1966-07-08

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of privilege which stems from the passage yesterday of the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Bank Act. As you will recall, Your Honour, this was passed yesterday. I discovered that within minutes the press gallery had copies of this bill; not only copies of the bill, but a precis of the salient points. I myself have not yet received a copy of the bill, and when I telephoned this morning to try to get a copy I was told that while there were some copies they were being reserved for certain individuals, and were not available for members of parliament.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is an intolerable affront to members of parliament, and I for one do not propose to submit to it.


Mr. Sfarr:: This is arrogance of the worst type.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I heard of these circumstances only this morning. If there has been any discourtesy to members of parliament-and it 'has not been due to any action on my part-then I apologize. My understanding is that there was a greater demand for copies of this bill than is usual because of the great interest of the banking community and of the press. I do not understand why copies are not available for all members of parliament now.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Soulh Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, on this point of privilege may I inform the Minister of Finance that there is a considerable demand by members of parliament for this bill. Surely they should be recognized first. This is a continuation of mismanagement on the part of this government, with bills not prepared in both languages. Here is one of the most important bills of the session which is not made available. There is no bill in mv possession based 23033-467i
on the resolution that was passed yesterday. Surely there should be an explanation from the Prime Minister, who is the leader in this house, with regard to this type of mismanagement.


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is an example of arrogance that cannot be justified. As Leader of the Opposition no copy was made available to me. I want to say immediately that we have had altogether too much of this attitude. We are going to take a stand strongly against the view of this government that we here are to be treated as secondary to others outside the house.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to add our strong protests to those expressed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and the present government. It is indeed incomprehensible, unjustifiable and intolerable that the government should distribute copies of a bill to other persons before handing any to members of parliament. We want to join in the protest and ask the government to change its attitude.
We cannot accept that the government should exist in order to comply with the requests of a few bankers, because we feel that members of the house should receive copies of the bill in both languages before people outside the house. We also believe that this is the continuation of a standard policy of the government because, only yesterday, we did not even have one French copy of the bill under study.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Haf):: Mr. Speaker, I want only to say that we do not accept the explanation that there was an unusually large demand for copies of this bill. It was passed to members in the banking community and to the press prior to members of this house receiving copies. In this morning's paper we read some of the details contained in the bill, and so far members of the house have had no way of confirming these details from the official document that as members of this house they are entitled to receive before anyone else receives

July 8, 1966
Privilege
it, regardless of the interest in the bill other persons may have.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister may I say I am sure we are all in agreement with what the hon. member who has just spoken has said. Parliament is entitled to receive copies of all its bills first, and no one would support that contention more strongly than the Minister of Finance.


An hon. Member:: Tell him that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance proposes to look into the matter, as will the government and the house leader. But it is wrong to attribute the error in this instance to the government. It is the responsibility of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: It is the government that has the responsibility.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My right hon. friend understandably takes the position that the government is at fault.


John George Diefenbaker: Who else?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I remember that on two occasions, when he was prime minister, similar complaints were made by the then opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not a fact.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And the reply of the Leader of the Opposition was not as succinctly stated as I am now doing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -but it was the
same thing. I hope the right hon. gentleman will agree with the explanation-


John George Diefenbaker: No; that is not factual.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had hoped he would, but he will not. I have stated-


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government's position, is that parliament must get these measures first. If parliament has not got this bill it is not because of the government-


John George Diefenbaker: Why did the press gallery get it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -nor, as suggested by my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre, is it because of the Prime Minister,

who has been engaged in a very important conference, nor was it as the result of any action taken by the Minister of Finance. We are going to look into this matter, and parliament's rights in this situation of course will be protected.


Michael Starr: That is wrong.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should like to find out who distributed these copies to the press gallery and not to members of parliament.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: The Secretary of State for External Affairs claims that this very serious affront to parlia ment is not the responsibility of the government. Nevertheless I think parliament has the right to know on whose orders this limited number of copies were distributed first to the press and to the banking fraternity before they were distributed to members of parliament. Did the Minister of Finance order the distribution of these copies and the precis outlining the main content of the bill? Who distributed these copies? Were they distributed on the minister's orders? Surely these bills should go to members of parliament prior to going to the press gallery. The minister may say that the house has a right to copies of the bill, but the fact is that the members of parliament didn't get the bill first, and the responsibility for what' has happened lies at the door of the government.
Although the minister says this matter is the responsibility of parliament, the ministers opposite are shirking their responsibilities. It is their responsibility, first, to see that a sufficient number of bills are reserved for members of parliament and, before bills have been distributed, that an adequate supply of copies is held in reserve so that each member may have a copy. I think if the government were half as interested in seeing that members get the information they are entitled to as they are in looking after their publicity, things would be much better for all concerned.


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: I think the importance of this affront to parliament goes a little deeper than a mistake made by someone on this occasion. The whole attitude of this government has been that parliament is just a nuisance, and it is the development of this attitude which makes it so easy for this sort of mistake to occur. I think the cries of derision which were raised by Liberal backbenchers when
July 8, 1966

this question of privilege was first put forward by an hon. member protesting that the privileges of the house had been breached indicated that supporters of the government do not recognize the responsibility which each member of the house has to ensure that these privileges are retained.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege arising out of a statement made by the Acting Prime Minister. I challenge him to give one example of our government handing over a bill to the press gallery before parliament had it. I ask him to do that. I challenge him, and say he cannot do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to hon. members that the point has been well considered and discussed. I may say I am in full sympathy, in full agreement, with the grievance. It is difficult to determine to what extent it is a question of privilege or to what extent it is a grievance, but certainly the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has a legitimate grievance. I would hope that the general procedure regarding the distribution of bills can be reviewed so there shall not be a repetition of this incident.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: On
the question of privilege, in his cavalier manner the Secretary of State for External Affairs tried to pass off this matter as something of no consequence, outside the responsibility of the government. On behalf of all members of this house I ask him whether he will undertake that as soon as the sitting opens on Monday he or the Prime Minister will give a complete report on who ordered whom to distribute this bill to the press.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is merely repeating what has been said in the course of the discussion which has been completed.



BROADCASTING


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning motions.
Some days ago already, the chairman of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts presented a report to
Broadcasting
the house which has not yet appeared on orders of the day. Such a motion could be agreed to by the house. The report was presented to the house, but the motion for concurrence therein was never put forward. Now, since the report belongs to the house and since it has been tabled in this house, I suggest it would be in order to put it on the orders of the day and that it be concurred in or rejected some day or other. But, at this time there is absolutely no reference thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the hon. member is erring in his interpretation of standing orders. There is no requirement that a report presented to the house be necessarily concurred in by the house. Very often a report is simply tabled without it being necessary to ask the house for concurrence therein.



DOMINION DAY


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-225, respecting the observance of Dominion day.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The purpose of this bill is to help ensure that Canada's national day cam be observed in an appropriate manner throughout our country.

By prohibiting certain commercial activities, the purpose of this bill is to try to have a true national commemoration day for all Canadians throughout our beautiful country.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, could we revert to motions? I rose earlier but failed to be recognized. With the consent of the house, I should like to make a statement on immigration.
Immigration

July 8. 1966


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Marchand: The second aspect of this policy pertains to future arrivals and those persons now in Canada who do not apply for permanent residence on or before July 25, 1966. The applications of such persons for landing will be approved only if:
(a)	They are not within the prohibited classes described in the Immigration Act;
(b)	they have not gained admission by any fraudulent means;
(c)	they do not have immigrant applications pending when they come to Canada;
(d)	they apply before the expiry of their period of authorized stay and have not violated the conditions of their entry; and
(e)	they come within one of the two following categories:
(i) those who would be acceptable as unsponsored immigrants if applying as such abroad; or
July 8. 1966

(ii) those who were, before admission, the spouses or minor children of citizens or legal permanent residents of Canada.
To deter those who might deliberately use this method of gaining admission rather than applying for immigrant visas at immigration missions abroad, the actual granting of permanent resident status to these persons will be deferred for one year from the date their applications are conditionally approved. Approval will be revoked if, during this period, there is definite evidence of criminal or other tendencies which establish that the applicant is undesirable as a future Canadian citizen.
Those applicants who fail to comply under this policy will be asked to leave Canada voluntarily, failing which deportation action will be initiated. Should parliament approve the bill to establish an immigration appeal board which is now before the house, persons ordered deported will have the right of appeal to an independent, judicial body which, in all but a limited number of exceptional cases, will have the power to deal conclusively with their appeals, subject only to a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The third and most important aspect of this policy consists of better controls to prevent recurrence of the present situation. The new policy will be widely publicized in Canada and abroad to ensure that persons in Canada and the travelling public are well aware of our laws and requirements. A better documentation system for visitors will be instituted to identify visitors and to verify their departure without burdening them with undue formalities. Other improvements will be made in the internal methods of the department to enable efficient detection, apprehension and deportation of those who violate the conditions of their stay.
This new policy will apply to all categories of non-immigrants, except students and seamen who will continue to be governed by special policies and procedures. I would also like to emphasize that the procedures I have outlined affect only those who seek to migrate to Canada outside the proper channels. The qualified migrant seeking admission to Canada in the legal manner will not encounter any barriers. Nor do we intend that the new procedures will impede international travel or cause delays at Canadian ports of entry.

I also wish to announce, Mr. Speaker, that the government intends to introduce as soon
Immigration
as possible revised regulations governing the admission of persons sponsored by relatives in Canada. The proposed changes will remove all discrimination on grounds of geographic or ethnic origin of immigrants-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Marchand: -and will create uniformity of standards for admission for all countries. Persons who have made a deliberate choice to identify themselves with Canada by becoming Canadian citizens will be eligible to sponsor, on a universal basis, a broader range of relatives than at present. Moreover, Canadian citizens who feel aggrieved by departmental decisions regarding the exercise of the rights of sponsorship will have recourse to the immigration appeal board in accordance with the terms of the bill which is now before the house.
Modifications and improvements in security features will give effect to the regulations in such a way as to remove the existing limitations and allow the movement of all eligible sponsored immigrants from eastern Europe and other parts of the world where such limitations now exist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Marchand: Non-citizens will have some
restrictions on their present sponsorship privileges from Europe and the Americas, but still will be eligible to sponsor their dependent relatives from all countries. Details of the changes in the regulations I have outlined will be incorporated in the white paper on immigration which soon will be available. The study and debate which will follow, of course, will determine the precise form the new regulations will take.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, the problem of the illegal entry of persons circumventing our immigration laws is not a new one, but recently it has grown very greatly both in volume and in intensity. With the general principles enunciated by the minister this morning it would be difficult to quarrel, but I confess that I do have mixed feelings-yes, grave qualms-about the interpretation and enforcement of those principles. A great deal more will have to be known about the actual procedures which are proposed by the department before a final judgment on the new policies can be rendered by the house. I am by no means sure, after listening to the minister this morning,

July 8. 1966
Immigration
that he has solved the headaches either for the department or the individuals concerned.
Personally, sir, I believe that the first principles ought to be generosity and sympathetic understanding to those already in the country who can meet health, security and crime free standards. This country can afford some genuine humanitarianism in its immigration laws. My own conclusion is that only a full amnesty for those already in the country is a realistic solution at this time, coupled with a clear enunciation of the principles to be followed in the future in dealing with illegal entrants and the adequate and uniform enforcement by the department and the new immigration appeal board of those principles.
I confess that I had some particular concern about what the minister said in relation to those who come to the country in the future as visitors and who seek to remain. He said they would be admitted if they would have been accepted as unsponsored immigrants or if they were spouses or minor children of citizens or of legal permanent residents of Canada. Later on the minister said there would be a complete revision of the regulations dealing with sponsorship, and he did say that a broader range of relatives than at present would be included.
Let me say I had an ominous feeling that in this particular first sentence the minister was giving us a forerunner of his intentions and that he might be about to adopt the proposals made by Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C. as to restrictions on sponsored immigrants. If he were to do that I think he would strike terror in the hearts of many immigrants. The minister shakes his head. Let me say to him that I believe this is part of the policy which ought to be clarified at the time he is bringing forward his white paper. There is no reason why these proposals related to persons entering on non-immigrant visas should be confined to those who are spouses and minor children.
The minister in his statement said the policy for the future will remove all discrimination on the grounds of geographic or ethnic origin of immigrants. I remind him that basically that was the policy and regulations laid down in 1962.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Richard Albert Bell: If the minister and hon. members of this house will read the statement made by Hon. Ellen Fairclough at that time they will see words that are very similar to those used by the minister this morning. If there has been discrimination it

is because of what hon. gentlemen opposite have been doing since that time. I want to say to the minister that we on this side of the house will be vigilant to see that those words are not merely window dressing but that they mean precisely what they say.
What satisfaction we may have this morning in some aspects of the principles stated in the minister's announcement is tempered by what I would describe as a piecemeal approach to immigration policy. In December, 1964 the Prime Minister promised a white paper on immigration before the next session. Two sessions have passed and we are on the eve of a recess of a third session without the fulfilment of that commitment. The introduction of legislation to establish a genuine immigration appeal board, facilitated by the opposition, and this announcement are but-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Richard Albert Bell: Yes, facilitated by the opposition-these are but segments of the problem, and I submit it is impossible to view what has been said this morning in perspective without this long overdue white paper and a full revision and modernization of the Immigration Act itself. That, sir, is what we shall demand of the ministry, and as rapidly as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like my words to be an unqualified and warm welcome of this announcement. I think the minister and his advisers are to be congratulated on the improvements and steps forward that are embodied in these proposals. We in this party have for many years, to my knowledge, advocated three basic changes in the act and the administration of the regulations. We have advocated the elimination of all racial discrimination; we have advocated that the problem of visitors who seek to stay in Canada be dealt with properly, and we have advocated fair hearings for those who seek admission to Canada.
Dealing with the first point about the elimination of racial discrimination, we warmly welcome the statement of the minister. The regulations which were introduced-apparently the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has forgotten this-during the time of the previous administration expressly contain discrimination in respect of the sponsorship of would-be immigrants to Canada. I have the regulation in front of me, and it provides
July 8. 1968

far stricter rules in regard to those who come from Asia and Africa than in regard to those who come from Europe or the United States. I was glad to hear the minister say in his statement that this discrimination is to be eliminated.
Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister, although it is not appropriate that he should deal with it now, that there remains in the Immigration Act the explicit authority to the governor in council to discriminate on the basis of ethnic origin. This authority is contained in section 61 of the Immigration Act. I call upon him to follow up what he has done so far by assuring us that we in this house will be invited to remove from the Immigration Act the authority given by parliament to discriminate on racial grounds.
The next point deals with the question of visitors. We welcome two aspects of this measure as mentioned today. The first is that those who come in through the lax application of the administration will be given a chance to show that they are qualified to stay in Canada, and that their suspense in this regard will be relieved.
I merely wish to point out one detail, and perhaps this is a matter that has been overlooked. The minister in his statement said that those who were in the prohibited classes described in the Immigration Act would not be entitled to have their applications approved. I remind the minister that the Immigration Act includes, in paragraph (t) of section 5, a prohibition against admission of anyone who does not comply with the regulations, so every single one of these people in theory could be eliminated under this general description on the ground that, for example, they had not complied with the regulations because they did not have immigrant visas. I ask the minister that the absence of an immigrant visa, which has been frequently used in the past as an excuse, without any reason given for refusal of admission, will not be used in denying admission to those who will apply under this proposal and who are now in Canada. Indeed, I hope this method of dealing with applications will not be followed at all.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
I want to tell the house and the minister that despite these improvements there remains a procedure applied by the department which is dangerous and vicious; that is to say, that those who apply to come can be
Immigration
excluded, not because of any specific objection but because they have not got an immigration visa, which the department has refused to give without telling the applicant why. This is unjust. It is wrong. It is a practice that is being carried out now, and I urge the minister to review it.
Last is the question I mentioned before, namely that of providing fair hearings for all applicants. The whole immigration appeal procedures which have been brought forward in the bill which has been given first reading in this house are immensely improved by the proposed legislation, in that an independent appeal tribunal will be set up. But this will be meaningless unless it is made perfectly clear that the objections to the admission of an immigrant are made known to the applicant, so his hearing before the immigration appeal board and the special inquiry officer is meaningful and not just a hearing with regard to a piece of paper which the department decided the immigrant should not have.
I am also glad to hear that the question of security procedures with regard to immigrants from eastern Europe is to be reviewed. For a long time we have had a ridiculous situation in this regard whereby, for example, 400,000 people emigrated from Yugoslavia to West Germany, France and other parts of western Europe and made a tremendous economic contribution to those countries; yet we were told in Canada that because our security procedures did not enable us to look into the cases of people who came from a country such as Yugoslavia, they could not be admitted, as though some security risk existed in bringing in a few skilled people to Canada from Yugoslavia, which security risk did not exist at all in West Germany and other parts of western Europe.
I am delighted to hear that changes are to be made in this field. I would be less than generous if I did not say that after years of waiting for some action in this regard we are delighted to see that we are moving in the right direction. We will wait for the white paper. We want the committee to go into this matter thoroughly. There are many other things in the Immigration Act that require changing, but at last we are on the move.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Inquiries of the Ministry minister when he says there has been wholesale circumvention of the immigration regulations by the large number of visitors who apply for landed immigrant status. We certainly hope this procedure will be changed in practice in addition to lip service being paid to other changes.
We welcome the announcement about a broader range of relatives being allowed into Canada on a sponsorship basis, because this has caused most of the members of this house some difficulty from time to time. It is all well and good for the hon. member for Carleton to say that his party did in fact pay lip service to removing all the geographical and ethnic discrimination that exists in this area, but we are more interested in what the practice will be in removing these discriminatory features from the immigration regulations. So we will watch with interest to see that what comes as a result of this announcement in actual practice is in keeping with what I hope the minister had in mind when he made the announcement.



