true, I really do not see where members of parliament make the decision whereby questions of employment and unemployment are dissociated from each other to the extent that these agencies are now being dislocated.
In small communities, when a man goes into the office to look for work and register for benefits, these agencies should work in conjunction with each other. I have always been surprised to find the employment service saying, "John Doe is not registered with us" when he was in fact collecting benefit. I have not been able to understand how this difficulty could arise when both agencies were in the same building, and in fact in the same office. I could see no reason why, when a man registered for benefits he was not also registered for work. Some people know there is no work in that particular area and have a better understanding of the employment picture than others. But it seemed to me to be advantageous for people drawing unemployment assistance benefits to be able to register for and find work in the same locality.
We have seen this situation change over a period of time, and the division between

these two government agencies is such that the authorities have put a set of filing cabinets in the middle of the room to divide the two departments and have moved the employment section to the Department of Manpower and Immigration. This was not done because it was required by the Canadian people. It certainly was not required by those who used these offices. It was an administrative problem decided upon by the government themselves and certainly not by parliament. In many areas this system is not satisfactory.
I received a telephone call this afternoon from a young chap who told me that he knows of kick-backs and money being paid by government officials to private employment agencies. When I asked whether he could prove this, he said, "No, you will have to get the books of the government agencies, and even if you do you will probably find that these payments have been camouflaged in some way." He was interested in supplying me with names. I think there is a certain amount of manipulation going on in this area. I believe we have left ourselves wide open for this sort of thing. There is talk of the Civil Service Association disappearing and being replaced by the manpower centre, although we know that the manpower centre is not operating in respect of many industries.
In my area all the employers do their hiring through the National Employment Service offices and I believe we have established a very good relationship in this respect. In Ontario, particularly in northern Ontario, the department of highways have been hiring casual labourers through the Unemployment Insurance Commission offices. In most cases they have found employment for the guys who were drawing unemployment benefits from the government. This whole program could be interrelated in this way. It is a fact that if the federal government are going to employ Manpower Services, Office Overload and other agencies of this type on a temporary basis, rather than bringing in people on a permanent basis, there will be all kinds of abuses in this area. I think the government has taken a very retrograde step in deciding to separate the employment service from the unemployment insurance service. I believe that this separation lends itself to abuses.
I can remember as a young lad going for the first time to work in the mines. At that time you went to a private employment agency
October 28, 1966

and were immediately asked for $25 before the person in the agency would consider an application for a job in the mines. In those days the pay in the mines was 58 cents an hour. I did not pay the $25. I gave the guy a cock-and-bull story and told him that I owed a large sum of money to hotels, I had been out of the area where I had been working after Christmas-this was February-and owed so much money for hotels that if I did not get a job I would not be able to pay the hotels. These private employment agencies had all sorts of contacts with employers and for this reason expected a kick-back. But because I told him I owed money to hotels, he sent me for a job and I got it. Perhaps he expected a kick-back from the hotel.
The interesting thing about the situation was that I had only come to the area with my father a couple of days before, and obviously has just come off the farm. But I got the job without paying the money for which I was asked. In connection with private employment agencies in the Timmins area I know of cases where the person responsible for hiring workers had to have a bottle of whisky on the Saturday night or you did not have a job on the Monday morning.
If government agencies are going to hire Office Overload, for example, private deals will be conducted under the table. If parliament lends itself to this kind of thing we will have gone a long way back in the system which Canada has been able to develop under the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I agree with the minister that the act governing the commission was set up by parliament to solve many of the employment problems that we have in this country; but you cannot legitimately divorce unemployment from employment. If you do divorce these two things, you will find there is less connection between the people paying benefits and those supplying jobs than there has ever been in the past.
I should like to refer to a situation which exists in my area. For a few years we had a sub office established in the town of New Liskeard, which is 60 miles from Kirkland Lake where there is an unemployment insurance office. This office was able to solve almost every problem that came to me as a member of parliament. I had 15 or 20 complaints a week a few years ago, and when the unemployment insurance office and the employment service office combined, almost all those complaints were eliminated. There was the occasional complaint, because you cannot
23033-586J
Supply-Labour
always agree with the regulations, for example. There were all sorts of personal problems, but almost every one of the complaints I used to receive was eliminated. I suggest that this situation is true all across Canada. Now they have moved the employment section back to Kirkland Lake, 60 miles away. Therefore the person who wants a job and the person drawing benefits in New Liskeard is unable to deal with both these agencies without a great deal of inconvenience. Should he go in his neighbour's car to Kirkland Lake, at the expense of his weekly benefit, in order to try and obtain a job? I doubt it.
The system has gone back to a regional one and people not in the area where the employment office is located have to travel some distance in order to find work. Even in small areas we see private employment offices springing to life again. Surely the minister did not intend this situation to develop. We have been proud of the relationship that developed between these agencies across the country.
How many hon. members have risen in the house and talked about prevailing rate employees being hired under the National Employment Service? Now we have this pseudo, cloud 9 operation. They do not call it the employment service any longer, but rather the Canadian Manpower Centre. What a highfalutin' name for a very down to earth practical operation that was being run by the nation for the people of the nation?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I think that the unemployed who are drawing benefits would gain from a close connection between these two agencies. The amalgamation of the two bodies was not the result of a recommendation by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The minister spoke of the right of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, but I say to him they have no right. I have known for some time some of the personnel of that commission and have found them to be very progressive and farsighted people. I am sure they have never recommended this retrograde step which has been taken. In my opinion this decision will cause the government no end of trouble.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That does not matter too much.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member says it does not matter too much, and it is possible that this decision had been foreseen.

Ociober 28, 1966
Supply-Labour
I suggest the minister, who has had some experience in this field and who has certainly been a congenial minister in a number of other departments, would not wish to set up an agency of this sort. He may find himself in the position of receiving a telephone call from a civil servant saying: "I have to contribute to a private agency before I can get a job in the Civil Service because the Civil Service is now hiring people through private agencies."
These agencies supply people for five days a week and in some cases they supply them On a permanent contract over a long period of time, so that sometimes kick-backs are inevitable. I am told that this is no different from what is happening in government agencies where salesmen give kick-backs to everyone in the whole office, so as to get a foot in the door and make sales. I can foresee such a situation and I am sure the minister can also foresee it.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he know when this change took place? He keeps saying that the change took place under the present minister, but in fact it took place 20 months ago. The government has delegated responsibilities in the field of the National Employment Service to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Some 20 months ago or more the decision was made by the then minister, on the advice of his department, to separate the National Employment Service from the Unemployment Insurance Commission for a series of reasons with which I do not happen to be familiar. The change was made on April 1, 1965 and it has been operating ever since. This has nothing to do with the creation of the new Department of Manpower and Immigration which took place within the last few weeks but was announced last December.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the fact that the change took place some time ago, but the situation I have referred to is continuing. It is only in the last few months that I have received letters objecting to naming the agency the National Employment Service. The minister referred to it by this name, although it does not exist any more; according to the officials it is now called the Canadian Manpower Centre. I am sure this was not done on the recommendation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. If it was, then I stand corrected.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but what I am saying is that some months prior to April 1, 1965, the National Employment Service became a branch of the Department of Labour. Subsequently, on December 15, 1965 when the government reorganization was announced, it was felt that the National Employment Service, as it was then called, was more properly a branch of the new Department of Manpower and Immigration than of the Department of Labour, and since that time it has been called the Manpower Service Centre. That change took place within the last few days.


William Arnold Peters: I do not disagree with this but what I was saying was that in my opinion the commission which was set up to administer this function did not make the recommendation which resulted in the total dissociation of the two services whereby each is located in a completely different area, and the situation was created whereby private individuals have set up employment agencies in substitution of the services with which a government agency was previously charged. I am well aware of the fact that it is not well understood by the officials who are trying to administer the various branches of the department and I myself am not fully congizant of all the facts, but I do think that the Unemployment Insurance Commission were charged with the dual responsibility of the payment of benefits and the obtaining of work for the people who are drawing unemployment benefits. This has been changed by an order in council and I do not think this decision will satisfy the Canadian public. I do not think such an arrangement will be to the benefit of the unemployed. I think the minister would be well advised to investigate whether the abuses which are apparent in many fields could not be eliminated by amalgamating the two bodies into one which in my opinion has previously worked very smoothly. The creation of the new department is certainly an infringement of the rights under the act which established the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise several points in regard to the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. To some extent they bear on the proposed reorganization of the offices of that commission which would result in a reduction in their number. One complaint which has appeared in the letters which I have received
October 28, 1966

from my constituency regarding the Unemployment Insurance Commission has concerned me greatly and that is the fact that in many ways this body has already become too far removed from those people whom it was designed to benefit. I have been particularly concerned about people who have worked steadily at one job for a long period of time and then, through no fault of their own, have been laid off at an age which does not as yet make them eligible for the old age security pension and at a time in their lives when becoming unemployed is a very severe hardship for them because their chances of quickly obtaining other employment are very slender. It happens often that when their unemployment insurance benefits commence they are cut off for a variety of reasons, one of which may be that they have limited their possibly of employment by restricting the type of work which they seek or by indicating that their mobility is limited.
This can happen not only to elderly people but also to housewives who are tied down to one place and have been employed for a long period of time, after which they have been laid off. Being laid off after having worked for a very long time is a very severe blow to these people. Probably they approach the Unemployment Insurance Commission for the first time and the lack of sympathy with which they are met discourages them from attending the appeal of their case. They are further discouraged by the fact that often this appeal is held quite some distance from their place of residence. There is a sort of hopeless feeling that comes over them, and they do not contest the appeal. They are reluctant to hire a representative to appear for them on the appeal, because they feel this would be a further waste of rather slender resources. The decision to cut off the unemployment insurance is therefore upheld. They find that what they have been contributing to for a long period of time is not really insurance, because it becomes unavailable to them. It would seem to me that a decision to further limit the number of unemployment offices is not, in itself, a wise one for several reasons, especially in view of the fact that unemployment insurance offices will be even farther away from those they serve.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I would not doubt that the minister will find there will be fewer complaints because the greater distances people have to travel will cause the hopeless feeling to increase.
Supply-Labour
They will feel the office has been so far removed there will be no chance of obtaining satisfaction with regard to any complaint. I know the minister has received from me, and from many others in the constituency, a long series of letters complaining about the decision to move the office at Vernon to a larger federal building that is planned at Kelowna. None of the arguments that I or the others in the constituency put forward about the centrality of the office at Vernon seem to have done any good.
I would agree with the minister when he says the Unemployment Insurance Commission is an independent and important body, because certainly in all the replies I have received to correspondence, the attitude taken has been one of independence. I do not know at what time the Unemployment Insurance Commission can be called into question by parliament except during this period when we discuss the estimates of the department. I am happy to have the assurance that an official of the Unemployment Insurance Commission is here and is listening to the debate this afternoon. I hope if there is no recourse from the decision to limit the number of offices, that any improved working conditions would result in some change with regard to applications, particularly those from elderly people who find themselves unemployed for the first time in many years. I hope that in the large central offices there may be a sort of local ombudsman who would take an active interest in seeing that appeals to the appeal board are couched in the sort of language that will allow the appeal board to consider the basis of the appeal. In this way something may come out of the decision to limit the number of offices, a decision that seems to be irrevocable.


Mr. Patterson:: I want to say a few words along the same line as that taken by my colleague, and to question seriously the desirability of pressing too far with this policy of closing local unemployment insurance offices. We do recognize the fact, of course, that the larger offices may be more effective in some ways. However, after all, this is an institution that has been set up for the advantage and benefit of people in various communities. I believe therefore we have to be sure that facilities are close enough that they will be available to those who require them.

October 28. 1986
Supply-Labour
I believe the minister has received a communication from my own constituency, the city of Chilliwack, regarding the proposed closure of the Chilliwack office. A few months ago the minister advised me the office at Abbotsford was to be closed. Now the intention is to close the one at Chilliwack, so this leaves a tremendous area without any unemployment insurance office at all. The people have been notified they will have to have their claims processed at the city of New Westminster. New Westminster has an office, as does Vancouver, and they are close together. However, there is an area of possibly 100 to 150 miles beyond that which does not have any office whatever.
It seems it is going to be an extremely difficult thing for people to avail themselves of the facilities of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I ask the minister and the commission, therefore, in their consideration of this whole matter, to give some thought to the maintenance of offices in strategic areas and within reasonable distances of those who will require service.


Mr, Reid:: I should like to disagree with some of the things that have been said here today, because the experience in my own particular area has been somewhat different. It is quite true that we have lost some of the offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. However, I believe the result of this has been that the people who have been unemployed have received much better service. What has been left has been the office of the Canada Manpower Centre. I am told by people who have used this service several times that the result has been a much more efficient placing of them after they become unemployed. I found that the Unemployment Insurance Commission, when it was connected with the old National Employment Service, was always more concerned with providing unemployment insurance than in providing alternative employment. In my opinion the latter is far more important.
A certain amount of dislocation has been caused because people do not understand the situation. However, there has been the implementation of the vocational training program in Ontario and a beefing up of the staff of the National Employment Service, so that on the whole this has been a very helpful and progressive policy. My area suffers from the same disabilities as the areas of other members who come from more or less rural constituencies. The advantage has been that we
CMr. Patterson.]
have had more effective Canada manpower centres.
I do have one complaint, and I think it is a serious one, to direct against the commission or perhaps against all government agencies. I have received several complaints from people who have made mistakes on their forms. If a mistake was made in their favour, they have had to pay back the money to the commission over a period of time. However, if the commission makes a mistake the individual does not have the same right to claim arrears. There is no way for the individual to obtain redress. The commission just says, "That is too bad; we made a mistake." If you make a mistake, you are the one who suffers and there is no possibility of redress. I believe perhaps this particular question should be given consideration by all departments of government that have dealings with the public. Perhaps they could take a look at their policy and revise it to make it a little more humane.


William Arnold Peters: Before this item carries, I wonder if the minister will give us an assurance that the things that have been done in separating the employment and unemployment sections were in keeping with the statutes that have been passed by parliament?
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have been so assured. I asked the same question some months ago, and I had that assurance. As I say, the government delegated certain functions in the employment field to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. This function has since been removed from the commission and it is now carrying out the objectives for which it was brought into being. This was the result of advice of the law officers, and it became effective on April 1, 1965.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: That completes the estimates of the Department of Labour and of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
The committee will now proceed with the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, formerly known as the department of northern affairs and national resources, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1967.
DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT (formerly Northern Affairs and National Resources) Administration-
1. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $2,196,100.
October 28, 1966