BANK ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask whether last evening he had distributed to the press a summary in detail of the various items, changes, amendments and terms of the new Bank Act. Was this done by him, rather than by some unidentified personage? Why was it done, and why was parliament circumvented?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Parliament was not circumvented.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I take responsibility, of course, for the distribution of this document. I would not do anything else. I considered that it would be helpful to the press to have the summary. If I had known that this would have involved the public knowing of the contents of the bill before members of parliament, I would not have authorized this procedure.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is not the
minister's explanation now quite contrary to that given earlier by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Acting Prime Minister?


Michael Starr: He said there was no blame on the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, that there was no blame on the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The second question asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is argumentative. The first question he asked has been answered by the minister, and I suggest that at this point this should be satisfactory.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance, and I ask it quite sincerely. When can I expect to get a copy of the Bank Act bill; because I need it?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: See the
press.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think this is within my control, Mr. Speaker. The distribution of copies of bills is of course a matter for the distribution office and the printing bureau. As I say, if I had known there would be a delay like this, I would have had a double reason for not following the procedure I did.


Colin Cameron: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am advised from the table that there has now been received a limited supply of copies, which I assume will be available to hon. members.


Mr. Ricard:: In both languages, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand so.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance could see that we get copies of the summary which he prepared, or do we have to go to the press gallery to get them?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would be only too happy to supply copies of this summary. It was done for the convenience of the press, and of course if it would be helpful to hon. members I would be very happy to see that they get copies.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister who prepared the summary?


Mitchell William Sharp: It was prepared in my department under my direction.
July 8. 1966	COMMONS


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the minister this question, Mr. Speaker. Did he also arrange that copies of the bank bill will accompany the explanatory notes? Did he do that too, or did they just naturally become available through some extraterrestrial means?


Mitchell William Sharp: I only heard of that particular circumstance this morning, and I have not inquired fully into it. I do not take any particular responsibility for that but I would not deny it, if the right hon. gentleman wants to add this to his grievance.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say it is my grievance rather than parliament's grievance?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. If he is speaking on behalf of the house I would accept this responsibility.


John George Diefenbaker: All right.


George Harris Hees: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Finance explain to the house why he considered this explanatory precis would be more useful and desired by the press than members of parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, like all the other members, we have asked for a copy of the bill of the Bank Act and we are told that there are no copies in French. Could I therefore ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), when he has had the kindness and the civility to have the bill translated from English into French, to provide us with a copy in French?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Clerk informs me again that a certain number of copies in French will be available for distribution to the members within a few minutes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the appeal of the Prime Minister of India for a reconvening of the Geneva accord powers, and the fact that the Prime Minister of Great Britain is planning to visit Moscow to appeal to the Soviet
DEBATES	73fll
Inquiries of the Ministry government, which is one of the co-chairmen of the Geneva accord powers, I would ask the government whether they have given any consideration to having either the Prime Minister of Canada or the Secretary of State for External Affairs visit Moscow in the near future to make an appeal to the Soviet union, as a co-chairman, to reconvene the Geneva conference in the hope that an end to the hostilities in Viet Nam may be brought about.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: The appeal made by the Prime Minister of India yesterday, Mr. Speaker, did not only concern the Geneva conference. It involved a proposal for a cessation of bombing and a cease fire throughout Viet Nam. As the Prime Minister indicated, I think the day before yesterday in answer to a question, Canada of course is in favour of such a conference as is proposed, providing it can be arranged. For some months now we have been engaged in talks with other countries in trying to bring about the calling of a conference. We have had discussions with the government of India, the government of Poland, the government of Britain and a representative of the Soviet union. Only this week I have had a discussion with a high personage in the government of the Soviet union here in Ottawa with regard to this matter.
If it is possible for present objections on the part of one of the co-chairmen to the calling of such a conference to be overcome, I am sure this would be welcomed all over the world. I believe there are some very difficult impediments in the way. If they were removed Canada, of course, would be happy to support that course.
With regard to whether I would be prepared to go to the Soviet union, I can say we have had some discussions here in Ottawa recently about this matter, and I do hope to go to the Soviet union some time later.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure the house and the country will welcome the news that the Secretary of State for External Affairs plans to visit the Soviet union. May I ask if it would not be advisable to advance the date and, if possible, have the Prime Minister visit the Soviet union as well, since Canada as a member of the international control commission has a great stake in urging one of the co-chairmen to convene this conference and to do it within a matter of weeks?
July 8, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The Prime Minister and I had important discussions about this matter and related matters last Monday night with Mr. Polyansky. I will be having further discussions with him on Monday next.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Lapointe wish to put a supplementary question?


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: May
I ask the Acting Prime Minister if the Canadian government will consider issuing a statement endorsing the main theme of the statement made in London yesterday by Australian Prime Minister Harold Holt, and expressing this country's unqualified gratitude for the job the United States is trying to do in Viet Nam and throughout southeast Asia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not had a full opportunity of reading Prime Minister Holt's speech. In any event I would say to my hon. friend that I am sure he would agree, on reflection, that foreign policy is not decided in the simple way in which the question is suggested, and particularly on orders of the day.


Michael Starr: Is it ever decided?



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: My question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the rejection of the conciliation report of Mr. Justice Munroe by the nonoperating railroad union employees and the plans being made by all three non-operating union workers numbering some 93,000 workers, can the minister tell us what action the government is taking or what information he may have to pass on to the house in relation to this matter?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: The conciliation reports were delivered by me to the non-operating unions and the railway companies within the last 48 or 50 hours. I have had no official communication from
[Mr. Douglas.!
either of them since. I can only say my department and my colleagues in government are watching the situation very closely.


Michael Starr: May I ask a
supplementary question. Having in mind the fact that it will take a few weeks before a strike vote can be completed, in view of the serious situation is the government not planning to appoint some mediator now in order to give him time to try to negotiate a settlement?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: All relevant factors are being considered by the government.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I
ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister could say whether he or the government is considering some sort of policy to institute compulsory collective bargaining in order that we may avoid all these unnecessary strikes.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have nothing to add to the
statement that I made in the course of the presentation of my estimates within the last few weeks.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: have a question for the Minister of Industry. It is reported that applications for subsidies on steel fishing trawlers made as early as January have not yet been processed and subcontracts are being held up or cancelled awaiting decisions on subsidy applications. Can the minister state when it is expected these applications will be processed?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: the hon. gentleman will give me details of the particular application involved I will be glad to look into it right away.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: May I ask a supplementary
question. There are a number of these applications which I am sure the minister will locate when he investigates this matter. My supplementary question is, has a letter gone out from the Department of Industry advising those interested in trawler construction for the fishing industry that there may be some change in the regulations after August 1, 1967?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will check on that, Mr. Speaker.
July 8. 1966



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the
Minister of National Health and Welfare is prepared to make the statement for which we have waited so long during the debate on the Canada Assistance Plan, concerning what action is going to be taken or is expected to be taken on behalf of the old age pensioners of this country.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am holding myself in readiness to make such a statement at the appropriate time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will you make it to the house or just to the press?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is in accordance
with the statement I made on Tuesday last.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister, is it a fact that instructions have been given by the Department of National Revenue to have a number of senior employees work on a plan for a capital gains tax, with the proceeds from which the plan the minister has in mind will be financed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition the question as asked is argumentative.


John George Diefenbaker: Then may I ask this simple question of the Minister of National Revenue. Has he, within recent days, had a number of senior employees directed to work on a plan for a capital gains tax?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: I have given no such instructions.


John George Diefenbaker: Whether or not instructions have been given, has any such examination been made?


Mr. Pickersgill:: What a spectacle of
irresponsibility.


Michael Starr: What a spectacle of irresponsibility on the part of the government.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a supplementary question. Will he be making the statement which he says he is holding himself in readiness to make in the house before this session recesses?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It depends on the length of the session.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the government house leader. Does he intend to proceed with the business of the house today as outlined in his remarks last night, when he said we would be considering the Canada Assistance Plan legislation, interim supply and medicare?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, last night I did not indicate that they would come in that order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: What I said appears at page 7371 of Hansard, namely:
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall be considering the Canada Assistance Plan legislation, interim supply, and medicare.
I was asked very early this morning which item would be taken first and I said interim supply, but I am in the hands of the house on this subject. I regret that my statement last night was not clearer.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, so that the clarity will be made even more clear, as soon as the Canada Assistance bill is before the house will the minister make the statement that he undertook to make on more than one occasion during the debate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the undertaking will be carried out, but I would prefer to have the Canada Assistance Plan disposed of so that the other issue can be dealt with subsequent to the passage of the Canada Assistance Plan. Nothing would please me more than to get on with the Canada Assistance Plan now.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question for the government house leader, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the statement just made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, would the government house leader agree that we first pass the social security plan and, once consideration of that bill is completed, that we resume debate on interim supply? Then, the Minister of National Health and Welfare could make the statement he wants to make.
July 8, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry [English]	fairness that I had understood the N.D.P.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am in a members had indicated they wished to dis-somewhat embarrassing position.	cuss some matters on Viet Nam.


Michael Starr: No; wait a minute.


George James McIlraith: If this can be done quickly it might be possible, but I am in the hands of the house with regard to getting these measures through.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which is based on a remark made by the government house leader. Surely he must admit that there has been excellent co-operation in trying to dispose of the business of this house. I do not think it is necessary to impute any motives to the opposition or to hold a hammer over our heads as to how soon legislation can be passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a point for discussion, and I suggest to hon. members that we do not appear to be making much progress with the question period.


Michael Starr: Not when we hear remarks like that.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the Minister of Public Works has a point of order.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should clarify what the business will be. I did not impute any motives to anyone. I have acknowledged publicly, and I will do so again, that I have been receiving excellent co-operation from the official opposition, and I have made no secret of that fact.
What I said, and the reason for my embarrassment, is this. I indicated the business of the house last night in a rather clumsy way, as anyone who reads my remarks carefully will see, and certainly as I saw when I received my copy of Hansard this morning. I said with some certainty that we would be considering all three measures today, when no one could say that. You can see how embarrassing it is, and I have sought never to put myself in that position. I was called very early on in the morning by the house leader for the New Democratic Party, who asked me what was the first order of business for today, and I said interim supply.


Gordon Minto Churchill: At his suggestion.


George James McIlraith: That is the position we are in. If the house wishes to take the other measure first and hon. members think we can deal with it, then it is up to the house. I have no wish to dictate to the house. I must say in
[Mr. Grcgoiro l


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: Now we see whom you spoke to this morning.


George James McIlraith: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have laid the facts before the house, whatever the house wishes to do with the situation. We should like to get the Canada Assistance Plan through for consideration by the other house so that they would have adequate opportunity to consider it. We should like to get interim supply through because we have need for the authority to spend the money. That is the situation. I will call whatever the house wishes as the first item of business in the light of these known facts.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not have a complicated mind and it is obvious to me that what the government house leader said yesterday is completely clear, that we would take as the first item of business the Canada Assistance Plan legislation. We are agreeable to continuing on that basis.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, as far as the members of this party are concerned, we understood that interim supply was coming up. I believe the Leader of the Opposition had indicated some days ago that we should have a debate on Viet Nam. We, of course, are very anxious to have that debate, but we are not going to hold up the house. Whatever order of business is acceptable to all parties we will, of course, follow.
I rose to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who said he was anxious to make a statement but that he did not want to make it on the Canada Assistance Plan. I want to ask the minister, since he is anxious to make the statement and we are anxious to hear it, whether he will undertake to make his proffered statement on interim supply, whenever it comes up. If it does not come up today it will come up on Monday. Then it will not be related to the Canada Assistance Plan, and the occasion will give the minister an opportunity to make the statement, rather than having to make it after the house has recessed. May we have that assurance from the minister?
July 8. 1966


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have stated that I would be prepared to make a statement following the passing of the Canada Assistance Plan, for reasons which I would have stated in the course of the debate. I still intend to carry out that undertaking. I do not intend in any way to play tricks with members of the house with respect to whether the statement ought to be made on interim supply or on any other occasion. I would have to confer with the Prime Minister and my colleagues before replying directly to that question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, and may I have a specific answer from the minister. Will his statement be made in the house before the summer recess? We do not care whether he makes it on interim supply or on something else, but would he make it in the house?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will give that undertaking.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you not give it in the first place?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: As the government house leader has left us up in the air with regard to the business of the house, and since he has so far failed to cope and has finally abandoned his duty of leading the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: -would he care to turn it over to the opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question does not help anything.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the government white paper on broadcasting reserves four areas in Canada for the establishment of C.B.C.-operated television outlets, can the minister explain why, of all the provinces in Canada, Prince Edward Island would then be the only province not provided with at least one C.B.C. television transmitter?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative, and I do not think it should be asked at this time.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to quarrel with your ruling, but this matter has very urgent implications which may not be directly apparent on the surface. If the minister is prepared to give some answer I would greatly appreciate it, as I am sure would the broadcasters generally in the Atlantic provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it is a nice point whether this matter in any way comes under my jurisdiction. I should be very happy to confer with the hon. lady, the Secretary of State, and with the Prime Minister to see if some statement could not be made at the earliest convenient opportunity after such conference had taken place. That might perhaps be Monday or Tuesday of next week.


John Angus MacLean: I would ask the Secretary of State a related question on the same general subject. I would ask the hon. lady to explain what change of government policy is represented by the fact that the 1965-66 annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation makes no mention of providing C.B.C. television service for Prince Edward Island, although such a provision has been mentioned in previous annual reports.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I have only been responsible for the C.B.C. for six months.



REPORTED RESIGNATIONS OF OFFICIALS IN TORONTO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the hon. lady whether she has any report on current C.B.C. resignations, and whether it is a fact that three of the persons who are among the best creative television producers in this country, who have won the highest international awards, resigned today. Can she also report to the house what available information she has with respect to the matter. The other day when I asked her the question in general, respecting the position of affairs, she said she would try to secure information, as I recall it. Certainly the events of the last couple of days indicate that the situation is becoming more serious with passing days.
July 8, 1866

Inquiries of the Ministry


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, as of eleven o'clock this morning I was advised that the C.B.C. had issued a statement. It might be better, perhaps, if I were to quote the words of the statement:
-it is the C.B.C.'s view that no useful relationship can be continued at this time with Mr. Leiter-man beyond the expiration date of his present contracts.
I was also informed that the only resignation of which the C.B.C. had official word was that of Mr. Reeves Haggan, general supervisor of the English public affairs network. I heard rumours respecting Mr. Watson and Beryl Fox, neither of which I was able to confirm before coming into the chamber. Nor have I received any information since. There does not appear to be any suggestion that beyond the people identifiable with "Seven Days" there is any likelihood of resignations or a slowdown or a stoppage of work. A press report, which I am sure hon. members have seen, indicates that the work is continuing, but I have been unable to ascertain whether this is the case.
I think all hon. members regret the difficulties of the last two or three months, and in particular those of the last couple of days. The way in which the matter has resolved itself is disappointing. I would hope that perhaps now the corporation, the purpose of which is to serve all Canada, will settle down, yet that Canada will not lose the services of people who have already demonstrated such great ability.


John George Diefenbaker: In expressing that hope, has the minister communicated with C.B.C. management so there will be no unnecessary merit in the words used by Mr. Reeves Haggan, an outstanding producer, when he said there have been sordid manoeuvres by the corporation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Haggan was a supervisor and not a producer. I have not conveyed my opinion to the corporation, as I did not think it was any particular concern to the corporation. It is parliament's opinion and not my individual opinion that the corporation is concerned with.


John George Diefenbaker: There was a committee set up in that respect.


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Regarding the resignation of Reeves Haggan, I would ask the Secretary of State, as a supplementary question, whether this was a voluntary resignation or one which was requested by

the corporation. Do the terms of reference with respect to Mr. Leiterman also apply with respect to Mr. Haggan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My only information is that Mr. Haggan tendered his resignation and that he issued a statement, a copy of which I do not have at this time, using the phrase that the right hon. gentleman quoted a moment ago. I do not know what if any direction was given by management to Mr. Haggan. I suppose that would be within the corporation's knowledge. I know of nothing, aside from the statement given by the C.B.C. following the board of directors' meeting earlier this week.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to ask a supplementary question. May I ask the Secretary of State if it is true that management offered Mr. Leiterman a contract on condition that he specifically would not hire either Mr. Laurier LaPierre or Mr. Patrick Watson? Is this the usual type of contract which is offered to producers, naming certain people that they may not hire in order to produce programs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the series of questions being asked at this point are not turning into a debate. I do not think that is the purpose of the question period. I suggest to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam perhaps that this question is not the type which should be recognized by the Chair.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask this question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has just stated that it is not for her to give direction or expressions of opinion to the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and that this is the responsibility of parliament. I would ask the government, therefore, if any opportunity is to be given to this parliament to express its opinion with respect to a series of events which, if carried much further, will result in the C.B.C. consisting of a great number of executives but very little talent.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, there are many more producers, of course, than Mr. Leiterman or others perhaps associated with him, who appear to be staying and working for the corporation.
With respect to my hon. friend's question, I understand from the statement of the C.B.C. that a contract was offered with a particular clause that is unusual in contracts, that Mr. Leiterman, if he accepted it, would be required to undertake to follow directives and to follow the policy of the C.B.C.
July 8, 1986

I understand that implicit in this was also the decision of the board of management with respect to the two gentlemen who had been the hosts of "Seven Days", that the question was closed and neither one could be hired as a host, so that in effect what my hon. friend suggests is the situation. So far as I know that is a unique contract, but it is certainly within the rights and responsibilities of management in hiring anyone to state what shall be in the contract, and that has been recognized I think by the producers' association in Toronto as a general principle.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the week in response to questions from the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for York South I undertook to file the terms of the agreement of settlement between the Shipping Federation of Canada and the unions concerned with the labour dispute in the three St. Lawrence ports, and also certain correspondence.
I now wish to table the terms of settlement and a letter dated June 20 that I received from the solicitors for the unions with an enclosure. Also I wish to table my reply dated June 27, copies of telegrams received by the Prime Minister and myself on June 30, our replies to these telegrams, and certain other telegrams that have since come in, dated July 4, 5 and 6.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to thank the minister for his courtesy in carrying out this undertaking and to ask him a question, simple and short. Did he, in the presence of the Prime Minister, say to the longshoremen's officials that a settlement having been made there would be no binding order or anything in the nature of compulsory arbitration in the setting up of the commission to look into the questions which were particularly to be referred to it?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I made no such statement. In fact, at a meeting shortly before the one which took place in the Prime Minister's office I made the contrary known to the parties who were there, and a statement to that effect was later made by the Prime Minister in the presence of myself and several of my colleagues.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement, summarized, is that there will be compulsory arbitration in the circumstances?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think the phrase "compulsory arbitration" was carefully avoided; but the fact that there would be a binding solution, a recommendation to parliament -that legislation would be introduced to make the terms binding, that is, the recommendations of the industrial inquiry commission on certain aspects-there is no question about that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: In order that we may not have to guess what was said may I ask the minister-and this may be of some importance-whether he would consider, possibly in consultation with the Prime Minister, tabling also any memorandum from which any statement was made to the parties on June 13 or 14 and any correspondence, including telegrams to and from the Canadian Labour Congress, the Prime Minister and himself?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: With regard to the tabling of any memoranda which may have been used, and which might reflect only part of the conversations which took place, I question whether such memoranda should be filed, but I shall be glad to discuss this suggestion with the Prime Minister. With regard to the second part of the hon. member's question, namely whether we would be prepared to table letters and telegrams, an exchange of correspondence, with the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, in order that all hon. members may know the contents of these communications I will be very glad to read a telegram which came to me from the president of the C.L.C. and a reply that I sent on behalf of the Prime Minister and myself yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: A telegram was sent to me by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress dated July 6. It reads:
As indicated to you during negotiations concerning the International Longshoremen's Association I wish to reiterate to you that as a firm matter
7388	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry of policy the Canadian Labour Congress is unalterably opposed to any type of legislation indicating compulsory and binding arbitration. This type of legislation is completely contrary to democratic methods and to normal collective bargaining.
Claude Jodoin, President C.L.C.
An identically worded night letter or telegram was sent to the Prime Minister. The reply I sent to the president of the C.L.C. on behalf of the Prime Minister and myself reads as follows:
In reply to your telegrams of July sixth to the Prime Minister and to me I would say that the traditional opposition of organized labour and management to the practice of compulsory arbitration in disputes over interests as distinct from grievances affecting rights is well known and I appreciate and respect the basic considerations underlying this attitude. It is equally well known and documented in the settlement of some disputes that labour and management have resorted to arbitration on specific issues that cannot be settled otherwise and which stand in the way of complete settlement. Likewise labour and management have agreed to settlements which provide for binding arbitration within prescribed limits. Previous governments of Canada have enacted legislation providing for binding solutions. As you are well aware most of the issues involved in the recent longshore dispute were settled by agreement and those directly concerned realized that legislative action was necessary and was promised to solve the remaining issues and thus bring about a complete settlement.
There is ample proof of this fact. As one instance, you will recall that on June thirteenth while you were present the Prime Minister read a statement to the ILA representatives concerning the two or possibly three issues remaining in dispute in which he suggested that the ILA drop its demand for the application of retroactivity to overtime and that the shipping federation accept the following proposal with respect to the four-hour recall "that this item be submitted to the commission for examination and that the recommendation of the commission with respect to this item be binding in precisely the same way as the recommendation with respect to gang-size. The four-hour recall would then be dealt with and included or not within the contract in the manner specified by the commission". You will also recall that also in your presence the suggestions of the Prime Minister in this regard were later accepted by both parties.
John R. Nicholson, Minister of Labour.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the other documents which the minister filed can be appended to today's Votes and Proceedings in order that we may have a full record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As an appendix to Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: Or Votes and Proceedings.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have no objection. I would be glad to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that these documents appear as an appendix to Hansard?

DEBATES	July 8, 1966


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of documents above referred to, see appendix.]


Mr. Speaker:: I call the attention of hon. members to the fact that the question period expired some four or five minutes ago. I suggest we move on to orders of the day.


David Lewis: On a point of order, then, with great respect, because we spent some time on business other than questions, I draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that the telegram last read by the minister referred to an extract from a statement by the Prime Minister when the parties were present. I submit that in view of the reference to that statement in the telegram, the statement itself ought to be tabled.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, in answer to this suggestion that I would consult with the Prime Minister to determine whether we agree to tabling it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order which has to do with the business of the house, bearing in mind the statement made by the leader of the house last night, the discussion in the house today and the minister's last words to the effect that he was in the hands of the house, I do not think the business before the house has been determined. I do not believe it should be settled by the Clerk.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
knows the rules of the house. The calling of business is in the hands of the government, and it will be known in just a moment what business is called.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I think the government should indicate it.


Mr. Speaker:: It will be indicated in a moment what the business is to be.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 5, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-207, to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs for the provision of assistance and welfare services to and in respect of persons in need-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last Tuesday we were about to discuss clause 5.
July 8, 1966

On clause 5-Amount of contributions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the important clauses of this bill. In fact it is the one which sets out the formula under which contributions will be made to the provinces on the one hand with respect to assistance payments made by them and on the other hand with respect to the costs of welfare services maintained or established by the provinces. It would be useful if the minister would make a statement giving the terms of the formula in simpler language than is contained in the clause.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, in response to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I shall begin to reply, and if he wishes further information I shall be glad to try to provide it. The rate of contribution for assistance, which is referred to in paragraph (a), is set out at 50 per cent of the cost to a province and to municipalities within the province. Federal sharing is limited to expenditures made by a province and municipality, although if a voluntary agency provides assistance that assistance will be supported by the federal government only in respect of that portion of the cost paid by the province or one of its municipalities. This gives an opportunity for voluntary agencies to participate in the plan.
Paragraph (b) provides a basis of contribution toward welfare service costs. It is divided into two parts which set out alternative methods by which the federal government may make contributions to a province at the option of the province. Under either alternative 50 per cent is the rate of sharing by the federal government.
During discussion of the Canada Assistance Plan at the conference of welfare ministers early in the year there was some consideration of how we might be able to participate, in as administratively simple a manner as possible, in sharing in the additional new service costs incurred by a province. As hon. members will note, in one case the federal government will pay additional amounts incurred by a province over and above the costs incurred by it and its municipalities for welfare services during a defined base period. The base period is set out in subparagraph (B)(1) as the cost to the province coinciding with or ending in the period commencing April 1, 1964, and ending March 31, 1965. In that case there will be the use of a base period. In the second case there is not the use of a base period but simply a cut-off point, which is March 31, 1965.
Canada Assistance Plan
In a sense this really is not a crucial point to the principle of the bill. It provides some administrative flexibility to the provinces. In the second case, by using a cut-off period the province of Quebec in particular felt it would be more simple administratively and would not involve as great a federal involvement in ascertaining their actual costs under this program.
Provinces may choose either option. Indeed, they may choose a combination of both options. There is the 50 per cent generally. Then there are the two alternative methods for meeting the additional costs of welfare services and then, of course, there is the method of dealing with regulations for the determination of capital costs which generally will be excluded from federal financial support.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree with the minister that there is nothing crucial with respect to the alternative choices granted to the provinces in subparagraph (B), and I am not going to suggest there is something crucial with respect to the rest of the clause, but I would like to be sure that we clearly understand it. In clause 5 we are dealing with two main areas in which contributions will be made by the federal government. One is in the area of what is called assistance, actual dollars that are paid to people in need. The other is in the area of welfare services, people put on staff to render services even though some of those services may get through in terms of equivalent dollar value to people.
Is it clear with respect to the first category, that of assistance payments to people, that the federal government will pay 50 per cent of whatever is the total cost to the province, municipality, or any other approved body? Does the minister want to say yes at this point?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: In respect of what are defined as welfare services and with regard to the putting of people on staff and providing services, the federal government will not pay a portion of the amount the provinces or municipalities have been spending up to the base year but rather will pay 50 per cent of the excess of cost from then on?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is right, Mr. Chairman. Naturally the provinces would have preferred that we pay all costs. The purpose,
July 8, 1968

Canada Assistance Plan however, really is to provide an incentive to the provinces to engage the additional personnel who will be required to make the Canada Assistance Plan work along the lines expected. We expect that incentive is provided by sharing one-hall of the cost of additional staff according to either of the options set out in the clause.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I pursue this a moment
longer. I thank the minister for his statement and I welcome the suggestion that this is set up as an inducement to the provinces to expand their welfare services. I take it that this is in line with the view generally expressed that we want not only to make dollars available to people by way of assistance but also want to help people get off welfare as fast as they can.
I do not wish to get into a matter of detail at this time which would interfere with general discussion by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa and the hon. member for Simcoe East, but at some point I should like to have two breakdowns in respect of the total amount of money the government expects to pay in the first year under the provisions of clause 5. My two breakdowns are these: On the one hand I should like to know how the $85 million which the minister is talking about is broken down among the various categories under which these moneys will be paid. My second request is for a breakdown with regard to how much of the $85 million would be under the heading of assistance and how much would be under the heading of welfare services. If my friends wish to pursue a more general discussion before we get into this detail I do not mind, but at some point I should like to have these detailed figures put on the record.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether the federal government takes any part in the establishment of regional offices. Could he also outline to us where these regional offices are, particularly with regard to my own province of Ontario? Does the federal government have any part in the choosing of the regional offices? I am asking this question because in the province of Ontario regional offices are now being established. In the areas where regional offices are being established now does the federal government pay 50 per cent of the cost of operation and of staff?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the location of any regional office which is set up

under the Canada Assistance Plan would be,
as the hon. member for Simcoe East appreciates, a matter for decision by the provincial governments, but we will be sharing through the federal parliament, if this bill is approved, 50 per cent of the additional staff costs in any office.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the minister grasped the last part of my question. Will the federal government pay 50 per cent of the total cost of the operating
staff of the regional office?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We pay 50 per cent of the
staff salaries.


Mr. Enns:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to
follow up this line of questioning. I believe I understand the clause correctly, but perhaps the minister would be able to define again the actual participation of the federal government in the payment of services so far as existing offices are concerned. As the minister has defined, and as it states in the clause, I know that any extension of services will be met by a 50 per cent contribution from the federal government, but if there is no extension and merely a salary increase, let us say, will the salary increase also be covered by the 50 per cent formula?
Second, in the event that there is no extension of services or even a salary increase, the municipality or agency will not benefit through the Canada Assistance Plan unless it does extend its services. Is that correct? I am not saying this in a negative sense because I agree there is an incentive here. When I spoke on this bill earlier I deplored the lack of standards. Perhaps it is a better way if the plan is providing incentives to improve standards.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With regard to the first question concerning whether salary increases aside from staff additions would be supportable, the answer is yes, if the province selects option 5(l)(b)(i)(A). My hon. friend asks whether there is any way in which welfare services can be supported except in the case of an extension. Welfare services can be supported if these welfare services are purchased under the definition of assistance in clause 2, welfare services purchased by or in the name of a provincially approved agency. In other words, 50 per cent will be shareable if these services are purchased for recipients of social assistance or public assistance. To that extent, the existing welfare services will
July 8, 1966

be supported under the Canada Assistance Plan.


Siegfried John Enns: I have one follow-up question. I agree that services and direct assistance are supportable but there seems to be no provision for capital cost support. Is that correct?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is correct. In clause 5 the right to assistance does not include any capital cost as defined by regulation for the purpose of this paragraph. The general effect of the paragraph is to exclude capital expenditures from the calculation of the costs of assistance. There may be some exceptions to this and we will deal with these exceptions by way of regulations. For example, we hope through regulations to deal with situations such as those which pertain to homes for special care where capital grants for such homes will not be considered by the plan but where debt charges, both principle and interest, may be included in setting per diem rate charges for the maintenance of persons in need.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
This carries forward a policy that was adopted under the Unemployment Assistance Act. Similarly, in the area of items of special need referred to in the paragraph defining assistance, the intent is to cover small items of furniture and household equipment where these are matters of urgent necessity. But the intention is to provide for limitations which will keep such expenditures within the intended scope of the measure. It is intended really to look after the day to day costs rather than capital costs.


Siegfried John Enns: I am interested in the minister's interpretation of these regulations. My question now is, does this extra provision apply only to the needs in the area of health or does it also make it possible for welfare needs to be met? I am thinking of the establishment of institutions such as child care centres.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think it would apply in that area as well.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to what the minister said in respect of clause 2 in that cost does not include any capital costs as defined by the regulations. If I heard him correctly, he did say that under the regulations there might be some exceptions. I should like to raise a question and perhaps I can best do so by giving him a particular example of a situation with which I am personally familiar.
Canada Assistance Plan
It concerns some handicapped people who have been endeavouring to maintain themselves by banding together in a group as self-supporting persons. Capital costs have been one of their major problems. I note in the interpretation clause of the bill under (a)Cii) it states:
Prescribed items incidental to carrying on a trade or other employment and other prescribed special needs of any kind,
Farther on in the interpretation clause under (n) it states:
"Welfare services provided in the province" means welfare services provided in the province pursuant to the provincial law to or in respect of persons in need or persons who are likely to become persons in need unless such services are provided;
Some time ago I made inquiries as to the possibility of the existence of any legislation by which federal assistance could be made toward capital costs which would enable this group, rather than as persons or individuals, to obtain assistance in respect of capital costs. This would be covered, I think, by the words "incidental to carrying on a trade or other employment". I discussed that situation with the Minister of Labour in his capacity as the minister answering for Central Mortgage and Housing and I was informed there was nothing under that act which would cover it because dwelling accommodation was not involved. I also had a discussion with the minister and the officials of the Department of Labour as to what might be available under the vocational technical assistance plan in the field of capital costs and I was informed that there was nothing because that program is limited to the carrying on of a trade.
I hope the minister can appreciate my concern about whether or not there can be some participation in capital costs to provide a building and working equipment for a group such as I have mentioned. The people in the group are under great difficulty but they have managed to maintain themselves as self-supporting individuals in spite of their physical handicaps. I hope that some assistance of this kind can be provided under the bill we are now considering because of the inclusion of exceptions under the regulations. I hope there can be participation by the federal government with the provincial authorities in providing some form of capital assistance to groups such as I have been attempting to describe.