Mr. Laing:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my
intention to attempt to review the activities of this department at any length, but I think it would be appropriate, and indeed a requisite for me to make some remarks about its progress, particularly since the change in responsibility which has taken place.
In opening I should like to pay some attention to the fact that I have had the opportunity for some time of dealing with resources in Canada, and particularly water resources. During that time we were fortunate in concluding the Columbia River treaty. In addition we did the groundwork for the pollution conference that is to take place early next week in Montreal.
We have arrived at the time in this country, as in most countries, when the public is making a definite demand for purity of environment. We have also arrived at the time when the public has decided that modern technology is capable of accomplishing this. Let me commend the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for the arrangements he has made in respect of the Montreal conference next week. I think this conference on pollution in Canada will be extremely valuable to governments at all three levels, because of their apparent interest.
We have already approved the estimates of the Indian affairs branch, but in view of the fact that this department has been attached to mine only since January 1, I do not wish to preclude anyone from commenting on its activities during our consideration of these estimates. Let me say only that I find the operations of this department challenging and very difficult. I am sure that those members of the house here today who have had some responsibility for Indian affairs will agree with me.
We seem to be held back by that amazing principle of wardship with which Indians have been associated through the years. A situation has developed in which these citizens want to retain the historical guarantees, while at the same time they realize the need to develop new conditions and standards of education to become truly a part of the Canadian population. In order to co-ordinate these two principles we must solve a difficult problem.
I have before me some figures in respect of educational records of our Indian population in recent years, and I am sure that some of these statistics will astound hon. members. It has been suggested that there is a drop-out
Supply-Indian Affairs rate between grade one and grade two in the Indian population of 18 per cent. It is also stated that only 1 per cent of Indian children who start school reach grade 12. Let me say that we have a tremendous resource in our Indian people aged 20 and younger, and that at this time some older people are coming forward to assume business and cultural leadership. In this regard I think we are witnessing improvements.
Gratefully there has been a substantial amount of money allotted for the improvement of Indian conditions. We have spent this money very carefully because, as I am sure many hon. members will realize, money ill-spent would multiply our difficulty.
Let me say a word or two about our national parks which in Canada represent one of our greatest resources and assets. This is particularly true if we are guided by the number of people who visit them from other countries, and by the correspondence we receive from these visitors regarding their impressions. Surely on this basis they can be considered as unexcelled in the world. If we are to be guided by letters we receive from our visitors, these national parks are superb.
We now have 18 national parks and we are co-operating with four provinces, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and Newfoundland, toward the development of new park areas which we think advisable to set aside for this purpose. I hope it will be the feeling of the members of this house in all parties that it is wise, in spite of the fact we have only a population of 20 million today, to set aside these lands for the benefit of our future population and future visitors. In spite of the fact that these parks may not be developed for some time, we believe we should take this action as quickly as possible.
Last year we estimate that 10 million visitors came to our national parks. The work of this branch of my department is difficult because our park season is relatively short. It has been estimated that the use of these parks is increasing by 14 per cent per year, and it is difficult to provide accommodation during peak periods. Many private investors in park areas face difficulties because of the short season and the lack of winter visitors.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The people who find it particularly difficult are those who have short leases.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I should like to ask the minister a question for the purpose of clarification. He said that 10 million people

Ociober 28, 1966
Supply-Indian Affairs had visited our national parks last year. Does that figure include those people who travelled from one point to another through the parks?


Arthur Laing: We tried to make allowances for those travellers and as a result we have estimated that approximately 10 million individuals stayed in our parks for a period of 48 hours or more.
The difficulty experienced by people who have invested in our national parks is similar to our difficulty because of the short season, roughly three or four months. At the same time this business is increasing at the rate of 14 per cent per year. We are endeavouring to make use of our western parks on a year round basis by encouraging investors to advertise and add to our skiing facilities. From Christmas Day last year until the end of February 90,000 skiers visited the Banff National park. The same type of program is envisaged so far as Jasper park is concerned.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They came in spite of the opposition.


Arthur Laing: They came, I think, partly because of the opposition; because the opposition that my hon. friend and others had engendered in that area served to advertise the park, and it has done very little harm.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am talking about the short leases.


Arthur Laing: We shall have to provide additional parks and we want those to be in representative areas of Canada. That will be done in most provinces. In 1967 we hope to announce another park, probably in Saskatchewan, because most likely that is the area the first new park will be announced.
We made a statement with respect to parks policy and leaseholds. Not every member of the house is in agreement with that general policy, but I think most hon. members are. I can assure hon. members that a great proportion of Canadians are in favour of that policy.
We have set park areas aside for Canadians, for wherever Canadians may live. Irrespective of where those parks are, they are truly national. In addition, the parks are bringing to our country a great number of visitors. Principally, however, the parks are for the education and enjoyment of Canadians. That being so, our first responsibility is to those who visit the parks. Our second responsibility is to see that those who serve

people coming to the parks make an investment of which they can be proud, because we want standards to be maintained. But in addition, we want those people to make a profit out of their investment.
Our first concern, however, is for those who go to the national parks. There has never been clearly defined, with relation to national parks, any policy to do with rental of land upon which improvements are made. This goes back to the time when the national park at Banff was first set up. The legislation was introduced by Sir John A. Macdonald himself. Right there Richard Cartwright entered the debate and said, "Look here, you must put a limit on these leases in this park." Sir John's reply was that he wanted the rich people of Canada to go and build what he called elegant homes in the park. Cartwright said that the leases should not be longer than 21 years, and Sir John said that no rich man would build an elegant house for 21 years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Or business.


Arthur Laing: Summing up the debate it happened, as it so often happens in this house, that Sir John said he believed the people of Canada could depend on the integrity and intelligence of his government and succeeding governments to take care of the matter. And that is the situation which has been passed to us and to those governments preceding us. This is just about where we stand today. Other governments have been faced with the problem. The government preceding our own has taken action, determining that this is after all government land, that this is not freehold, that the government has a right to be there and that leases should be terminable and for a definite period of time. In respect of those who have houses in the park we have said we want a 42 year lease, after which the government will undertake to pay compensation for the remaining value of the improvements within the park.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit a question?


Arthur Laing: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was wondering where the crown granted leases in perpetuity, which are almost the same as title in fee simple, and where those leases are either sold or transferred, is it the policy of the department to say: "We will not consent to the transfer unless you shorten the lease." Is that the policy today?
October 28, 1966


Arthur Laing: My hon. friend is asking me whether we intend to retrieve our authority within the parks in respect of our own land. That is the substantial question he is asking me. My answer is yes. There are various other ways by which we can do this. Rents have been extremely small. There has been a tremendous amount of turnover and dealing in these leases. Frankly I am trying to end the trade in leases which has been going on.
I can give my hon. friend some examples. He knows them as well as I do. There are instances where properties have turned over in recent months for as much as $800,000. The rental on those paid to the people of Canada was $45 per year. In another case three lots, which when put together paid us a total of $45,000, went to a chain store for $147,000. My hon. friend may think this is good. I do not think it is and I do not think it is in the interests of the public of Canada. We are trying to regain our authority, because though these leases were so-called perpetual leases they always were written for a period with a renewal clause. If the government had determined to make these true perpetual leases, there would have been no period for renewal, nor would the minister have been given powers for renewal.
I want to remind my hon. friend that in 1959 the government which he supported specified that never again would a perpetual lease be granted in Canada by order in council. This decision was amended in 1961 or 1962 because pressures were put on the minister. He said they would be for 42 years plus 21 years-but the perpetual clause is out. If my hon. friend suggests that certain Canadians, because they got in under the wire, should be able to live in a national park forever, I think he will agree with me that under the conditions under which we have been operating every rich man in Canada should live in a national park and get services for as little as $7 per year.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit one more question? I was interested in the minister's comments. I should like him to explain to the committee and the Canadian people why all land in the parks belonging to the poor people-that is, to individuals-has been expropriated and why the land owned by the Canadian Pacific, the big, rich corporation, is left alone. I want to know if that is the minister's policy.


Arthur Laing: That is not necessarily a policy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It happens to be a fact.
Supply-Indian Affairs


Arthur Laing: I do not want to enter a debate about little fellows and big fellows. We have been discussing expropriation without regard to little people or big people.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about the Canadian Pacific?


Arthur Laing: I should like briefly to say a word about wildlife in Canada. We have initiated an important wildlife program, and this government has a responsibility under the treaty with the United States with respect to migratory birds. We think that wildlife is of economic and esthetic value as a resource in the economy. We have very fine co-operation from the provinces which are using our biologists and technicians in improving conditions in the various flyways in the country.
We have announced a policy whereby we intend to set aside sums of money to acquire wet lands on the Canadian prairies which substantially form the duck factory for this continent. We are happy to announce that the past year has been a splendid one for ducks and geese. There was a time when the biologists in the United States and in Canada feared that ducks would become extinct. Due to more precipitation, to more available water and to certain other conditions we note that there has been an appreciable increase in numbers of ducks and geese this year. We shall make agreements with farmers over a period of 20 years to set aside certain areas of wet land where we can ensure a continuing duck population. We shall proceed with this program as rapidly as we can, and we envision the expenditure of considerable sums of money in this regard.
This year we have added a federal duck stamp on federal licences to hunters, because we require in our technical work a great deal of information which can be obtained only by the co-operation of hunters. These, we sold through the post office. We were of the opinion that we had 350,000 hunters in Canada hunting migratory birds. Our efforts here are well understood by the fish and game associations in Canada whose members have approved our action and as a result we have sold, to date, about 345,000 of these licences. Forms will be given to every hunter and a cross section of the results-about 10 per cent-will be studied. We have received splendid co-operation from the hunters in Canada with respect to support of the federal licence.

October 28, 1966
Supply-Indian Affairs
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
One final word about northern administration. This is probably still the most important part of the work of my department because we are dealing with two territories which, though their population is only one half of one per cent of the population of Canada, cover no less than 40 per cent of the land mass. The Yukon and the Northwest Territories encompass 1,500,000 square miles of territory, yet their population is not much more than 45,000 people. But I want to tell the committee that not since the Klondike gold rush of 1898 has the economic outlook for the territories been as promising as it is today.
I think most Canadians believe that in this vast region we have some of the greatest riches in all Canada. I am speaking particularly of minerals, of gas and of oil. It is important that we develop our country in depth, and while at the present time Canadians in southern Canada are sending substantial amounts of taxpayers' money to northern Canada where the economy cannot today support those things which we believe need to be done, nevertheless I believe every Canadian is confident we shall get all that money back, and probably a great deal more. In the last two or three years one or two mines have been developed there, so rich that I am under the impression that in relation to the capital required to bring them into operation they rate with the wealthiest mines in all the world. There is some indication that what has gone on in the Pine Point area where last year 22,000 claims were staked is indicative of the situation which exists in a number of other areas in the Northwest Territories.
One of the outstanding events of the present year was the visit of the committee on northern affairs to the Northwest Territories. Members of parliament are responsible for examining the estimates of every department, including my own, and I am certain that in years gone by members have spoken without a great deal of knowledge or understanding of the assets which lie in the north, or of the difficulties which arise in the operation of this department. I am sure that as a result of this trip members will be encouraged to take a great deal more interest in this area and that we can look forward to some worthwhile discussions in the house.
In the field of education, we are advancing in difficult circumstances because of the breadth of the territory. Health services are

improving all the time. We are endeavouring to embark on an educational program for adults because there is growing opinion that the most reliable permanent work force in the territories is that which we can build out of the indigenous people, and that we must depend on them instead of depending on southerns going up north-and returning after a while, as they are wont to do.
We are making considerable progress. We have had inquiries from mining companies who have a number of Eskimo families working for them. Give us 25 more families, they ask. That is the request. We are endeavouring to help our Indian population in the same way.
I thank the committee for this opportunity of making these few observations with respect to the work of my department at this time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I share with the minister what I took to be a note of sorrow in his voice when he expressed a certain degree of regret over the withering away which has gone on in the department of northern affairs of recent years. After its inception in 1956, I believe it was, the department of northern affairs became one of the major government departments at a time when northern development was a major theme of government. In those years it had responsibility for most of the renewable resources in Canada.
It was during that period when I had the privilege of being responsible for the department, that we were endeavouring to come to grips with the problem of resource management and the wise use of renewable resources at the Resources for Tomorrow conference in 1961. The minister referred to the conference on pollution which is to take place next week in Montreal. This is the direct descendant of the Resources for Tomorrow conference in 1961. The amazing thing is that it has taken five years to get it under way, despite the fact that water pollution and the management of water resources was one of the major issues which came into prominence during the 1961 conference. As a matter of fact, one the specific recommendations of that conference was the establishment of a national advisory committee on water resources so that means of dealing with this problem might be found.
The official opposition brought up this subject of water conservation and management, I recall, as a supply motion in 1964 so as to
October 28, 1966

October 28/ 1966
Supply-Indian Affairs
However, we do say that the message was loud and clear, and we hope that the recommendations which were not accepted when they came from this side of the chamber, but which now appear in the formal report, will be taken up by the government and implemented at the earliest possible moment.
The basic problem referred to by the Carrothers report was the one that confronted members of the committee as they toured both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, right from Frobisher to Whitehorse, through the Great Slave Lake area, and the communities of Hay River, Pine Point and Yellowknife. Everywhere the overriding cry was, "Give us a greater degree of control over our own destiny." This is the problem that is preoccupying the minds of northerners.
The delay in implementing this greater degree of responsibility is aggravating the problem of continuing transiency, the failure of people to get their roots down and settle into the various communities in the north. We heard the same theme right across the Arctic area.
At Frobisher Bay the people now have an advisory council, which is an illegal council, but they were so anxious to have some say in local administration that they held an election last November 8, concurrent with the federal election that we all recall with a certain degree of regret. They took advantage of the assembling together of the voters in order to have them select an advisory council, which is presently operating without any authority, and which consists of 50 per cent of southern Canadians and 50 per cent of the Eskimo citizens of Frobisher Bay. The very fact that they have proceeded on their own initiative indicates how widespread is the demand for greater control.
At Inuvik, one of the administrative centres for the western Arctic, we found exactly the same demand in the same strong terms, Here we were confronted with a problem that has become aggravated during the past three years, where we had the difficulty of segregation between the temporary government employees and the permanent northern residents on the basis of service facilities provided by the administration of the Northwest Territories.
Some of the other hon. members who were on the tour will be emphasizing this problem in detail. But it is past understanding, for those of us who had the privilege of meeting the residents of Inuvik in their homes, why

the administration had deliberately aggravated the problem of segregation, by insisting that in order to have serviced homes, in order to have all the benefits of a modern community, one must be in the category of a transient resident only. The permanent residents are on the wrong side of the utilidor which provides all the services.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The transient residents have all the amenities which were designed originally, when Inuvik was established by the government of Canada in order to provide a community in the Mackenzie delta region which would provide all the amenities of a typical Canadian community. Those are the words which are inscribed on the monument which commemorates the opening of that community by prime minister John Diefenbaker back in 1961, the first Canadian prime minister, incidentally, to travel north of the 60th parallel.
I think I must call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


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


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr, Speaker, I think that if you were to call Bill C-27, which is item No. 6 under public bills, we would have unanimous consent to proceed with this bill.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: the second reading of Bill C-27, to amend the Canada Elections Act (political affiliations of candidates on ballot papers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief, partly because this is a very simple point which is covered by this bill and, second, I knew only a few moments ago that this bill was coming up. The present requirement under the Canada Elections Act in so far as the description of the candidate on the ballot is concerned is provided in section 21(5) of the Canada Elections Act. It provides that only the name, address and occupation of each candidate is shown on the ballot. The purpose of this bill is to add a fourth description of
October 28, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	9277
the candidate; that is, to add to the ballot his political affiliation or interest. This is something we have never done on a federal ballot. I really have no idea why we never have put the political affiliation of the candidates on the ballot. I think in Canada or anywhere we really have very little idea what motivates people to vote for a particular person.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It does surprise one.