July 8. 1986
Canada Assistance Plan


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the Canada Assistance Plan is basically a program for assistance to persons, and is not really intended to be a program for capital assistance. It is only incidental to the requirements of individuals in need that any kind of capital sharing would be undertaken. That is mentioned, of course, in clause 2 (a) (ii) which states:
Prescribed items incidental to carrying on a trade or other employment and other prescribed special needs of any kind.
We can foresee that if the province puts forward items of a capital nature, equipment, for example, that individuals such as my hon. friend mentioned might require, we could conceivably share on the basis of the experience and policy adopted under the Unemployment Assistance Act. We propose by way of regulation to make it possible to accept participation in capital costs to the extent of the payment of interest and principal when these are involved in the per diem costs of looking after people. Beyond these limited instances the Canada Assistance Plan will not be a capital assistance program.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am sure that the minister would be inclined to agree with me that the kind of situation I have described does not seem to fit into any program. These people are not asking for a welfare grant in the ordinary sense but they are asking for assistance in the acquisition of premises and some equipment which will enable them to carry on successfully as a self-supporting organization. If the minister feels in his mind that this program is not designed to meet the situation I have described, can he tell me whether the government has any program in mind which would meet this obvious gap and the needs of these handicapped and disabled people in order that they can maintain themselves as self-supporting citizens?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the nature of the problem my hon. friend mentions in respect of handicapped and retarded children and persons. The Canadian Association for Retarded Children has made a proposal to the government for rather major assistance. Included among the projects of that proposal is provision for the kind of support mentioned. At the present time my department and the vocational rehabilitation division of the Department of Labour are considering what can be done in this field. Only last week a meeting was held with these groups in order to determine what our final

position will be. This matter is under active consideration at the present time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I thank the minister for that information because I realize there is a relationship between the situation I have described and the proposals put forward by those interested in the matter of sheltered workshops and so on for people who are mentally retarded. I hope the minister will assure me that when such a program is being considered it will be considered in relationship not only to the mentally retarded who need special help to become self-supporting but also groups whose handicap is physical in the normal sense of that word.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, when we were discussing this bill the other night I raised the question of whether there were projections of how much the provincial governments would be requiring this year. I asked for a breakdown in regard to first, day care centres and second, homemaker services, The minister was good enough to say that he would give me some information along this line when we got to this particular clause of the bill. Can he give me that information now?
Further, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni raised a point in which I am interested in connection with day care centres. Is there going to be any provision from the federal end-I presume there will be for the training of personnel for day care centres-in connection with the capital costs of these centres or is that left out of this bill entirely?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the comments I made earlier with respect to capital costs generally would apply to the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. When we discussed the clauses of this bill last time I promised her that I would try to reply as well as I could to the points she raised when speaking about day care and homemaker services. In replying to the hon. member I should like to associate myself with her in her concern and assure her that I recognize the importance of such services and that the Canada Assistance plan has been designed to provide appropriate federal support in this field.
The hon. member is quite correct in telling us that too little information is available about the extent and nature of day care services for children in Canada. I think she is quite right in pointing out the lack of information in this respect. I hope she will be
July 8, 1966

pleased to know that the department has for some time recognized the need for such information and has agreed to finance a special study of this particular aspect to be conducted by the Canadian Welfare Council.
The total cost of the survey will be covered through the national welfare grants program, and because of the interest of the Department of Labour, especially the women's bureau, and the department of manpower and immigration we will be involved in a special interdepartmental committee to advise on the study. This will be an intensive survey of the extent of services and facilities in Canada at the present time, the attitudes of people toward the provision of day care services and the extent to which new facilities should be provided. When this survey is completed we will obviously be in a much sounder position to move ahead with the development of additional facilities.
I also agree with the hon. member that day care facilities for children are an important preventive measure and should be given full support. The fact that at the present time there are relatively limited facilities in Canada for this purpose means that a great deal has to be done to develop new services. I am hopeful and confident that the new funds available for this purpose will go far to help stimulate and encourage welfare departments and voluntary agencies to push ahead as quickly as possible.
Hon. members may have read the article which appeared on June 5 in the Toronto Globe and Mail concerning the development of day care facilities in the province of Ontario. The article stated that as soon as the Canada Assistance Plan passes through the House of Commons and as soon as provincial regulations are drawn up, the offer of the provincial government to subsidize day nursery operators will become more generous. The article stated that 80 per cent of day nurseries' operating costs will be paid by the senior governments, leaving the municipalities to pay 20 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Wasn't that July 5?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: June 5, I believe. Perhaps my notes are incorrect in this respect. This is an interesting example of the effect-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was just this week, Tuesday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that the Canada Assistance Plan can have in encouraging the development of new day care facilities. I am
Canada Assistance Plan hopeful that the municipalities in Ontario will respond to the provincial department's proposed offer and I can assure the hon. member that federal funds will be available through the Canada Assistance Plan to the extent that they are needed and can be used by the provinces.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway also referred to the importance of homemaker services as a preventive measure and asked that I give some indication of the exact amount of money that will be made available for this type of service during the remainder of the year. I regret that my answer has to be that I am not able to say precisely what amount will go to these kinds of services during the current year. The lack of information on existing services and the various methods of financing used make this impossible.
In some provinces, including the province of British Columbia from which my hon. friend comes, such services can be paid for through general assistance and the amounts provided are therefore varied in these general assistance costs. I can, of course, reiterate my assurance that the Canada Assistance Plan will make funds available in these areas in any amounts claimed by the provinces. That is the main thing. While we cannot say what will be spent, we know that amounts claimed in any magnitude by the provinces for these services will be made available through the Canada Assistance Plan.
I am grateful to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway for having drawn this matter to the attention of the house and having highlighted the important concepts through her participation in this debate. I conclude by assuring the hon. member that one of the objectives of the Canada Assistance Plan is to reach the people she mentioned, namely, the women and children of Canada. I believe that through this plan these services can be developed.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister very much for this report. He mentioned that Ontario was going to start out in a big way to avail itself of this money for day care services. Is there any indication from any of the other provinces as to the extent of their interest or that they are interested?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the only
indication I can give is that at the conference we had with the health ministers and their

July 8, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan officials there was a great deal of interest in this aspect of the plan, especially among the officials. In the federal and provincial governments there is a very keen awareness of the real possibilities in these areas, which may not be as well publicized as others. But there has been considerable interest. The passing of the plan will make it possible for the provinces to participate, and I hope they will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is the minister now in a position to give the figures I asked for some minutes ago? I asked for a breakdown of the figure of $85 million which he said will be the federal government's anticipated contribution in the first year this plan is in operation. I asked if that figure could be broken down into general categories and if he could also break it down as between assistance and welfare services.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wishes to have the components that went into the estimate of $85 million as the fresh amount that will be required in the current fiscal year for the Canada Assistance Plan. I should like, first of all, to give the items involved, then the preliminary estimate of federal cost-these are both preliminary and estimated-and then the clause of the bill involved so that hon. members may refer to the bill. The first item is mothers' allowances, and the preliminary estimate of fresh federal cost is $27.2 million. This is covered in clause 5 (DfbXiXA) of the bill. The second item is health care costs, and the preliminary estimate of federal cost is $22 million. The relevant section of the bill is clause 5(1)(A). The next item is the extension of staffs and welfare services, and the amount if $4 million. The relevant clause of the bill is clause 5(1)(B). The next item is additional child welfare costs. The federal preliminary estimate of cost is $16 million and the relevant clause of the bill is clause 5(1)(A) and (B). The next item is work activity. The preliminary estimate of federal cost is $500,000 and this is covered in part III of the bill. The final item is other program improvements and extensions, $15 million, and the clause of the bill is 5(1)(A) and (B).
These are the components of the proposed fresh amount of $85 million. Of course, it is an estimate and will depend for its validity, either up or down, on the extent to which provincial governments utilize the availability of the funds under the Canada Assistance Plan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the minister sits down, may I ask him what the cost will be of the federal government's share of supplementary payments to old age pensioners over and above the regular $75 per month which they get under the old age security plan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, we have no estimates. The estimates here have been drawn up on the basis really of unknowns in that field. For example, when these estimates were drawn up we had no idea that the province of Prince Edward Island would proceed on the basis of supplementation as they have. The proposal of that province is to pay, as I said in committee and the leaders of both parties in Prince Edward Island have agreed, a supplementation up to $100 for every old age pensioner in Prince Edward Island. It is applied right across the board.
The provincial government will then come forward and claim under the Canada Assistance Plan for that part of the population in need. At the moment, therefore, we have no way of knowing the extent of the costs involved, even in that province. We do know that they will come forward. What they have done, of course, has been to rely on the fact that this bill will be passed. The payments will be retroactive to April 1, 1966. Accordingly, they have made the $25 available retroactively and have sent out the cheques, I understand, bringing the total cheques for the strategic end of June period up to $150 a month. They are relying, of course, on this bill being passed by the parliament of Canada so that a share of these costs will be met by the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan. I think this illustrates the difficulty of making appropriate estimates.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I appreciate the fact the government has to make estimates and that these estimates may be completely confounded by the actions of the provinces which may choose to make larger payments than had been anticipated. Naturally they will call on the federal government to pay its share.
However, in computing the $85 million the minister and his officials must have had some estimates as to how this would be broken down. The minister has just given some of them to us. What is his estimate of the amount, out of the $85 million, that will be attributable to demands from the provinces for supplementary payments to old age security pensioners?
July 8, 1966	COMMONS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Chairman, this question involves all sorts of related decisions or related policies. For example, another step may be taken by the parliament of Canada with regard to old age security recipients which will considerably influence the extent of provincial supplementation necessary or desirable. Whether old age pensioners receive $100 a month or $105 or an even higher amount under other old age income security programs, it seems to me there will still be a need for the kind of supplementation that is provided under the Canada Assistance Plan.
For example, I mentioned, or I had intended to, the cases of elderly people who may be in special care homes, the monthly cost of which may be $300. The Canada Assistance Plan has a role, it seems to me, over and above any other flat rate income program, so under the Canada Assistance Plan the federal government will be doing its part in sharing in the cost of supplementation. The federal government will share half the cost of supplementation, but we do not intend to place any upper limit on this federal share as it relates to income maintenance payments or health and welfare services. Since both traditionally and constitutionally the responsibility for persons in need of assistance rests with the provincial governments, the federal government cannot go much farther than this.
The federal government, of course, has made additional funds available to the provinces through action with respect to old age security programs and has indicated to the provinces our expectation that these funds would be used in supplementary and other assistance payments and welfare services. It is estimated that in 1966-67 the provinces will save $12.3 million through a reduction of the age eligibility from 70 to 69 and having that group of the population removed from the old age assistance case load. This figure will rise substantially until, by 1970, the provinces will be relieved entirely of their share of the cost of old age assistance, with a saving we estimate in that year of approximately $50 million. The sharing of the existing provincial costs of mothers' allowances and child welfare will, of course, provide the provinces with another source of additional new revenues, not only to improve these programs but also to provide funds for improvements of other aspects of their assistance programs, including supplementation.
The effect of any action to be taken by the federal government through other legislation with regard to additional income security
DEBATES	7395
Canada Assistance Plan will, of course, influence the extent to which supplementation is needed. So the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is in a position to draw very optimistic conclusions from the estimate that we have proposed, if he wishes, in this particular breakdown. It will influence the extent to which supplementation is needed. Any other action which is taken will depend on the extent of supplementation required by a province.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
It would be my expectation that it would be wholly desirable in certain cases for that supplementation to be forthcoming regardless of any other action that might be taken. I can assure hon. members that the $15 million estimate to provide for supplementation and improved general assistance rates would be much higher were it not for the fact that a type of provision other than the Canada Assistance Plan is contemplated.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I should like first to beg the indulgence of the minister because I will try to pose my questions in the best English I can muster, out of courtesy to the minister I understand that this bill has been discussed with the authorities of the provincial government of Quebec. I should like to know from the minister, and I apologize if this question was asked when I was not here, whether the Quebec government accepts this bill. Is it ready to participate in the bill as it is or there is to be any special arrangement made? If there is, what is the arrangement and on what basis is Quebec's share of the $85 million going to be given to that province?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, this bill was discussed at several meetings with the provinces. Earlier in the year we had a meeting of welfare ministers at which the minister for the province of Quebec was present. In a general way we secured the support and agreement of the province of Quebec, as we did of all the provinces, with respect to what is in this bill.
There is, for example, in this particular clause an option by means of which provinces may choose to secure their support for welfare services, and one particular choice was included to meet the particular requirements of the province of Quebec. In clause 19, to which we will be coming later, there is provision for the extension of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act to the Canada Assistance Plan.

July 8. 1966
Canada Assistance Plan


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, may I follow up the question I asked the minister a moment ago? I completely agree with the minister that there will always be need for the Canada Assistance Plan with respect to special cases of need among the old age security pensioners, but I am particularly anxious to find out about the whole question of supplementation. As I understand the minister's breakdown, there is an estimated $15 million as the federal government's share for making payments to the provinces for any supplementation that they may provide. That is for the different plans covering elderly people.
What I am not clear about is this. The minister says that the reason it is relatively small is that it has to be viewed in the light of other legislation which may be forthcoming. Does that mean that the provinces have made their plans on the basis of the federal government introducing other legislation to supplement old age security pensions or old age assistance pensions? Did they know that the federal government intended to do something, other than what is provided in the Canada Assistance Plan, for the old age security pensioners?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Chairman, the provinces have not been made aware of any proposals that may be in the offing in the pension field. They have not been given any indication except the indications they may have gained from what has gone on in the house. These are estimates. But the point is that any amounts claimed by a province in any program of supplementation would be made available under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, to follow up that question with another, it seems to me that this situation is somewhat unfair to the provinces. If the minister is contemplating other legislation to assist old age security pensioners, in what position does this put a province like Prince Edward Island which has now committed itself to meeting half of the cost of paying a supplementary pension of $25 a month? In the event that the federal government decides to bring in additional legislation providing for some type of annual guaranteed income, would this leave a province like Prince Edward Island in the position of having committed itself to meet half of the supplementary costs when, if it had waited till the government brought down other legislation, the entire supplementary cost would be borne by the treasury?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the point made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that any further step taken by the government and the parliament of Canada will affect any provincial program. To that extent the action of the government of Prince Edward Island has been taken in the absence of complete knowledge of what may happen in the future. I do not know how to overcome that except that it might be possible, if and when further action is taken by the parliament of Canada, for the province of Prince Edward Island to adjust its program accordingly, if it found it in its own best interests to do so. That is the only thing I can suggest.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The situation could have been avoided by drafting both programs at the same time.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, earlier in the debate I rose because I wanted to ask the minister a question but I was not recognized. Then I had to be out of the chamber, with the result that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres asked the question I wanted to ask. As a supplementary I should like to ask the minister whether he has come in contact with any members of the new administration in the province of Quebec to ascertain if the views of the new administration are the same as the views of their predecessors.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have received no negative word from the new administration in Quebec, and neither have my officials, with respect to the Canada Assistance Plan. I am hopeful that the provisions of the plan will be acceptable to the province of Quebec because I believe that they are in line with the thinking which has been developed in that province. And, of course, clause 19 applies the contracting out provisions to the Canada Assistance Plan, so that at a future time, as my hon. friend knows, these provisions will become operative.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, my question would be supplementary to that of my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard)-

province of Quebec were present, were any agreements made with the former government? If so, under this basis what would be the share of the province of Quebec in the $85 million for this year which we have talked about?
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have no special agreements with any province, excepting the provisions of this bill which take into account the discussions that we have had with all the provinces. There is nothing in the bill that represents anything that has not been discussed, although in some cases we have attempted to accommodate the special wishes of particular provinces, including Quebec. The province of Quebec will participate in precisely the same way as other provinces with respect to the benefits available under this plan except that the contracting out provisions of the Established Programs Interim Arrangements Act will apply.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Could I ask another question, Mr. Chairman? Suppose the new government of Quebec comes to Ottawa and says to the minister: We are not ready to participate in this plan as it is but we should like to have all the money that was supposed to be applied to the province of Quebec and we shall distribute it as we please. My question arises out of certain declarations which have been made by the new premier of Quebec. What would be the reaction of the government in that case?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan will appeal to the new government of Quebec. Of course, if any new proposals were made by the new Quebec government the government of Canada would consider them. We are operating on the assumption that all governments have generally accepted the provisions of the plan. We have had no contrary information, and I believe this plan will be of great value to Quebec, as it will be to other provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the minister invited me to be optimistic on the basis of the breakdown of figures that he gave a while ago. I can only say to him that I am optimistic in spite of the figures, not because of them. Nevertheless I am optimistic. I am referring, of course, to the position of old age pensioners generally and to old age security recipients in particular.
23033-468J
Canada Assistance Plan
When I say that the breakdown of figures given to us by the minister does not in itself lend to optimism, it is because I am looking at the figure of $15 million which is listed for program improvements. I understand that this is the amount of money the federal authorities estimate they will have to pay out in the course of the first fiscal year in response to provincial requests where the provinces improve various programs of assistance.
I understand, therefore, that this covers possible supplements to the old age security pension, as is being done in Prince Edward Island. This also covers other programs. Perhaps the categorical programs will receive most of it. At any rate, the $15 million is not all available for old age pensioners. If we are to assume that dividing that money among four or five programs is what will happen, that reduces the amount to a mathematical figure of $5 million or $6 million, or perhaps less, which will be available to the recipients of the old age security pension.
If the federal government is making available or expects to make available $5 million in the first year for the old age pensioners of Canada, since there are 1 million of them that averages out at $5 a year per pensioner, or 40 cents a month. That is not something that would directly make me optimistic. But, Irish though it may sound, it does make me optimistic precisely because I realize that the government knows it cannot get away with doing that little for the old age pensioners of this country.
If it had not been for the things the minister said this morning I should be going after him pretty strongly with respect to what we are now talking about, namely, the $15 million for program improvements. To try to fob off the old age pensioners with the amount of money that is available for such program improvements just would not do. For the minister to tell us that he does not know what the provinces are going to ask for hardly squares with these estimates in the six categories that he has given us.
I assume there have been consultations between the officials of the minister's department and the officials of the corresponding departments of the provinces, and that this is a reasonable guess or estimate as to what the provinces will do in these areas on the basis of which they will be able to get fresh or extra money out of the federal government.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, it is pretty clear that the government does not expect the

July 8. 1966
Canada Assistance Plan provinces to avail themselves of the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan to any significant extent for the purpose of helping our old age pensioners. It is obvious that the government assumes that the provinces are faced with other claims, with other priorities. Since the provinces will be calling on the government, according to what is in the estimate, for only $15 million for program improvements in the first year, it is obvious that not much is going to be done under the Canada Assistance Plan for our old age pensioners.
This comes as a disappointment on several counts. For about a year we have been told to wait for the Canada Assistance Plan. We have been told that it would be the legislation under which something would be done for our old age pensioners.
I have also been disappointed at the many references to $125, $140 or other outlandish figures that people will get under the Canada Assistance Plan. Obviously the government knows that is just talk and that the provinces will not pay such pensions; otherwise there would have been a figure to cover that in these estimates.
However, the minister can be assured that the harshness of some things I may have said on this subject is softened by his assurance this morning on orders of the day that when this legislation is put through he will consider making, while parliament is still in session, the government's statement relating to old age pensions. That also holds true because of the minister's statement, in response to an inquiry from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam a short time ago, that what the government does or what the provinces do by way of supplementation under the Canada Assistance Plan depends on what the flat rate pension is.
All I can say is that the message has got through to the minister that it is not good enough to leave the flat rate at $75 and to call upon our senior citizens to rely on social assistance, such as the Canada Assistance Plan, for any supplementation. The message he got was that first of all he has got to do something about that $75 flat rate.
In his speech on second reading the minister made a statement with which I completely agree, namely that we should minimize the reliance on social assistance of people who are in retirement. If the minister leaves the figure at $75 he would actually be maximizing the reliance of our people on social assistance.

I am glad the message has got through. What the minister's response will be we shall have to see when we have got this bill through the committee stage and third reading. But surely it is clear that all the talk as to what was going to be done for our senior citizens under the Canada Assistance Plan was just talk.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
I want to say again that I like these other sums of money which are being made available for sharing the cost of things like mothers' allowances, child welfare, administration and so on. I am glad to note there is money available to improve programs of social welfare at what I might call the social welfare level. But let it be clear: if we were to stop at this legislation this parliament would not now be doing anything significant or realistic for our old age pensioners. I submit it has been worth while that parliament has been discussing this question. It has come to a point at which the minister is talking in this debate about the other legislation which is to be brought in for our old age pensioners and where we have an assurance there will be a statement on this matter before the recess.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I understood the minister to say there will be $85 million available plus further sums as required.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Up to the amount required. Frankly, I do not attach any real importance to these figures. I do not attach any real importance to the $85 million or to the $15 million referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. They are estimates, and if the demand is greater there can be supplementary estimates. Depending on the reaction, greater amounts could be asked for by the provinces and any amount will be available to them under this plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Provided the provinces pay their half.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I had been attaching importance to this figure because an hon. member opposite said in the debate the other day that $85 million could not accomplish very much if all these groups are to be covered. He was speaking on a private bill. He is a parliamentary secretary and I thought that when he spoke he did so with some authority. This caused me some concern. I also felt some concern about the old age assistance situation. According to the figures he gave, there are some 85,000 people across Canada who are covered by old age assistance benefits.
July 8, 1966


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Philip Bernard Rynard: That was the figure quoted the other day by the parliamentary secretary, not the parliamentary secretary to the minister but the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. On the basis of this figure of 85,000 even a modest increase of $25 would involve a sum of approcimately $25 million. Half of that comes to $12,500,000. Of course, if this figure can go to any limit, as the minister suggests, the problem is covered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Every time it is said that a provincial government can go as high as it likes, should it not be noted that there is the proviso that the provinces must pay half?


Philip Bernard Rynard: That is correct. There is another thing which bothers me. There are no rules. One province can lag behind another. In other words, there will be an absence of uniformity across Canada. The minister introduced this measure with high-sounding phrases and I was inclined to go along with them. My own speeches have always been intended to bring help to the underprivileged. I thought the present bill would do this. I am now beginning to suspect it is an old piece of barnacle dressed up in a new dress.
I see no provision here which would take children out of the slum areas of our towns and cities. The hon. member to whom I have referred said the other day there were 600,000 people receiving unemployment assistance and 50,000 orphan children. But he said nothing about children who are living in the slums and nothing about illiterates. How are these people to be helped? If we do not provide such help we are not attacking poverty. I am very disappointed in this bill. Merely giving a hand out does not correct the situation at all.
I hoped we would assist these people by taking them out of slum areas and re-educating them so as to bring the cycle of dependency and poverty which has haunted them for generations, to an end. I still hope the minister will rise and say he intends to do this. I should like to know how.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What the hon. member is asking for is made possible through this bill.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I am very glad to hear it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It depends, of course, upon action taken by the provincial governments within their own field of jurisdiction. I
Canada Assistance Plan have sufficient confidence in the sense of justice and the sense of humanity within provincial administrations in all parts of Canada to believe that they are as alive to the needs of the public as we are. This measure will give them the opportunity of which the hon. member for Simcoe East has spoken to apply programs exactly along the lines of those he mentioned.
Since concern has been expressed on this score both by the hon. member for Simcoe East and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think I should refer in more detail to the estimated cost of the Canada Assistance Plan. When I introduced the resolution I referred to the estimated cost of a number of the elements of the plan and mentioned the total would involve an increased federal expenditure of some $85 million in 1966-67. I also pointed out, however, that the full impact of federal expenditures would be felt as the provinces are able to strengthen and improve their programs.
I should like to emphasize this point and make it clear that this program, when enacted, will obligate the federal government to meet all expenditures duly claimed by the provinces that come within the scope of the act. Thus the amount of new cost to the federal government may well be greater than the $85 million to which I have referred.
Since these estimates were prepared some time in advance of the introduction of the bill the provinces, while able to make some extensions and improvements to their programs on the basis of the federal commitment to introduce this measure, have not been able to develop their plans fully until the Canada Assistance Plan is enacted. I mentioned the components of the $25 million-


An hon. Member:: You mean $85 million.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, $85 million. I was thinking of the coal industry of Nova Scotia. The first item concerns mothers' allowances where costs are now being borne substantially by the provinces. The estimate includes increases in rates of mothers' allowances which have been made in the last fiscal year and in the present year, in anticipation that half the cost of all these payments would be shared under the Canada Assistance Plan. While it is difficult to forecast what further steps may be taken in this regard for the balance of this year, we are sure this estimate is on the conservative side and it is quite possible that these costs may reach $30 million.

these categories include both existing expenditures and new costs arising from improvements and extensions. In each case we believe our estimates to be modest, and on the basis of recent developments our estimates could be as much as $10 million on the low side.
In the case of cost estimates for welfare administration and services and for work activity programs, only new expenditures are involved and they will be complemented by an equal expenditure by provincial governments.
Over and above all these expenditures, which include provision for improvement of the rates of assistance and expansion of services, there is an item of $15 million for other program improvements and extensions. This includes expenditures in categories that have been referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I think the same conclusion can be applied here as was applied in earlier remarks. The estimate here is based entirely upon an appreciation of existing conditions, prepared by the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare. It was drawn up without, for example, foreseeing what might occur in the field of social welfare in the province of Prince Edward Island, and I think that development indicates how impossible it is to forecast.
All I want to say to members of the committee is that there is no limit on the degree of federal support for provincial supplementation undertaken in any field, including that of the aged. There is no limit on that federal support. If hon. members find this figure low then they can conclude optimistically that there may be other programs in the offing that will reduce the necessity of supplementation. But hon. members cannot have it both ways. They cannot complain about the small size of the estimate and then castigate the minister for not doing something more. If the minister does something more, then this figure will be low and hon. members will be happy.
I do not know how to conclude except to say that I have not lost any confidence in the ability of the Canada Assistance Plan to participate in any program of supplementation put forward by the provinces. All I hope is that the provinces will participate in the supplementation aspects provided under the Canada Assistance Plan to the full extent necessary to allow all recipients of social
Canada Assistance Plan assistance to live in adequacy. If the provinces do not have to supplement, because of other action to be taken, so much the better, but so long as there is need to supplement the opportunity to do so is available under the Canada Assistance Plan.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I thank the minister for the explanation of his hopes and aspirations. Now that he has told me this plan is going to cover the children, if the provinces participate in educating the ones below par before they go to school as is done under the United States scheme, this gives me a lot of hope. I am sure the minister will have little difficulty selling the enthusiasm he has shown today when he meets with provincial ministers. We in this chamber will expect him to do that.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear that the minister hopes he will be called upon to spend more money under this legislation than was suggested by the $85 million estimate. I express the hope that he will be called upon to spend a good deal more money under this act with regard to the categories of people for whom it is mainly designed. I also share his hope that he will not have to increase the estimated figure for old age security recipients precisely because he is going to do something else for them.
May I say to the minister that he will realize that one thing here is very obvious; no one can miss it. I recognize the right of the minister to adjust the estimate as he has done this morning, but when the estimate was prepared it was assumed there would be some reliance on it so far as old age security recipients were concerned, so a figure was put in. At that point neither he nor the provinces knew that something other than the Canada Assistance Plan might be provided in the near future for our old age security recipients. The change is pretty obvious. When it took place we do not know but it looks as though it took place in the last week or so. But since that change has taken place, will the minister not admit that we could discuss this legislation more intelligently if we knew what it is the government is going to do for old age security recipients?
I realize the minister has made the commitment that he will tell us after the legislation is passed, but from time to time this morning he has found it necessary to refer to something else which is going to be done and I am sure that if he would tell us what is going to be done we could discuss the present
July 8. 1366

Canada Assistance Plan legislation in the light of the government's intentions. I suggest he might go one step farther than he promised this morning and tell us what is going to be done. In this way I think he would find not only that we would be in a position to discuss this legislation a little more intelligently but that we might get along faster too.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: As the only independent in the house, I am beginning to wonder if some members are not carrying on a filibuster or rehashing the same old things in order to delay the very legislation we would like to see passed. There is no doubt that everyone wants the old age pension to be increased or improved. I think there is no difference of opinion on that matter.
I am one of those who, at one time, voted with the government against increasing the pension to $100, because I had been assured that a bill dealing with social security would be introduced; and I had been led to believe that there would be a bill dealing with the old people. Since then, the minister has told us on several occasions that when he had met the needs of all the poor, the destitute in all classes of society, including the old people, since they have marginal needs, for instance medical care, etc., he would have a statement to make about the old age pension. I am one of those who find that obstinacy and stubbornness almost inexplicable from some opposition members who want to push the minister into a corner, as we say in Quebec, to wrench a statement from him. And in the end that delays the passing of the bill under consideration.
I would like to submit to the house in all objectivity, as an independent-I am not blaming the opposition for stressing the importance of increasing the old age pension, I think the opposition did something useful-but I think that we have come to the point in the last week or two where we are overshooting the mark and going against the objective sought.
I think that we should in this house come to an agreement to pass that bill which is an improvement anyway, which was conceived after consultation with the ten provincial governments. Therefore, it was studied seriously, it brings some advantages and we are all anxious to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) make his statement about the old age pension.
Let us therefore pass that bill as soon as possible; we will then have the opportunity
[Mr. Knowles.!

in the months to come, if we are not happy with the minister's statement, to criticize him. As a matter of fact, I undertake to do it. If we are not happy with the implications and repercussions of that bill, we can amend it. But we will know only after it has been put to the test.
Therefore, since the minister has given us his word, which I take as his word of honour, that he would make a statement as soon as the bill is passed, and in view of the fact that this bill was studied by the ten provincial governments and that we are all anxious to hear the minister's statement on the old age pension, I humbly submit to the house that we should co-operate to speed up the passing of this bill, and I promise to do my share right now by cutting my remarks to a minimum, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing to prevent the minister rising right now and making this statement. It would serve the additional purpose of putting this legislation in the current context. I am sure he realizes the context has changed and that it would be a good idea to have that statement now.
As my hon. friend from Trois-Rivieres says, some of us have been discussing pensions for the past week, but may I also tell him that some of us and our predecessors have been discussing the question of pensions in this house for 45 years. With a Liberal government on that side of the house most of that time this had to take place in order to get any action on the pension question.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? He mentioned that they have been discussing pensions for 45 years. Would he admit that in the last 45 years a good deal has been gained in the way of pensions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not only do we admit it, we assert it. May I ask the minister a question or two with regard to another aspect of clause 5? When he gets to his feet to answer he can answer on the other matter if he feels so inclined. I should like him to look at subclause 5 on page 7 of the bill where reference is made to health care services not excluded because a needs test is not given. I confess I am a little confused about the language. When I read that marginal note it sounds as though it applies for all time-"health care services not excluded because test not given." However, when I read the language of the
July 8, 1966	COMMONS
subclause I wonder how long that holds. Can the minister give us an explanation of the last part of this clause?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, subclause 5 is a transitional provision under which the provinces may submit claims for the costs of health care services provided to recipients by way of cash benefits provided the need of these recipients for health care has been established before March 31, 1967. If this requirement is met, any cost incurred back to April 1, 1960 would be shared. This covers recipients of old age assistance, blind and disabled persons allowances, and those persons covered by the old age security and old age assistance programs. I think the basic reason for this provision, or the basic explanation for it, is that some provinces have programs under which they provide health care to recipients of pensions or allowances on the basis of a means test and they now will require some time to shift the case load. This gives them that opportunity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So this is just a transitional provision. It is not a case of saying, for example, to old age security recipients that their health care services will not in the future be provided under this act unless they are needs-tested.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I think the assurance the hon. gentleman wants is given under this clause.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not know that is an assurance I want because, as I interpret what the minister has said, the right to obtain health care services under the Canada Assistance Plan without needs being tested expires in 1967 and thereafter in order to get health care services under this act a needs test is necessary.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is a transitional
provision to give the provinces an opportunity to shift from current programs under which a means test prevails and under which health care may be provided. There are some programs of that kind. We are giving the provinces the opportunity for a full year to move under the Canada Assistance Plan and we will still pay back their claims for a full year. Beyond that date, in the absence of medicare insurance the people who require health services will receive it under this program.
DEBATES	7403
Canada Assistance Plan


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then after this transitional period, and I am assuming that medicare will also come into effect, do I understand it correctly that persons in provinces participating in medical care programs will not receive health care services under the Canada Assistance Plan because they will get them under the health care program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: However, persons in provinces which do not participate in the health care program will have their health care costs covered under the Canada Assistance Plan only if they meet the needs test?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad this is going to be covered but I wish that even in that case the needs test was not going to be applied.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to ask a followup question. What will happen in the provinces where either the provincial government or the municipality pays the premium for both medicare and hospital insurance on behalf of needy persons? Will they be able to collect any part of that payment from the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, they will not be able to claim in that regard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister to explain the basis of the distinction? If a province does not have a medicare program and provides medicare for needy persons it will be able to charge half the cost, but if it pays the premium on behalf of needy persons why should it not be able to collect half of that cost?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, under the Canada Assistance Plan the federal government will share 50 per cent of the actual claims submitted by a provincial government in respect of any person in receipt of medical care coverage under the plan. We will do that on the basis of the actual claim, but it seems to me if we also engaged in paying the premiums for plans provinces may employ to support these individuals we would be sharing on a double basis.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The medical care plan will at
the very earliest come into effect on July 1, but from April 1 of this year the Canada Assistance Plan will be in operation. In those provinces which do not have a medicare
July 8, 1966

Canada Assistance Plan program the federal government will be sharing in the costs of medical services to needy persons if the provincial government or municipality is supplying that service.
In provinces like Saskatchewan which has a medicare program the provincial government pays the premiums in some classifications such as old age assistance recipients, old age security pensioners, individuals receiving mothers' allowances, blind persons and physically handicapped persons. In the case of unemployable persons under social aid the municipality pays the premium. For this year, until the federal government is participating in a medicare plan, is there any reason why a province such as Saskatchewan should not be able to recover part of the cost of the premiums paid on behalf of needy persons?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Under the Canada Assistance Plan we will pay half the costs incurred by persons in Saskatchewan in respect of those persons for whom claims are submitted.