Stanley Ronald Basford: There is a good deal of research which has been done on this subject, but there are still no conclusive answers. I think a voter votes either for the particular candidate of a party, for the leader of that party, or for the candidate himself. Undoubtedly some voters base their selection on the candidate himself, and I am sure that would be the reason in the case of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), who we all know is a distinguished member of the house who, I am sure, would attract the individual support of his electors. There are other electors who vote on the basis of who is leading a particular party, and they cast their ballot purely on the basis of the national leadership.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For or against?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, some for and some against. It would be indicated in the election results that more would vote against the leader of the hon. member who interjected. There are other electors who choose to vote on the basis of the political party. They want to vote for a Liberal candidate, a Conservative candidate, a New Democratic Party candidate, a Social Credit candidate, or otherwise, and they are less concerned about the particular candidate. They just want to vote for a candidate of a particular party. I think they should have the right to do that and the right to do it without difficulty. We find that because there is a large number of voters who want to vote for a candidate on the basis of his political affiliation the candidates all across Canada spend a great deal of money endeavouring to identify themselves in an election campaign as the nominee of a particular political party. I think a great many of our campaign expenditures are made in an effort to identify in the riding Mr. John Brown as the Liberal candidate or Mr. John Brown as the Conservative candidate.
If the political affiliation of the candidate was on the ballot I think this would make it easier for voters to identify the candidate and thus eliminate one of the reasons for the
Canada Elections Act Amendment campaign expenditure. This question was examined and dealt with by the committee on election expenses which was appointed in 1964, the report of which was tabled in the house this month. This committee was made up of Mr. Alphonse Barbeau, Hon. M. J. Coldwell, Mr. Gordon R. Dryden, Mr. Arthur R. Smith and Dr. Norman Ward. At page 40 of their report they submit the following:
The Committee received considerable evidence that substantial amounts of money may be expended by a candidate to identify him with his political party and its leader. The expenses take the form of posters, sample ballots, mailed notices, bumper stickers, spot advertisements on radio and television, and display advertisements. Further, it is not uncommon for candidates nominated in a particular constituency to have the same or similar names. In the absence of identifying party labels on the ballot, such similarity may greatly increase candidates' expenditux-es solely to clarify their identity.
The Committee recommends that:
The party affiliation of the candidate should be included on the ballot following the candidate's name, address and occupation. Provision should be made for any candidate not so affiliated to be described as an "independent."
When a candidate files his nomination papers with the local returning officer he should file a consent in writing signed by the registered leader of his party, or a party official designated by the leader. Failing such consent, the returning officer should desigate the candidate as "independent."
While this bill was written before we had the report of the committee before us, the purpose of this bill is precisely as recommended in the committee's report. I have mentioned the election expenses and how I think this bill could help to eliminate the need for some of the campaign expenses, and how it would make it easier for the electors to identify their candidates.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
There is one further point that the committee notes in its observations. This is the case where candidates of identical name, or almost identical name, are running for office. We know it has happened that if a Mr. Joseph Smith has been nominated to run as a candidate for a political party, his opponents have gone out and sought another Mr. Joseph Smith to run. This of course completely confuses the voters, so that neither Mr. Joseph Smith wins. I understand this has been a practice in Canadian politics. It is certainly a very undesirable practice and one that should be eliminated. If the political affiliations of candidates were put on the ballot, I think this very undesirable practice would be eliminated.
9278	COMMONS
Canada Elections Act Amendment
In my own province of British Columbia we have had, since 1950 I think, the political affiliations of candidates put on the ballot. I cannot inform the house of the situation in other provinces, but I know that since we have put the political affiliations of candidates on the ballot there has been no difficulty. I believe this practice has met with the overwhelming approval of the voters in British Columbia in that they can go to the polling booth, pick up their ballot and see on it the name, address, occupation and also the political affiliation of the people they want to vote for or against.
That briefly, Mr. Speaker, is why this bill lias been introduced. I would hope it could be adopted today, or failing its adoption that it could be referred to a committee, to be examined along with other electoral reforms that we need very badly in this country. I would hope that the report of the committee on election expenses would soon be referred to a committee. If my bill is not approved today by the house, I hope that the committee appointed to deal with the recommendations of the committee on election expenses is soon set up and that the subject matter of this bill will be referred to that committee.


Mr, Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I could not help speaking on this subject after receiving such a compliment from the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford). It was not so long ago-although the committee never quite completed its study-that the whole Elections Act came before a committee of the house. At that time we got into the question of redistribution and the committee never quite finished its study of the act. I forget how the vote went in committee on this particular subject; it was either very close or unfavourable.
Basically, Mr. Speaker, I think you have to look at the history of parliament before adopting this measure holus-bolus. It is true that democracy was not planned on the party basis at all. We represent constituencies, and by reason of that fact we represent the nation and speak for the nation first. Sometimes we speak for our province. Sometimes the question that comes before the house causes us to speak for our region. For example, when the question of the exportation of natural gas comes before the house the member from the constituency concerned is really speaking as an individual. We are not really selected into party groups.
[Mr. Basford.)
DEBATES	October 28, 1966
If you look back over the history of politics to the days of Plato and Aristotle, you find that parliament was to be composed of a group of aristocrats, or a place of the aristocracy. This did not mean of course that parliament was to be composed of only those people with a certain amount of wealth or certain privileges, but it was aristocracy according to mentality, experience and education. That, basically, is the history of parliament. Of course, the word "parliament" derives from "parler", to speak, to debate.
Then one has to consider the history of Liberals and Conservatives in Canada. I wish I had with me some of the material that is in my office, but I think I can speak from memory because I have always enjoyed reading this subject, being something of a student of political science. In Canada we have never really had a Liberal party as we know it today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And we don't even have one now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have to agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in that regard. One thing is sure-if I may digress for just a moment-namely, that we will have a socialist party as long as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) are associated with their party. They call themselves the New Democratic Party. I have always said that there is nothing "new" about it. It is the same old socialist group that came from Saskatchewan and ruined that province. It is not "democratic" because they have always wanted to thrust everything down the throats of the people of Canada. Therefore when one looks back on the history of that party, they are really socialists.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain "Progressive" in
"Progressive Conservative".


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I shall. I have quite a few minutes at my disposal and I will come to that subject. I know the hon. member will be very interested in what I have to say. The original party that John A. Macdonald led was not the Conservative party or the Progressive Conservative party as the hon. member just described it. It was the Liberal-Conservative party. When one looks back he realizes that the opposition had some difficulty getting the Liberal-Conservative party out of office. I have always maintained that
October 28, 1966	COMMONS
the Liberals and Conservatives have governed Canada for about an equal length of time. The reason for this is that John A. Macdonald remained in office for a long time. Others for our governments have not been so fortunate over the years, but I will not go into that question. The fact is that Mr. Mackenzie King was able to bring together the Rouges of Quebec, the Radicals, at that time, of western Canada, the Progressives and also certain groups in the maritimes. From that strength he was able to form a party, and finally out of that group a party grew up under William Lyon Mackenzie King, our former prime minister, as the Liberal party. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, these terms are not just as exact as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard would have us believe; because we were the old Liberal-Conservative party and our name was stolen because this group was formed of the Rouges and some groups in the maritimes.


Stanley Ronald Basford: This is 1966.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know, but sometimes you have to look back and consider your history.
I know my good friend who interrupted would be elected again because he is very popular in Vancouver; but sometimes when he goes into the prairies he has to travel incognito because there he finds that the word "Liberal" is not as popular as he would wish. However, speaking seriously, Mr. Speaker, these terms are not as exact as perhaps they should be or are considered to be, because the Liberal-Conservative party used to be the name of the Conservative party.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me how the word "Progressive" came into being. We know that it grew up at the time Mr. Bracken took over the leadership and that group took the word "Liberal" because they felt it had some appeal. Perhaps it had for a long time in Canada, but this is not true today. That group believed that the word "Liberal" really meant "liberal", but they found that sometimes the "Liberal" administration was more conservative than anything we have had in Canada; at other times they seemed, and still seem, to be socialistic. So they are really not true Liberals and it would not be a proper term with which to describe them, because they are not "liberal". For many years the Conservatives and Liberals used to battle back and forth; the Liberals always maintained they were the low tariff people and we were the high tariff
DEBATES	9279
Canada Elections Act Amendment people. As the late George Britnell, professor of political science at the University of Saskatchewan, of which I am a graduate, said, if you compiled a chart you would find that there was no difference in the tariffs of the Liberals and the tariffs of the Conservatives; in fact, the Conservatives managed to get the tariff off farm machinery that flows from the United States to Canada. Therefore if you consider the word "liberal" and the word "Liberal" they are two distinct things.
I should now like to come back to my main point. I believe that a person who runs for parliament runs first as an individual. I would never have been elected in the riding of Bow River just because I am a Conservative; in fact, I am the only Conservative ever elected to represent that constituency.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I agree this was not because of myself but because of a certain image that was created in 1957. In fact it was the president of the Liberal party in that riding-and I do not want to name him-who moved my nomination in the last election.


An hon. Member:: The traitor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, he was a good man. He realized that the people of the party which calls itself the Liberal party are no longer real Liberals. Therefore, to have the Liberal tab on the ballot is a misrepresentation, in the true sense of the word, as far as the voters are concerned.
My second point has to do with the times when we have great political sweeps in the country. People might point a finger at me, for in 1957 I was defeated by some 200 votes in my riding but I was re-elected in 1958 together with quite a number of westerners.


Mr. Crouse:: That was a very good year.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, it was a very good year for the west. There is a tendency at such time, because all the people vote a certain way, to elect to the House of Commons men with insufficient qualifications. In fact we had such a situation in Alberta. In the last election in Alberta our distinguished premier got 63 seats out of 67 and there were only three members in the opposition. There is no doubt that when such a sweep takes place, as happened in Alberta, individuals are not elected for their qualifications, but because of a particular enthusiasm that takes over the people.
9280	COMMONS
Canada Elections Act Amendment At that time the Social Credit party was sweeping the province so they were the ones who were elected.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody is very happy about that. I have never been too critical of it and I have never particularly criticized the position of the premier in the province of Alberta. However, I consider that a person should be elected on the basis of his qualifications. When the salaries of the members of parliament were increased, the main reason for it was to attract people with sufficient education and qualifications. Members of parliament are not paid $18,000 a year, as some people seem to like to write in the columns. We are paid $12,000 a year and we have $6,000 for expenses. As I have frequently said to farmers and businessmen, and I have no hesitation in repeating it here: "You may gross $100,000, but if you can keep $10,000 for yourself you are lucky." There are expenses involved in being a member of parliament and those who think otherwise are labouring under a misapprehension.
However, the main point I wish to make is that I oppose the bill. I have enough confidence in the Canadian people to believe that if they want to vote on the party line alone and do not take into consideration the qualifications of the candidate they will make it their business to find out who is the Liberal and who is the Conservative. People in our democracy are well enough informed so that they do not need to have a label on the package telling them it is corn flakes or shredded wheat

sometimes we get some of that, too. Therefore on that basis I would oppose the bill.
My good friend referred to the report of the committee on election expenses. I read the recommendations when the report first came out and I hope that we will not adopt the recommendation which gives the leader of any party the power to select candidates. Hon. members will find that if they adopt this report in its entirety they will give the leader of any party the right to select the candidates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read it. It does not say that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will read it to you in a moment. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can speak afterwards. The point I am making is that I am very happy with the Conservative party in this regard. I have been a Conservative all my life and I have

DEBATES	October 28, 1966
never known of any leader of our party ever interfering with anyone getting a nomination on behalf of the party. They leave that to the constituency concerned, and it is the constituency organization which makes the nomination of the official candidate. The reason why my friend from Winnipeg North Centre interrupted me is that they in their party exercise some influence on the constituency organizations. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra seems to want to say something. Does he wish to make a speech?


Grant Deachman: That is why in the last provincial election in British Columbia your party could only find three candidates. Your leader took no interest in the elections there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will not argue about the election in British Columbia, but what I will say is that the Liberals may have run a lot of candidates but they certainly did not get many elected. I think that is the answer to that comment. However, this is getting into narrow politics, which is not something I want to do.
Possibly we are not too popular in British Columbia at present, but on the other hand I would say the Liberals are not too popular in Alberta. What is the hon. member's answer to that? The Liberals do not have one member of parliament from Alberta, nor have they one from Saskatchewan. They had poor old Harry Hayes but they sent him to the Senate. They had Hazen Argue but he is also in the Senate. They have them all in one place, but not here.
Coming back to the report on election expenses, if I can put my hand on it-and I had to check it because I did not know the bill was coming up for debate this afternoon -there is a recommendation in it which, if it were adopted, would lead one to believe that a leader of a party has the right of choice as far as candidates are concerned.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is on page 40.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much. I never knew I had such a good staff working for me. It seems to me as if I were back in my law practice.
There are some people who might not want to be either Progressive Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic, Social Credit or Independent, but might want to run as straight Conservatives without the label of "Progressive" attached to it, or run as
October 28, 1966

Progressive without the "Conservative" label. But they have no party of their own. For instance the hon. member for Lapointe has the Independents pretty well organized, so that in effect we have two Ralliement des creditistes parties.


Mr. Walker:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, that will give me a chance to read this report.


David James Walker: What is "a straight Conservative"?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know just what the hon. member means by a "straight Conservative", but I can say this much, that a person following a straight party line must know what the party line is, because there is one thing on which I can congratulate the Liberals and that is that they have more discipline in their party than in any party I have ever seen. Their whips can whip them up into shape, they can get them to vote either with or against Quebec.
We have more freedom in our party because once in a while we get a member voting against medicare and against the Canada Pension Plan. Not so the good old Liberals: They are all together. They are brainwashed in every caucus that is ever held.


An hon. Member:: Trained seals.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: To return to what I was saying, as it is written on page 40 of the report on election expenses:
The committee recommends that:
The party affiliation of the candidate should be included on the ballot following the candidate's name, address and occupation. Provision should be made for any candidate, not so affiliated to be described as an "independent".
Maybe the candidate does not wish to be described as an independent. However, farther on it reads:
When a candidate files his nomination papers with the local returning officer he should file a consent in writing signed by the registered leader of his party, or a party official designated by the leader.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Sometimes I do not know what might happen in the future. It is possible that my leader might not want me to run in Bow River, and I do not want to see any leader
Canada Elections Act Amendment being given the power to tell any member of his party he has or has not the right to run as a candidate. He may agree with me on particular details or he may disagree with me on some things. It is all right for brainwashers like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), because these socialists have some peculiar brands of socialism. You just have to read the old Regina manifesto, which they threw out the window, to learn how unpopular these things are with socialists like the Labour party in Great Britain. They know "socialist" is an unpopular word. Therefore, when they say they are selling corn flakes and they are really selling shredded wheat, they call themselves the New Democratic Party. This is why they have that name.
I would say that the hand of Mr. M. J. Coldwell, for whom I have the greatest of respect, was heavy in that paragraph. Somebody has denied that this was in the report, but I knew it was there because I had read it. When I look at hon. members opposite, I think of one of their members from Toronto. I notice when he speaks that the ministers on the front benches blush and sit there in great anxiety. Sometimes I feel very sorry for them. However, I am glad that he is here because he is one of the few people who resist the brain washing that goes on in their caucus.
First of all, therefore, I oppose the bill itself. Certainly, I oppose my good friend when he recommends that this great report be adopted. I should like to refer to this subject of reports because it is relevant. When we were talking about medicare, the Hall report was mentioned. If a prime minister, the leader of this party or the leader of that party, sets up a commission which makes certain recommendations, there is no obligation on the government or parliament to accept those recommendations. The Fowler commission had something to say about broadcasting. All the owners of radio and television stations, including the C.B.C., dived under the table when they read the Fowler report. The fact that Mr. Justice Hall of the Supreme Court of Canada made certain recommendations does not mean that what he says is so. These commissions have been asked to look into the facts and make a report for the guidance of members of parliament.
When I look at this report, I am reminded that Mr. Arthur Smith is from my own
October 28. 1966

Canada Elections Act Amendment city, but I would not talk to him about the report because that would not be correct. For the benefit of some hon. members, I may say that I know that Mr. Arthur Smith and his father would be known as small "1" Liberals. However, there were three men on this commission and he could not oppose them. At the same time, as I say, I see the heavy hand of Mr. M. J. Coldwell in this report.
These are the reasons I oppose this measure. The individual who runs for parliament runs on his qualifications, his personality and his character.