Mr. Lachance:: I have a supplementary question to that asked by the hon. member for Three Rivers. Will the minister tell the committee whether or not this will be the case in provinces which adopt the plan either before or after the commencement of operations of the plan before us?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan are subject, under clause 19, to the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act. For this reason we have included the explanatory note which reads:
The purpose of this clause is to permit a province that has entered into a supplementary agreement under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act wholly to administer and finance its program of assistance and welfare services operated in accordance with the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Provisions to be included in agreements.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions I should like to ask the minister on clause 6 with specific reference to subclauses 1(a) and (c). Reference is made in (c) to:
-any home for special care or any provincially approved agency that is listed in a schedule to an agreement-

There is a cross-reference as I understand it in subclause 1(a) to interpretation subclause (d) which describes a home for special care. It states:
-"home for special care" means a residential welfare institution that is of a kind prescribed for the purpose of this act as a home for special care .... but does not include-


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry for intervening. Could not the house be asked to adjourn the debate for half an hour so as to allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to have a good lunch?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, in reference to the point of order and while the hon. member is having his lunch, may I ask a question in respect of clause 6?


Mr. Tardif:: This is all part of the filibuster anyway.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I seriously object to that kind of interjection from the opposite side.


An hon. Member:: You may object but it is the truth.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I hope the usually congenial member who made the interjection will not provoke me into indulging in the kind of thing of which he has accused me. I consider this to be an important piece of legislation for many people in this country, even if the hon. member does not think so. I believe it is important, not only to those of us in the house but to those who may be following the discussion of this plan in Hansard, to understand what it is all about.
The thing that concerns me in connection with the subclauses to which I have referred-I hope the minister has not lost track of the references because of the questions of privilege that have been raised-is just where we stand in respect of this question of the difference between a home for special care and a hospital. In the minds at least of a great many people to whom I talk there is difficulty in this regard. One gets into the area of semantics in deciding what is a hospital, what is a nursing home and what is a home for special care.
I know that certainly in the minds of a great many people in British Columbia there has been a good deal of confusion. I should like to have from the minister a clear picture
July 8- 1966

of where the application of this bill lies and where the application of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act lies. With regard to the question of homes for special care as distinct from hospitals, I should like to know whether in point of fact there is in effect complete coverage in the two acts in respect of assistance in regard to the expenses of people who require special care, whether it be in a chronic care hospital or a home for special care.
We have in British Columbia, for example, the two types of institutions. There was a good deal of discussion during the last session of the legislature in my province as to the distinction between non-profit hospitals and private hospitals. The discussion concerned the question of providing care for people in these institutions. Usually they are aged and unable to look after themselves.
Many of these services are not covered under the British Columbia hospital insurance scheme and the cost falls directly on the individuals concerned except in so far as they are in receipt of social welfare. Could the minister make it clear whether it is possible for a province, either under this bill or the hospital insurance act, to provide hospital services, whether one calls them hospitals or talks about homes for special care? I have been told-I am not sure whether I am correctly informed and perhaps the minister could also clarify this point when he is replying-that certain types of institutions in the province of Ontario are covered by the hospital insurance plan but similar institutions are not covered by the British Columbia plan and that the federal legislation will allow them to be covered. I should like to know whether this is so and whether in the minister's view these two acts will provide complete coverage.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the first point, namely, the possible variation of institutions that may be covered from one province to another, this is a decision that must be made by the provincial government which decides whether institutions are regarded as hospitals under the hospital insurance act for which it wishes to make a submission under that act to the federal government. As I understand it, these institutions are listed and are well defined under the hospital insurance act as hospitals. We, of course, would not share in any services provided by the institutions in regard to which cost sharing already takes place under the hospital insurance act. We are ready, of 23033-469-j

Canada Assistance Plan course, to share in the cost of services provided in homes for special care. These homes will be listed in the regulations or schedules referred to, but they must be in all cases institutions and agencies approved by provincial governments.
To give the hon. member an idea of what is covered by the expression "homes for special care" I would refer to the Unemployment Assistance Act where in one section homes for special care are defined as including nursing homes, hostels for indigent transients, homes for the aged, poorhouses, almshouses and hostel facilities. We prefer to use the expression "homes for special care" without further definition. But in general, provided provincial acceptance is accorded, institutions would either be listed as hospitals and the costs shared under the hospital insurance plan or they would be listed in these schedules and the costs shared under the Canada Assistance Plan. There could be a larger area of applicability, but that would be a matter for determination by the provincial government.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, there is another aspect of this matter which I should like to have clarified. I should like to know what, if anything, will be done or will be required to be done under this bill in respect of reaching an agreement that is acceptable to the federal government to deal with the kind of situation where a person who might have an income or resources which would enable him to be self-sufficient would be freed of any requirement to exhaust his resources if he went into what the province of British Columbia at least has termed a private hospital, where care costs $300 or $400 and upwards per month. I should like to know what the situation will be if they are limited to a very small expense allowance of the order of, say, $10 a month.
Will the agreement require that the province, if the institution is not specified as a private hospital or is dealt with in such a way that it comes under the hospital insurance act, provide this kind of special care under an arrangement which does not involve an individual falling completely under welfare jurisdiction, and will there be any restriction in regard to the rights of the individual to his own resources? As it stands now, in British Columbia it is either totally one thing or totally another. In other words, an individual has to be completely dependent upon welfare assistance or individual assistance from his family or has to be completely

July 8, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
independent of any payments. What impact will the terms of an agreement made under this legislation have on this situation?
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, in our agreements we will not insist upon the total liquidation of resources by any individual in order to be eligible for assistance. It is the practice in some cases in the application of the needs test to exclude home ownership. It is the practice also in some cases to permit the individual to hold in liquid form certain assets, say $1,000 or something of that kind. We do not preclude this situation in the bill and I do not think our regulations would preclude it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have one other question. I understood the minister to say he would not preclude the possibility of an individual retaining some liquid resources. The point I want to get clearly in my mind is whether this legislation would preclude a province from entering into any agreement under which individuals would not be allowed to retain any liquid resources. Under such circumstances will the federal government agree to participate financially in a province with respect to special care homes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We will not impose a regime on a province and to that extent the bill is silent or neutral. We will certainly make it possible in the agreement with the province that the approach can be taken, for example, that home ownership can be left out and a certain amount of liquid assets can be left out. In our consultations with the provinces we would point out that this practice is a good one and ought to be considered by the province. However, we cannot impose it upon any province.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: I have a question, Mr. Chairman, similar to the one raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I am sure the minister must know that many invalid and disabled people are being cared for in their own homes. I think of one example. One of my constituents who has worked steadily all his life came down some time ago with cancer of the lung, necessitating very serious surgery. He is now home, an invalid, but is precluded from drawing any disability pension by reason of the fact that his faithful wife is employed at a modest salary. The salary is sufficient to make this man ineligible for assistance. We have tried to get assistance for him to no avail.
(Mr. Barnett.]
I think the minister and his department have an opportunity to see that people in this category are looked after. I note that clause 6 of the bill refers to homes for special care. Would not a private home in which a disabled person was cared for by his family under adverse financial circumstances qualify as a home for special care just as any nursing home, rest home or hospital? I want to impress upon the minister the importance of this seemingly insignificant example because I know there must be thousands of people across Canada who are in that predicament. I feel we have an opportunity now under the Canada Assistance Plan to alleviate the hardships to which they are subjected.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In reply to the question raised, Mr. Chairman, may I say that one of the new features embodied in the Canada Assistance Plan is the provision of homemaker service. A provincial government can provide homemaker service directly or purchase it from a voluntary agency. If the agency is approved by the province, we will contribute 50 per cent of the cost of providing homemaker service, which would be available to the individual in question if the cost of that service were such as to bring him within the scope of the bill, namely, that he is in need and requires assistance. This is another feature of the plan which meets the problem of looking after people in their own homes, which we ought to try to do if possible, I think, because it is more economical and at the same time brings more satisfaction to the individual.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I thank the minister for his remarks and his explanation. Will the minister assure me and the house that in dealing with the provincial authorities across the country he will say to them, these are the people we want to help? Can we be assured of that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Prittie:: I should like to ask a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox. In the case the hon. member cited the wife was working. If she gave up her employment could she receive some financial assistance for staying at home and looking after her invalid husband? It is income that is lacking in this situation. Would the provisions of this bill permit her to receive income if she left the employment she has now?
July 8. 1966


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Canada Assistance Plan does not propose that payments will be made for services except in so far as those services are provided to a person in need through a provincial welfare department or through a provincially approved agency. While I appreciate the point made by the hon. member, I think he should appreciate the difficulty and the potential abuse with two individuals living in a particular residence and one of them being eligible for salary with respect to the other. The homemaker service will be available to look after people through either of the two avenues mentioned. If both of these persons were in need under the terms of the bill, then they would be eligible. I do not think we anticipate that a person should stop working to look after an individual and be paid for that service unless there were some supervision through a welfare or voluntary agency or a provincial welfare department.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to ask a supplementary question. As I understand the Canada Assistance Act, the man would qualify for a disability pension in this particular case. The second question is: Would that money be included with his wife's income for taxation purposes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, my answer to that question would be no. I cannot possibly see how payments made to a person in need could be regarded as income of a spouse. I would think that if both individuals in the household were applying for assistance, the total needs, and also the total income, would be taken into account to determine the amount of assistance to be made available. But, as I say, I cannot see how public assistance payments made to one spouse could be taxable with respect to the income of the other.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I think the minister had better look into this because it is a very important point. With war veterans allowance, for instance, any earnings of the wife are immediately deducted from the husband's income in arriving at their taxable income.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be glad to check into that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wonder whether I might ask the minister to clarify one point. Subclause (f) of clause 6 provides for an audit by the minister or by someone designated by him of the records and accounts respecting the
Canada Assistance Plan provision of assistance and welfare services and leaves it to either the agreement or the regulations to set out the terms and conditions of such audit.
Am I correct in assuming that this audit is purely for the purpose of ascertaining that the amounts claimed by the province have indeed been spent on welfare assistance or services? Do I take it that there will be nothing in the regulations which will attempt to set ceilings or define in arithmetical terms any maximum which may be paid? In other words, I take it that the question of defining need will be left exclusively to those officials of the provincial governments who are responsible for welfare in that jurisdiction. I have in mind, for example, the old age assistance plan which at the present time is a shared program between the federal and provincial government under which payments are made from age 65 to 69 now and formerly up to age 70. I take it that any provincial government that wants to do so under the Canada Assistance Plan will be entitled to raise the pension of the old age assistance group to any amount it thinks necessary and that it will be able to collect 50 per cent from the federal government under this legislation. I take it there will be nothing in the audit which would set any maximum as to what the provinces could pay, and with regard to their collecting 50 per cent of that payment from the federal government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the first question is that the purpose is solely to maintain interest along the lines mentioned, as has been the past practice. There would be no effort made to set ceilings. A provincial government can provide additional amounts to recipients of old age assistance either by transferring their case load from old age assistance to the general case load under the Canada Assistance Plan or, indeed, by providing direct supplementation under the concurrent program.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To whatever figure the provincial government feels it is prepared to share?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Duration of agreements.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would make a comment or two on clause 8, which deals with the time
7408	COMMONS
Canada Assistance Plan during which agreements made between Canada and the provinces remain in effect. I realize that there is a constitutional problem involved when we discuss agreements between the federal government and a province. There is the whole problem of the sovereignty of parliament and the legislatures. At the same time, I am concerned over what seems to me to be a rather short period of permanence.
Let me agree with the minister that we are passing pretty good legislation. Yet the length of an agreement might be for a total of only four years. As I read this clause, any time after March 31, 1969 notice can be given by the federal government to terminate an agreement. It could be given by a province as well, but I am looking at the question from the point of view of the federal government. It takes only one year for such notice to come into effect. It seems to give a guarantee to these agreements of a period of only four years. What comment has the minister to make on this point?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Clause 8 sets out the term of the agreement and according to subclause (1) the agreements are to continue in force so long as the provincial law remains in operation. That means that if the law of a province providing welfare assistance lapses or ceases to be in force, the agreement ends.
Subclause (2) establishes the conditions for amending or terminating agreements. Under paragraph (a) an agreement may be amended or terminated at any time, with the approval of the Governor in Council, by mutual consent of the minister and the province. That seems to me to be reasonable.
An exception to this is made in paragraph (b), which says that any schedule to an agreement may be amended at any time by mutual consent of the minister and the province. Paragraph (c) permits a province to give notice of intention to terminate an agreement at any time, with the notice taking effect not less than one year after the date on which it is given. If a province wishes to end an agreement and gives one year's notice, it seems to me it is reasonable that it should have the opportunity to end the agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us go on to (d) and assume that a province does not want to end the agreement. It was (d) that I asked about in the first place.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have made the term a period of four years. Is that not right?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.
.
DEBATES	July 8, 1966


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Three years, with one year's notice. So we are giving the assurance that an agreement with a province will not be terminated before four years have elapsed. Paragraph (d) says:
Canada may, at any time on or after the 31st day of March, 1969, give to the province notice of intention to terminate an agreement;-
Thus the agreements will presumably be in effect from April 1, 1966, and no notice may be given by the federal government before 1969, which is three years, and then there will be another year's notice. That shows to a province a pretty solid expectation that there is some stability in the arrangement.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I did not make my point to the minister as clear as I thought I had. We are agreed as to the facts, namely, that there is a certainty of four year. My suggestion was that if this legislation is as good as the minister says it is, and I agree with him as far as it goes, that this is not a long enough period for this sort of program really to get into full effect or for its benefits to be fully felt.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The assurance is given to the province, and when I say that I mean to any province, that the program will have a life of at least four years. This matter was discussed with the provinces and they took no objection to this period. If my hon. friend is afraid that at the end of four years the program may be terminated by the federal government, I would regard that contingency as highly unlikely unless good, alternative arrangements had been made with the provinces. I appreciate that in a period of four years the full potential effects of the program may not be visible or obvious. So far as I am concerned though, this arrangement seems to be reasonable.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I do not want
to belabour the point but there is another factor that the minister has not mentioned. Not only will there be difficulty about the full effects of the program being apparent in four years, but I think the assurance of some degree of permanence is essential if the provinces are to come into this program in a wholehearted way.
Let us assume that a province wants to advance its welfare programs very significantly and that it does so with the assurance under this legislation that the federal government will pick up 50 per cent of the tab. If at
July 8, 1966

the end of four years the Governor in Council can terminate the agreement into which the province and the federal government have entered, what will be the result? The result will be, I suggest, that the province will be left with the welfare programs to which it has committed itself with the additional responsibility of having to carry the entire financial load. I would think that if the provinces felt there was any danger that at the end of four years the whole responsibility with respect to programs which they would build up in this period would be landed in their laps, they would approach welfare programs with much more caution than if they could be assured that the plan was likely to be a continuing one.
If, as the minister says, the provinces have expressed no concern about this, then we shall have to accept the position of the provinces. I think the minister is aware that provincial governments are always reluctant to commit themselves to expenditures in conjunction with the federal government if they feel that at some time or other they may be left holding the bag.
We have had some experience of this. Some years ago we started a physical fitness program. The federal government suddenly decided to withdraw from it. The provinces had one of two alternatives, either drop the physical fitness program entirely or pick up that share of the cost which the federal government had dropped. The program I have referred to was not a very big one, and therefore it had nothing like the significance of the program about which we are now talking. Nevertheless, the fact must be considered that by the end of four years the federal government's contribution under this program will be very considerable. If the provinces felt that they were at all likely to be left with the entire burden of implementing the program outlined here, I think they would be very reluctant to expend moneys on the program at the rate that we all hope they will be expended.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can only repeat, Mr. Chairman, two considerations for the benefit of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. First, the provinces raised no objection to the particular item he referred to. In that connection may I mention that under the Unemployment Assistance Act at present the federal government can end an agreement by giving one year's notice. That program involves more than half a million people and
Canada Assistance Plan more than $100 million a year. Presumably the four-year term is much more favourable to the provinces than the term now available under the Unemployment Assistance Act. Presumably the provinces will be shifting their emphasis from the Unemployment Assistance Act to the Canada Assistance Plan.
Second the only real assurance of permanence in this program is that in any event the government is unlikely to take action to place a province in a more unfavourable position than it would have with respect to the Unemployment Assistance Act. What the hon. member fears will take place in this field is certainly, very remote, although I appreciate that strictly speaking the guarantee in law does not go beyond the four year period.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Regulations.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when we
were on an earlier clause we were able to discuss some of the aspects of clause 9 because there was a cross-reference. I will not repeat any of that discussion. There are, however, two questions I should like to put to the minister about the making of regulations under this part of the legislation. My first question arises out of the well known fact-at least, it has been well known to members of parliament for many years-that in shared programs there is a fair amount of buck passing as to who is responsible for regulations.
Let us take the Old Age Assistance Act, or the Disabled Persons Act. When, in dealing with people, we run up against the regulations and complain to the provincial authorities about them the answer is:"These regulations were passed at Ottawa." when we draw this matter to the attention of the federal government in Ottawa, the federal government replies that the provinces agreed to the passing of the regulations in question. I cite what has gone on in the past merely as a basis for asking my question now.
On what basis are these regulations to be passed? Are they to be passed initially on the basis of agreements between the government and the provinces or is the wording of this clause, as is, to be followed, namely, that the federal cabinet will make the regulations? That is the first question.
My second question has to do with subclause (2). It is stated there that no regulation that has the effect of altering an agreement