An hon. Member:: And his party.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, some people need their party. I see Mr. Speaker rising, so my time has expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I regret interrupting the hon. member, but I must inform him his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should dearly like to follow the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), but I do not know where I would start or where I would end. According to the announcement from the Chair we are discussing Bill No. C-27. However, during the past 20 minutes we have dealt with the C.B.C., shredded wheat, corn flakes, some apple sauce, the history of the Liberal party, and explanations about the Progressive Conservative party. In addition, we have had a dissertation on socialism; we have learned about Arthur Smith's parents, the voters in Bow River constituency and the relationship between the hon. member for Bow River and the leader of his party. Just where one picks up the threads that the hon. member for Bow River has handed out, I do not quite know.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think you will find a subject.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And not necessarily relevant to the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is Friday afternoon, and those of us who are here always enjoy this hour. I was surprised when the hon. member for Bow River was being interrupted by various people, particularly one member opposite, that he did not find a way to refer to the hyphenated name of his party. I refer to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River

(Mr. Reid). Since I cannot cope with the bill of fare the hon. member for Bow River has given us, may I say a few words about the bill? Very simply, I hope that this house, during this hour, will act favourably with respect to this bill in either one of two ways: We can let it go through second reading and, I hope, pass the bill, or we can agree to an amendment to refer the subject matter to the standing committee on privileges and elections, where some of the details could be studied more thoroughly.
However, Mr. Speaker, let us not kid ourselves or try to fool the Canadian people. Parties are not foreign to politics. Parties are, as one of the experts has said, the breath of life to political institutions such as ours. If we did not have parties in this house we would be a chaotic mob, or perhaps I should say a more chaotic mob than we are sometimes. After all, parties represent the embodiment of principles, ideas and philosophies that are espoused. If we did not have ideas and philosophies, parliament would not be able to function and would not be able to give leadership to the Canadian people. I believe we could do with a lot less apologizing for political parties in this country. They are an important part of our political and democratic processes.
This being the case, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the simplest of common sense that people going to the polls on election day should be able to identify the candidates that are on the ballot by their political parties. I think the time has come for us to grow up with respect to this matter. I hope we can find a way, before the next election, of putting the names of political parties on the ballot papers. One of the reasons that this needs to be done is to clear up a situation when people have the same or similar names. In addition, it would help identify the candidates.
I remember the first time I ever ran, when I was not as well known as I thought I was. It was in 1935 and I ran in the constituency of Winnipeg South Centre, now represented by my good neighbour.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Stay away from there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At least, I saved my deposit away back in 1935. As many candidates do on election day, I visted a number of polls to see how things were going. At one poll which I visited, a good lady had just been in the booth marking her ballot. She came out and
October 28, 1966	COMMONS
handed it to the D.R.O. She made a comment, the kind of thing that is not supposed to happen, but she said that she had wanted to vote for Mr. Bennett. He was a former leader of the Conservative party, I may say to the hon. member for Bow River. However, she said his name was not on the ballot. Then she added, "There was a candidate on the ballot who was a United Church minister, and I thought he would be a good Conservative, so I voted for him." Well, the good lady had just voted for the then C.C.F. candidate for Winnipeg South Centre.
This is a situation that could readily be avoided by simply identifying each candidate's political affiliation. I think this whole question is one of growing up and recognizing the importance of political parties in our political and democratic system. The hon. member for Bow River has had a bit of fun with one particular detail, namely how does one get approval to use the name of the party? In his bill, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) has a very simple way of doing it. We find that, according to clause 2 of the bill, it can be done by a written declaration of the recognized leader of the party or, failing that, it can be done by the candidate indicating his affiliation on his nomination paper. As I see it, the committee on election expenses tried to cope with this issue. I think the hon. member for Bow River has misinterpreted that committee's recommendation. It does not say that the leader of the party shall pick the candidates, but that the leader of the party shall be the mouthpiece or spokesman through whom the election officials are informed of the party affiliations of the candidates in the various constituencies.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I would assume from my experience in this party that a leader would act on behalf of the party and would report to the election officials the names of the candidates chosen by the party in accordance with its own constituted procedures. However, if that is the kind of detail that should be modified, I am sure that could be done. The least we should do is to send this to the committee on privileges and elections, because I am sure we could agree to the principle of having the political affiliation shown on the ballot. Therefore, I hope that what will happen today is that the subject matter of this bill will be referred to that committee.
DEBATES	9283
Canada Elections Act Amendment [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, following up the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I think that Bill No. C-27 deserves the active consideration of every member.
For many years, we have heard people across Canada suggesting to the various political parties and to the successive federal governments that the political affiliation should appear on the ballot paper.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) mentioned a while ago that independent members and candidates would have difficulty in being recognized by the returning officer. In my opinion, Bill No. C-27 does not prevent anyone from coming forward as an independent candidate, provided he has, as mentioned in paragraph 5, clause 21:

Any twenty-five or more electors qualified to vote in any electoral district for which an election is to be held may nominate a candidate, or as many candidates as are required to be elected for such electoral district, by signing a nomination paper in Form No. 27 stating therein such particulars-

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is clear enough. Everyone can understand that, especially the hon. member for Bow River, who is intelligent.
The main objective of that bill is to show the political affiliations of the candidates after their names because it happens that, in several ridings, and I would say in all ridings, some people are not too well-informed and say: I would like to vote for the Creditiste or the Liberal candidate, but who is he?
You will find that in all ridings, because there are people who take practically no interest in politics except on election day itself.
For instance, recently, in the municipal election in Montreal, scarcely 30 per cent of the population voted. That does not necessarily means that the 70 per cent who stayed home knew nothing about politics; they certainly were not interested in that election.
Among the 30 per cent who voted, there are still some who wonder which party is represented by such and such candidate?
Mr. Speaker, I think Bill No. C-27 should be referred to the standing committee for consideration and report as soon as possible, so that at the next election, whether it be in one year or two years, the political affiliation
October 28, 1966

Canada Elections Act Amendment of the candidate appears on the ballot paper; that would help the voter to fufil his duty, since he would know for whom he is going to vote. The detail would appear on the ballot paper. He will not have to ask the assistant returning officer who is who and what party he represents. He will know just by reading his ballot paper.
I am of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that this bill should be accepted right away by all the members of the house.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I should like to enter this debate to suggest that we take at least one step to improve the archaic and scandalously outdated election system that we have in this country in this century. There are so many things that need to be changed and altered in our method of holding free elections that we should at least start by accepting this proposal. It is being made easier and easier every day to buy groceries, to wash clothes and purchase almost everything, yet it is very difficult for a voter to get his name on the voters list and vote for the candidate of his choice. I suppose this is so because of the confusion which is written into the Canada Elections Act and the inability of members of this institution to voice the opinion that reform ought to take place by placing the name of the candidate's political party on the ballot.
It seems to me the least we can do to smooth out some of the difficulties regarding voting is to adopt the principle embodied in the bill now before us. Many individuals who vote are transient and do not spend enough time in one place to know the political affiliation of the candidates in their riding. An individual may move from one riding to another just before election, and therefore know nothing about the candidates who are running in the new riding. If we adopted the principle of this bill, a voter would at least be able to make some intelligent contribution so far as voting is concerned in this country. This would allow voters to have at least a common denominator in the political field. If we defeat the principle now before us we will deprive a great many Canadian voters of the one chance they may have to make an intelligent selection, because without any knowledge of the individuals who are running, or their background, the candidates' names will mean nothing to them.