July 8, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan shall be effective without the consent of the province that is affected. May I ask if that subclause applies only to the altering of a regulation or does it apply to the making of a regulation in the first instance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point of view expressed by the hon. member. We have all met the problem he has referred to in replying to people who write to us about welfare cases and old age assistance. There is a tendency to pass the buck. I do not think that' the passing of this bill will eliminate that tendency from human nature or even from governments.
Let me say what we intend to do, if and when parliament approves this bill, with respect to drawing up the regulations. We intend to have officials of the department go across the country and consult with the provincial governments with respect to draft regulations and to reconsider the matter following that consultation.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Ultimately of course the governor in council will have to pass the regulations and take responsibility. Subclause (2) places a limit on the effect which amendments by regulation may have. It provides that by regulation the governor in council shall not be in a position to alter an agreement with a province without the consent of the province. If I am not mistaken, it has been possible for a governor in council to change agreements by regulation without reference to the province. This says that no change in regulation can alter such an agreement without the consent of the provinces. This limitation is necessary because of the contractual nature of cost-sharing agreements. This provides greater flexibility in the administration of the act than has been possible under the categorical assistance acts in which the comparable clause reads:
No regulation by reference to which an agreement with a province has been made shall be altered except with the consent of the province and in accordance with the regulations to which it had agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I see it, the legal position is clear. Once an agreement is in effect the provincial authority is in a position to require that it give its consent before a change is made. As I say, it is clear that a province has the right to require that its consent be given to a change. But in the first instance, even though he admits the government may still pass the buck, the minister has told us that the ultimate responsibility for passing the regulations has to be taken by the federal

government. This includes, in this legislation, the definition of the factors which go into the needs test. So it is clear that the operation of this legislation will depend very largely on the needs test, and that it is the federal government which will finally define the needs test. Is that right?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The federal government will be obligated to make regulations with respect to defining such expressions as personal requirements and budgetary requirements, which are part of the concept of the needs test.


John George Diefenbaker: What does "budgetary requirements" mean?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is a category of items known as basic requirements-food, clothing, shelter, fuel, utilities, household supplies and so on. Then there is the other range of services including health care, provision for travel where necessary-a whole range of services which go into a budget. It is expected that under the plan a budget can be developed which will meet the normal requirements of individuals.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will those requirements be set down by the federal government in the regulations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, they are set down in the law.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I understood from the minister earlier, when I asked him about the audit, that the concept of need would lie entirely with the province.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The determination of the amount will be up to the provincial government. As I mentioned the other day, there will have to be a degree of flexibility in the federal regulations which will make it possible for provincial governments to administer their own programs according to the needs of their people and their areas. There may be requirements in one area which do not exist in another. So there will be a range of personal requirements and further optional requirements the cost of which will be shared by the federal government. Then the province must select from the available range those services or items which it thinks are necessary for the adequate support of its own citizens.
Costs are bound to vary from one part of Canada to another. Rent, for instance, is bound to vary from region to region. We
July 8, 1966

would not put in dollars the amount of rent we would support.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it the minister's idea that the regulations will set a range within which the provincial governments might make provision, let us say, for food and clothing, and that the provinces must operate within that range? In other words, would there be a ceiling on how much would be paid in any particular case?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am afraid I am not making myself clear. We shall require, as part of an agreement, that the province shall provide adequately for the basic requirements of individuals-food, clothing, shelter, fuel, utilities, household supplies and personal requirements. But the dollar value which is placed on these items either individually or in total is up to the province. We shall share any amount. Then, of course there is the other range of services in whose costs we shall share-items incidental to carrying on a trade, care in a home for special care, travel and transportation, health care services and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it should be clear that even though there is to be consultation, the ultimate responsibility for writing these regulations which will define the key elements of this legislation will belong to the federal government. The minister has admitted that the government will define "budgetary requirement" and so on. It will also define, under clause 9, anything which "by section 2 or this part is to be prescribed or defined by regulation".
I admit this has to be done. I admit that ultimate responsibility has to rest somewhere. I just hope there will not be the buck-passing with respect to this legislation that we have seen with respect to other measures of a similar kind. The minister has said that these definitions will ultimately be made by the federal government. He has said that while they are definitions, they are not dollar values. This applies to the elements of the needs test.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not take exception to that. We have to make regulations. But if they are not satisfactory to the provinces, they will not sign agreements with us.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Are we likely to have as many agreements with the provinces under this legislation as there are provinces? In other words, would one set of regulations apply to one province, but not to the others?
Canada Assistance Plan [DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They will be the same basic regulations. They will have to be the same set for all of Canada, and they will have to be within the framework of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand that the federal authority will have to set forth the basic classifications, but does this means that each province will define for itself which of these classfications it will assist, and to what extent each individual province will determine the share-if I might use that expression-in the various categories?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As a condition of an agreement, they must include willingness to meet the basic requirements of the individual. With respect to additional items, to take one example, say, health care services, a province may decide that it will provide those services to individuals in need. The province makes the decision and the federal government shares. There is that range of choice on items like travel and transportation, funerals and burials, and health care services, but the province undertakes to meet the basic requirements.


John George Diefenbaker: That clarifies the matter to some extent, but in the determination of the food item does that food item bear a proportionate share to the total amount, the basic amount in each province, or can it vary from province to province?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It can certainly vary.


John George Diefenbaker: So, there is no determination made as to the proportion each of these items shall bear to the whole?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-Indian Welfare; definitions.
Mr.   Barnell@: This and the following clauses come under Part II of the bill dealing with Indian welfare. I would draw attention to paragraph (b) where it says:
"Indian to whom this part applies" . . . means an Indian
(i) who is resident on a reserve in the province-
That is readily understandable; but I cannot get clear the meaning of subparagraph (ii) where it says:
-who is resident on land in the province the legal title to which is vested in Her Majesty or on land in any territory in the province that is without municipal organization-

July 8, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan
Does legal title of land vested in Her Majesty mean Her Majesty in right of Canada or Her Majesty in right of a province?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In this particular case it would be Her Majesty in right of a province.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Then what is the significance of the phrase "on land in any territory in the province that is without municipal organization"?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is intended to cover Indians who are living on crown land or on land without municipal organization. It covers groups of Indians who may have moved away from reserves, in areas such as Northern Ontario, and who have not yet established any effective link with a nonIndian community.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: What is the difference between the situation of those who have moved off a reserve into non-organized territory and those who have moved into municipally organized territory?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If Indians move into a municipality and live there, they become integrated within the population, and they receive welfare assistance on the terms applicable to every other resident. The whole purpose of part II of the bill is to provide a basis, through agreements, by which the federal government will participate in bringing normal welfare services to the Indian population. In other words this paragraph which defines "Indians" indicates a group for whom higher rates of contribution will be available under the Canada Assistance Plan.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Where the federal government presently has a doctor appointed to look after Indians on a reserve, will this situation continue?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Any services provided by the federal government will be continued.


Philip Bernard Rynard: On a reserve?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, until an agreement is reached with the province for it to provide the same services as are provided to other citizens, and only with the consent of the Indian band. Once agreements are effective with the provinces, the federal contribution will be adjusted to take account of whatever additional burdens the provinces may meet in providing services to the Indian population.


Mr. Nasserden:: In that regard what did the minister mean when he said, "with the consent of the Indian band"?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I mean that the Indian band must agree. We had already signed an agreement with the province of Ontario, and at one point there was some misunderstanding with the Indian bands as to whether they had been consulted or had agreed. The matter was then held in abeyance and full consultation was entered into. Now the Indian bands have agreed, and we would want to follow that practice in every other province.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I take it that if the federal government enters into agreements with the provinces to provide welfare services to Indians on reserves, it will be on a different sharing basis than the fifty-fifty basis which obtains generally throughout this legislation?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
In view of the fact that the federal government now has sole responsibility for the Indians, if the provinces then take this over, I assume the federal government will be meeting the major part of the cost. Has the minister worked out any division of cost in an instance of that kind?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The transferring of administrative responsibility for the provision of welfare services has been discussed at various meetings with the provinces. A draft agreement which would give effect to what you have in mind has been discussed with all the provinces. This agreement was tabled in the House of Commons on January 19, 1966. Under the cost sharing formula set out in the draft agreement the provincial and federal governments would share the cost of assisting Indians under part II on a matching basis up to the per capita level of cost incurred for assisting the non-Indian population in the province. The federal government would assume the full responsibility for any cost of assisting Indians in excess of this per capita cost.
Under present circumstances this would have the result of making the federal contribution vary from approximately 85 per cent to 97 per cent of the cost, depending upon the level of dependency of Indians in each province. So the percentage of assistance will be very high. Presumably, as the effects of the Canada Assistance Plan are felt and dependency levels are reduced, our contribution in respect of Indians would be the same as for other members of the population, which
July 3. 1966

Canada Assistance Plan
would really reflect the full integration of the Indian population with the rest of the population.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I am entirely
in support of integrating the welfare services for Indians with the general welfare programs in the provinces. I think this will remove unnecessary duplication and also will make for some uniformity, and will aid integration as people move off the reserves into other communities of the provinces. I am not clear, however, with regard to the minister's statement. I thought I understood him to say that up to the average that is being paid the federal and provincial governments will share the costs 50-50, and above that average the federal government will assume the full cost. Why would the provinces assume 50 per cent of the basic costs for a group of people who are the sole responsibility of the federal government at the present time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, the provinces presumably, like the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam, wish to see the Indians integrated, and the Indian population is a population resident within the boundaries of the province. That is the basic reason that Ontario, which already has taken this action, and others who have shown complete interest, would be willing to take the per capita level of cost applicable to the general population and match it with the federal government for the Indian population. Anything above that would be paid fully by the federal government, bringing it up to 87 or 97 per cent of the total cost which, it seems to me, indicates the high levels of dependency which exist among the Indian population.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not wish to drag this out, because I think the minister ought to go and get something to eat or have a cup of coffee, since he has been engaged in this discussion for quite some time, but I do not understand the relationship between the 50-50 sharing and the minister saying that the federal government will be bearing 87 to 97 per cent of the total cost. Does he mean that the amount paid above the average paid in respect of the general population could bring the federal government's contribution up to 87 or 97 per cent?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes; that is what I was trying to point out. It shows really the high cost of providing the services to the Indian population, in comparison to the cost in respect of the average citizen. It reveals something about conditions.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to ask the minister whether he can tell us how many Indian bands in the province of Ontario have signed an agreement to go along with the province. I am wondering what roughly is the proportion; is it half or three-quarters? I do not want the exact number.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I do not have the detailed information. I will obtain it and give it to my hon. friend later.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to relate back to the questions asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. This has to do more or less with the definition of an Indian. In subclause (b) (iii) of clause 10 it says it does not include an Indian who is designated in or under an agreement, and so on. What kind of an Indian is that and why is there the exclusion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The purpose of this paragraph is to provide for situations which we may not foresee at the moment, but which occur. This is a discretionary clause under which it would be possible to cover any possible situation which may be encountered. Among these will be situations where Indians live as squatters on the fringes of organized municipalities but who have not become part of the community in an economic or social sense. In general such a group does not own property or engage in regular employment, and therefore the communities in which they live are reluctant to make any contribution. This is an effort to meet that situation.


David Vaughan Pugh: Would they not be classified as residents, just on the broad definition of a resident, for instance in the province of British Columbia?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. This is a special part to deal with Indians. Accordingly we have to cover the concept as fully as we can, because special sharing arrangements are anticipated for Indians. This is the reason some effort is made to make the definition as clear as possible in order to meet every conceivable situation.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I think I understood the explanation given by the minister in respect of the cost formula. If I understood him correctly, the fact that the federal contribution will be a very high proportion of the total is a reflection of the higher incidence of welfare situations in the
July 8. 1966

Canada Assistance Plan
Indian population in comparison to the incidence in the non-Indian population within the provinces. Is that a correct understanding of what the minister was saying?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes; that is the conclusion I would draw from the result that would obtain from undertaking to pay the full cost of amounts in excess of the per capita provincial cost of providing services.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, in this connection I am wondering whether the minister has a breakdown in respect of the incidence or ratio in the Indian population for each of the provinces. I am not necessarily asking the minister to give those figures to the committee now, but perhaps that information could be supplied.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have that information available and if I cannot give it now I will certainly provide it later.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister understands the point of my question. We should like to have the picture as it applies to each province.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question regarding this part, dealing with Indian welfare. Is there any special provision made in this measure or in any agreement with the province of Ontario dealing with non-treaty Indians, those not on reserves and without Indian status who have very little contact with communities or province of Ontario welfare offices?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is provision for this particular category of Indian, and I refer to subclause (b) paragraph (iii). This provision would cover the cases to which the hon. member has referred. We are making an effort to meet the problems of Indians who are not integrated, in residence in a municipality, on crown lands or on a reserve.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 11, 12 and 13 agreed to.
On clause 14-Definitions; "work activity project".
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to question the minister about part III, clause 14 respecting work activity projects. Can the minister give us some idea of the scope and type of activities

that are envisaged and the groups that will be included?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, part III, work activity projects, provides a basis for future contributions toward projects designed to provide work orientated activities for persons who are not able to take advantage of normal employment, vocational training or rehabilitation opportunities. This type of program has been requested by several provinces which feel that a new factor is required in their programs.
Under clause 14 (a) projects are defined in terms of the purposes for which they are to be set up. Their objective will be to prepare for entry or return to employment persons who, because of environmental, personal or family reasons, have unusual difficulty in obtaining or holding employment, or taking advantage of training or rehabilitation programs. Many of those involved will be persons who have a history of chronic dependency because of a variety of problems which, it is felt, can best be dealt with under a welfare system.
It should be emphasized that a significant distinction of a work activity project is that it is a social service relating to trade or work, so that a participant and his family will receive counsel and support in order that the family will be strengthened by assistance to the head of the family whose employability is a difficulty. In essence, the purpose of this project is to provide appropriate training and work activity for persons who can take advantage, and whose dependency may be decreased or whose employability may be enhanced. This is an experiment and involves new territory.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
have in mind one or two specific categories. I have received a great many letters from women who are either unmarried, divorced or widowed who have reached their middle fifties. They are too young to qualify for old age assistance or old age security pensions, but too elderly to find employment readily and, in most cases, have not had the training required in order to qualify for jobs that are more plentiful today. They are too elderly in most cases to undertake the heavy work required of waitresses and others employed in heavy service occupations. Does the minister envisage projects of this kind, both in the nature of training and occupation? What sort of projects are envisaged for people of this type?
July 8, 1966


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Some of the cases mentioned by the hon. member may involve special training or placement efforts, and this can be provided through other programs. The real purpose of this provision is to support work activity projects which will enable persons to enhance their employability. It applies not only to those persons but to projects which are designed for individuals such as the severely retarded, whose limited employment potential can be enhanced if they are given some form of meaningful activity.
It is envisaged that this type of activity for the severely retarded will be given under conditions of sheltered employment, so there is that aspect to the plan. An example of one kind of work project can be found in the re-establishment centres operated by the national assistance programs in Britain. In the main, the types of persons referred to these centres are those receiving assistance, who have been continuously unemployed for a long time-in some cases a year or more-and those who have in consequence lost the habit [DOT]of work and have become unaccustomed to the ordinary daily routine which is the pattern of the life of a man or woman in regular employment.
In the United States a program similar to this envisaged under the work activity projects takes the form of community work training programs under the social security act, and work experience programs under the income opportunities act. In both cases the programs are operated on a federal-state basis and administered by the department of health, education and welfare. In the United States over $100 million is being expended this year for this kind of program. Canada is now moving into this field by the provisions in this part of the bill.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Does the minister envisage a kind of program in which The Company of Young Canadians might take a large part?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At the moment I cannot foresee how The Company of Young Canadians could be involved. These are provincially initiated programs and it will be up to the provinces to decide whose assistance they wish.