I am not very surprised that some members of the Conservative party should have some doubt as to which camp they are in, but I did not expect to hear the type of thing said by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Wool-liams). It strikes me that the least we can do to improve our election system is to adopt this bill now before us.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: speak here as a representative of-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What party?


John Mercer Reid: -the Liberal-Labour party. I am not as afraid as some members about the suggestion that the party leader should inform the returning officers whether or not I am entitled to run as a candidate of a political party, because I am sure that I will be able and am able to do this myself.
The subject matter of this bill is very fascinating in that it deals with a subject which I am told is the subject of at least 10 per cent of the bills now on the order paper.
In view of the fact we have received a report on election expenses from the commission established to study that subject, I think the subject matter of this bill, as well as that report, should be sent to the standing committee for study and recommendation. Let me join with other hon. members in this house in the hope that the next time we face the public we will have a revised Canada Elections Act.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River, particularly those concerning party names and party history. My background is in Canadian political history, and to try to run off all the names that the Conservative party has masqueraded under since and before Confederation might take some doing. I think they started off with Macdonald's Conservative party, and then, when he joined with Macnab it became the Liberal Conservative party; and after Confederation there was the coalition government, which broke up into the Conservative party. It then became the Union Conservative party, the Union party, then the National Conservative party, then back to the Conservative party, then the National Conservative party, then the Progressive Conservative party, and in 1958 it became the Diefenbaker party. In 1963 and 1965 many candidates ran who did not use the name of Mr. Diefenbaker or his party on their election
October 28, 1968	COMMONS
literature. Today we must decide whether it is to be the Camp party or the Maloney party.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is it not unfortunate that the hon. member cannot get elected without tagging the word "labour" to his designation, so that he is a Liberal-Labour candidate?


John Mercer Reid: The first thing I say to that is that I try to represent all aspects of my constituency.


An hon. Member:: All things to all people.


John Mercer Reid: Perhaps you would grant me the indulgence of allowing me to explain the origin of the labour designation, because I am proud to have it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You cannot run as a Liberal and get elected.


John Mercer Reid: I do not see any reason to, because we have our own party and it has served the constituency well, ever since our party and ever since our constituency was formed.
You might be interested to know that the first member for Kenora-Rainy River was Hon. Peter Heenan, who was elected first as a Labour member. He was re-elected in the election of 1925 as a Labour member, and in the election of 1926 he was nominated first by the Labour party. Then down the street on the same day where the Liberals were holding their nomination meeting, he was nominated by them also. He ran for the first time in 1926 under the title of Liberal-Labour. Since that time the party has never been defeated in a federal election in the riding of Kenora-Rainy River. This is a unique record.


David Réal Caouette: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is it not a fact that the Liberal-Labour party is included in the Liberal party?


John Mercer Reid: Not necessarily. It is included only because I choose to be included. If at any time I find myself in disagreement with it I shall have no hesitation in moving over and joining the hon. member's former coleader, the hon. member for Lapointe.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: By two-way agreement.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member would then feel as free as the hon. member for Lapointe.
DEBATES	9285
Canada Elections Act Amendment


John Mercer Reid: I think it would be an odd combination. I do not think I care to join the little party being formed in the corner. It may be that in a short period we shall have six parties to put up with in the house during motions.
I should like to discuss this bill. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River having to do with the history of parties. Hon. members may not be aware of this, but since original research has been done into this subject it has been discovered that parties began forming in the mother of parliaments around 1570 over the issue of religion, and particularly in the later parliaments of the first Queen Elizabeth.
All those interested of course are aware that the first real attempt to form parties was by Pym and Hampden, mentioned by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition the other day. That was just prior to the election of the Long Parliament of 1640, after the short parliament of 1639 had been elected. The short parliament was shortly dissolved after convening because it did not come across with any money for the king. Pym, Hampden and their cohort went around and organized a great number of constituencies, so that eventually in 1640 the king found himself with a parliament more opposed to him than the one of 1639.
Basically I am in favour of this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not talk it out, then.


John Mercer Reid: Coming from a rural area, I do not think what is contemplated applies to my type of situation. In a rural area, electorate and elected can get together. They know each other, and know each other's faults and virtues. In urban centres this is rarely possible, because though we have developed a tremendous communications industry in Canada it fails really to communicate a great many things. Anybody who has ever organized a campaign in an urban area realizes the inadequacy of the media, which has a great dislike of handling petty things such as candidates' names. It is not possible for candidates' messages to get across. In the urban areas you tend to run on party differences, and there one does not get elected because he is John Doe: One gets elected because he is John Doe, Liberal, Progressive Conservative, N.D.P., Social Credit or what have you.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask another
question.


John Mercer Reid: Yes.
COMMONS DEBATES	October 28. 196$



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
Canada Elections Act Amendment
Gordon Minto Churchill: What is your evidence to show that people vote for the party label and not for the candidate? This is just a generalization and is unfounded.


John Mercer Reid: I agree with you. It is generalizing, and I suppose a certain number of the electorate do read the party literature dumped on their doorsteps. They do talk to the party workers. It has been my experience, generally speaking, that in a general election people in a particular constituency will not know who their members are or who their candidates are, because television, radio and the newspapers tend to play up the activities of a very few people running the show. These people are normally the leaders and lieutenants in all parties. They get most of the publicity.
For the ordinary candidate to try to go around on a door-to-door basis and get as many of those in favour and as many against-


Stanley Ronald Basford: May I ask a question?


John Mercer Reid: Yes.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I was wondering whether the Liberal-Labour party intended talking this bill out?


John Mercer Reid: This is the first opportunity I have had to talk the bill out, and I think I should take advantage of it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Liberals like to restrict debate, so be careful.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will be run out of the Liberal party.


John Mercer Reid: I was talking abut the inadequacy of the news media with respect to individual candidates. While I have never run in an urban area I have organized two or three elections in such an area, and I have found-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Richard): Order, please. The hour for the consideration of private members business has expired.


Arthur Laing: May we return to the order for motions, Mr. Speaker.



GRANTING OF FURTHER POWERS TO STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
That, in addition to the powers granted July 13, 1966, to the Standing Committee on Northern Affairs and National Resources, the said committee be also empowered to obtain further information relating to matters and projects dealing with National Parks and Historic Parks and Sites;
That for this purpose, the said committee be authorized to sit while the house is sitting or during adjournment of the house, to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That the Clerk of the said Committee and the necessary supporting staff do accompany the said committee.
Arthur Laing: As we
have returned to motions I would like to move the resolution standing in my name. It is for the purpose of enabling the committee on northern affairs and national resources to visit the national parks of Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this type of resolution is not normally brought under motions this way.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
This happens to be under government orders. This is the wrong time to bring it forward. I have with me here no members of the committee who would be interested in this particular proposition, and since it is after six o'clock on Friday I suggest we should not proceed with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Since there is not unanimous consent, the motion is refused.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps by unanimous consent we could be told the business of the house for Monday and maybe for Tuesday.


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is proposed to call interim supply on Monday, followed by item 101, second reading of Bill C-241 to amend the National Housing Act, and then to call item 79, the Canadian National Railways finance and guarantee measure, after which we will take item 83, second reading of bill C-220 providing for appeals to an immigration appeal board. I enter a caveat with regard to the last item. I am not able to get in touch with the leader of the house at the moment to confirm it.
October 28, 1966


Mr, Knowles:: May I ask the acting house leader when we shall get back to medicare?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until Monday next at 2.30 p.m.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the minister was trying to get up.


[Stage Direction]
Business of the House It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]
[Stage Direction]
1, la, 5, 10, 15

[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 31, 1966