Winona Grace MacInnis: This program could be used to help elderly people who are unemployed and without skills to obtain necessary employment before retirement age?
Canada Assistance Plan


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Where there is a reasonable chance of increasing the employability of an individual, I think this program would have a role.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, in regard to those individuals referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, both men and women. I should like to know whether this program will assist individuals to quit jobs and become retrained? I am thinking particularly of persons who obtained jobs in the labour market following the end of hostilities in the second world war, and who now wish to train for employment which will give them higher salaries.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This would be the kind of
person we ought to assist. I think the best place to do so would be in our vocational training or vocational rehabilitation program, because I believe this clause is intended to cover a person whose work experience may not be as great as the example given.


Edward Nasserden: I have been told by some people that it is very difficult to secure training under the vocational training program if you are employed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, this brings us into another area of consideration, namely what programs are in existence for the training of the employed. There are various programs for employed persons that involve joint federal-provincial participation. Of course the training allowances that have been enacted by the parliament of Canada will make it even more possible for unemployed persons to gain good training, with very substantial assistance.


Edward Nasserden: I appreciate what the minister has said, but the person I am thinking about at the moment is someone in a salary range that does not give him what today is considered a decent standard of living, who is employed and would like to secure further training. Will this or any other plan of the government enable such a man to take training and receive assistance while taking it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This part is not intended to cover the person the hon. member has in mind.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 26 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.

July 8, 1966
Canada Assistance Plan


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: When
shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: By
leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the third reading of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold up this matter in any way; I know how anxious the minister is to make a statement regarding the government's plans and proposals in connection with the old people of this country. We are now on third reading of the bill dealing with the Canada Assistance Plan. The opportunity is now available to the minister to make the statement which has been promised over and over again, and as often postponed.
We look forward, now that discussion on the Canada Assistance Plan bill is drawing to a close, to the minister's producing his blueprint so long promised, in connection with the wider field of rights and privileges for the older people of this country. In fact, it was promised as far back as the election campaign, and as long delayed. I am sure the minister this afternoon will have every opportunity to make his statement, and I would suggest to him that he should not again postpone it.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I asked certain questions today based upon information that was not without foundation. I said that discussions had taken place among members of the administration; and out of those discussions had evolved a plan whereby assistance would be provided to the old people of this country whose income is less than $1,260 a year, the difference to be made up by the state and to be financed by a capital gains tax. My information is that this is the basis upon which agreement was secured among hon. gentlemen opposite.
I know that Canadians as a whole will not want to see this question delayed any further.

There is no reason why the older people in need in this country should have to wait until Monday. What a wonderful opportunity the minister now has to stand in his place, at the-conclusion of discussion on this bill, open up this box of secrecy and let the people of Canada know what is going to take place. Why leave these older Canadians in a state of suspended animation, hoping for the best and fearing the worst?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party may I say at this point that, as we said at earlier stages with respect to this legislation, we welcome this bill and are glad to vote for it. As we made clear at the earlier stages of debate, we see in this legislation provisions that improve the administration of social welfare in Canada. We have spelled that out in some detail, so that it is not necessary to do so on third reading.
However, it is still our view that it was a bitter disappointment that when this legislation was brought in it failed to meet the hopes which the minister and other members of the government had held out to our older people for over a year, indeed for 14 months. We have been told for a long time that the Canada Assistance Plan was legislation under which, amongst other things, there would be improvements with respect to the pensions of our retired Canadians. It turned out that there was no such provision in this legislation, and we have drawn attention to that fact as forcefully and as energetically as we could.
I think it would be appropriate to say that this is another example of the value of parliamentary debate. During the course of it, it is quite obvious that the government has got the message and has come to the realization that it cannot leave our old age security recipients relying on the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan for increased pension income. It is obvious that the government has come to the realization that it has to do something else. That is why we debated this measure as we did.
I think it was a shameful performance for the people of this country to be led for three or four days to believe that the minister would make a statement on this matter at the end of second reading, a statement which he then refused to make. But that is now part of history. What is significant today is that the minister has assured the house and the country that before this session recesses a statement by the government will be made in the
July 8, 1966

house telling us what the government's plans are with respect to old age security recipients. He not only gave that assurance on orders of the day this morning but he alluded to it half a dozen times when we were in committee of the whole today.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
It now being clear that there is a statement with respect to old age security which the government is going to make, and it now being clear that this legislation is just about passed and will soon be approved by the House of Commons, it seems to me that the appeal just made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is one to which the minister ought to respond. He disappointed the older people of Canada when he did not make a statement last Tuesday. I think it would be compounding that disappointment to say now that they must wait until Monday.
Here is an excellent opportunity, I suggest, on third reading of this bill for him to make the statement. I suggest to him that, if he feels there is some procedural reason that he should not do it on third reading of this bill, immediately this bill has been approved we understand the next item of business will be consideration of interim supply. At that point the bill will have gone through all the stages of debate in this House of Commons. It will have met all the conditions he has laid down and has added to as the days have gone by.
I suggest if he is not prepared to make his important statement during the third reading debate, he should be prepared to do it while we are discussing interim supply and before the debate on interim supply is concluded. We are glad to join with the government and other members of the house in supporting this legislation for what is in it. We regret that it did not have in it what must be done for our old age security recipients. We are glad the debate has resulted in the government's being prepared to make the statement, and we urge that the statement be made now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say is to express my appreciation to the members of the house for the manner in which they have discussed and dealt with the Canada Assistance Plan. I appreciate the extent of the debate and the sincerity of the motives of all hon. members who have participated in the debate at the various stages of the bill, especially the renewed appeal that has been made this afternoon by the right hon. Leader of the
Interim Supply
Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) with respect to a further statement affecting the older citizens of Canada.
I had been asked several questions earlier today and Anally, on the advice given to me by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam who associated himself with the Leader of the Opposition and others, I agreed to make a statement before the end of the session. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said it was a matter of indifference-these are not his exact words

where or when the statement was made, as long as it was made in the house and before the end of the session.


David Lewis: Before the summer recess, he said-not the end of the session.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I accept the correction -before the summer recess. I feel that is a reasonable attitude to take, and I undertook to make this statement in the house before the summer recess. I can only conclude by saying it is a matter of deep regret to me that I am unable to respond positively to the seductive appeal made to me by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,662,982,791.93, being the aggregate of-
(a)	four-twelfths of the total of the amounts of all of the Items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, not otherwise provided for, except Finance Item 15 for which the proportion is three-twelfths, and Transport Item 103 and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L40 for which no proportion is granted-$1,252,481,028.67;
(b)	an additional four-twelfths of the total amounts of Dominion Bureau of Statistics Item 10, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40, Loans, Investments and Advances Items L75 and L80 (Schedule A) of the said Main Estimates-$4,299,-333.83;
(c)	an additional three-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Mines and Technical Surveys Items 15 and 70 (Schedule B) of the said Main Estimates- $1,902,250.00;
(d)	an additional two-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Mines and Technical Surveys Items 55 and 75, Secretary of State Item 40, Loans, Investments and Advances Items L30 and L95 (Schedule C) of the said Main Estimates-$25,681,300.00;
[Stage Direction]
July 8, 1966
Interim Supply
(e)	an additional one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of Agriculture Items 5 and 55, Finance Item 10, Fisheries Item 10, Justice Item 1, Mines and Technical Surveys Items 20, 25 , 35 , 45, 60, 80, 85, National Film Board Item 1, Northern Affairs and National Resources Item 15 and Transport Item 5 (Schedule D) of the said Main Estimates-$16,293,-229.17;
(f)	seven-twelfths of the total of the amounts of all of the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates A for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament-$193,924,378.08;
(g)	four-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Agriculture Item 35a, Defence Production Item 20a, Finance Item 4a, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40a, Transport Items 102a and 103a (Schedule E) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$5,709,522.67;
(h)	two-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Finance Item 15a, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 75a, and National Research Council, including the Medical Research Council, Item 10a, (Schedule F) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$8,459,-333.34;
(i)	one-twelfth of the total of the amount of
Loans,	Investments	and	Advances	Item	L40a
(Schedule G) of the said Supplementary Estimates -$966,666.67;
(j)	seven-twelfths of the total of all the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates B for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament-$103,265,750.00;
(k)	four-twelfths of the total of the amount of
Loans,	Investments	and	Advances	Item	L32b
(Schedule H) of the said Supplementary Estimates- $50,000,000.00,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, without exhausting my right to speak, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs would now place before the committee and the country a general summary of the present position regarding Viet Nam, so that we may discuss that matter through the opportunity provided us by supply? I was not very successful in my appeal to the minister who has just sat down, but knowing the desire at all times of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to furnish the house with the information he has, I ask him to place before us something of the facts, unhampered by generalities and uninhibited by any consideration except the security of the state.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I understood, Mr. Chairman, that hon. gentlemen wished to make some statements on the Viet Nam problem and I thought I would give them the opportunity of doing so before participating myself in the debate. What I might say might be based on their comments. I know the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, as well as the Leader of the Opposition, wish to say something.


John George Diefenbaker: I endeavoured to secure a statement from the minister and was as successful as we usually are in having answers from the minister in the chamber on a matter that is causing ever increasing concern in all parts of the world. We have no idea, nor has any information except of a general nature, been given to the people of Canada relating to the stand of the government in connection with this matter. Escalation has taken place within the last few days. The minister has indicated that the government regrets the expansion into the areas being bombed. But, further than that, we do not know what is the stand of the government of Canada. The government sent a messenger on two occasions in the person of a well trained Canadian diplomat, Mr. Ronning, to Hanoi. The second visit was made known to the Canadian people only through references in the United States press.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
What is Canada's position? Certainly to listen to the minister expound generalities on this problem one would conclude that Canada's position is neutralist in consequence of membership on the truce commission. What has been the value of the journeys to Hanoi? What reaction has there been? Is there any suggestion by the government that the enunciation by the Prime Minister of a few months ago, demanding a pause in the bombings, is still an integral portion of Canada's policy?
These are matters which we have a right to know. We are getting back more and more to the days of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, who believed that information on external affairs was the monopoly of the Prime Minister, who was at the same time the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
What attitude are we taking? I do not come before the house to suggest that the United States should withdraw from South Viet Nam, that it should get out, as is demanded by certain groups of individuals. Were it to do so, the result would be the overrunning not only of Southeast Asia but of other countries as well.
Where does the government stand, Mr. Chairman, outside of generalities? We recall very well that during the campaign for the presidency of the United States, the proponents were divided into the classifications of doves and hawks. Mr. Goldwater belonged to the latter classification, the President to the former.
July 8, 1966

However, in the intervening months the stand taken by President Johnson to all intents and purposes seems to have taken on the same considerations incident to, and part of, the policies advocated by Senator Gold-water. What knowledge did Canada have prior to June 29, when the President extended bombing to strike at the industrial and oil storage areas of Hanoi and at the port of Haiphong? What information was given to Canada in this regard?
Certainly the decision to take that course was a new initiative. It implied the adoption of a hard line by the administration of the United States. The result has been that fear has touched the hearts of men everywhere. No longer is there any question that what is taking place is the waging of a war. What has been the reaction of the Soviet and Chinese communist leaders? Up to the present it has been described as cautious. For how long will that attitude be maintained by the communist countries?
The United States is pouring out its gold and its blood on behalf of the maintenance of freedom for us all. Will this new phase bring about an alteration in the powers of resistance of North Viet Nam, or will it have the result of uniting the communist nation, alienating the friends of the United States in all parts of the world, and finally bringing about a challenge to world peace? We have a right to know where the government of Canada stands. We have a right to suggest that the concealment of Canada's position behind a barrage of words is not an answer to the Canadian people.
In the latter part of June the Secretary General of the United Nations set forth certain basic principles as being appropriate to a peaceful settlement. The first was the cessation of bombing in North Viet Nam. His suggestion in that regard was met by intensification and an expansion.
The second was the scaling down of action in South Viet Nam. His expressed hopes that this might be done had been answered by the North Vietnamese by an ecceleration of infiltration into South Viet Nam.
The third point was that there should be inclusion in the talks that will take place of all who are actually fighting there, meaning that the Viet Cong should have representation at any conference. The last of these three points seems to be a reasonable one, a necessary one, one that should be generally acceptable.
Interim Supply
I realize how terrible is the problem, as do we all. But surely we are entitled to information that is provided by United States and British newspapers every day of the week. We are denied information in this house that they provide in their news columns. The London Times and the New York Times provide more information than this house is able at any time to pry from the government. That is why, instead of giving us generalities, I suggest that the minister place before the house and the country something of the plans, something of the ideas, something of the initiative of Canada.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Much has been made of the fact that we have sent Ambassador Ronning, on two occasions. Strangely enough, the impact of this did not result in more than two or three lines in any of the world's newspapers.
A few days ago one of the great leaders of democracy in the western world spoke in the House of Lords. He is a man who in the darkest days of the 1930's saw the message and meaning and dangers of Hitlerism. When he was unable to arouse the British people or the government to which he belonged, he resigned. Ill health struck him when he became prime minister. In 1956 he followed a course in Egypt that brought about his withdrawal from the House of Commons. But Anthony Eden still remains as one of the world's great men, in my belief, the most knowledgeable now in the western world on international affairs. He too is concerned. He wonders. He asks, how far can the United States continue to expand its bombing attacks without ultimately touching that point beyond which acquiescence will be translated into active antagonism, by communist China and the U.S.S.R?
The report I have is a press report, and I am going to quote from what he said. He spoke to a crowded House of Lords that realized that with his vast experience, his fears would not be unfounded. He said among other things, that he was not convinced communist China was set upon the conquest of Southeast Asia; and then proceeded to say:
There are other possible explanations for the very dangerous tensions which now dominate Southeast Asia.
That is the speech delivered on Wednesday, as I said some moments ago, at Westminster, in the House of Lords:
It is conceivable that the Chinese are as convinced that the United States intend their destruction as the Americans are convinced of Chinese

July 8, 1966
Interim Supply
long-range ambitions. One of these convictions we know to be wrong. The other might have a margin of error-
But if military victory cannot provide the full answer for either-and it cannot-a neutralized area might be acceptable to both. I do not believe there is any other way out.
I suggest there is a great deal of wisdom in this suggestion made by the Earl of Avon.
Canada is a member of the commission of three. Canada is unable, of course, to bring about the reconvening of the Geneva conference. What is Canada's attitude? Does it believe that there is any possibility of success being attained for the advocacy and concept of Viet Nam as a neutralized area?
Certainly, the expansion of bombings, however effective it may be militarily, cannot break the spirit of the people. Indeed, nothing brought about that comradeship of standing together more than did those bombings of London during 1940 when the British people were virtually unarmed and when we within the Commonwealth were alone.
What possible victory can come from bombing the gasoline tanks? When the United States originally went into this area, it was for the purpose of assuring the preservation of the line drawn between north and south. The numbers in the armed forces of the United States have been greatly increased, and will be brought to 400,000 within a very few months. Is there not something that Canada can do openly-not clandestinely-but openly and dramatically?
I believe that were we, in this nation, to press toward a neutralized zone in the areas of South Viet Nam and the other areas directly affected, we might be able to bring about at least a degree of potential agreement that might ultimately lead toward the conference table.
I am not critical of the minister for what he has done, whatever it may have been. But I am critical of the fact that on every occasion when we have asked for information, what we have been given is a monologue of uncertainty clothed in magnificent language. I ask the minister, will he not do what is being done in the other capitals of the western world: place before the Canadian people something of the ideas that he has in mind, so that the world will know that Canada at this time has not only the desire which the minister possesses, but has something to present as well. It is all very well to talk about secrecy and, to say: "We must be very careful lest plans get out". Why? When Eden presented a plan, which, after close

examination appears to have possibilities, he was not afraid.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I have brushed aside the easy solutions advocated by the New Democratic Party. Strangely enough, their solutions are not the solutions of Prime Minister Wilson. He, although the head of a socialist government in office, has been far removed from the plans advocated by members of the socialist party in this house. The plans which have been placed before parliament by hon. members to my left from the New Democratic Party are, in general, and I say this not by way of criticism-those of the left wing of the Labour party in the United Kingdom-ideas which have been disowned, excoriated, condemned and cast aside by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
This is not an easy matter. I am deeply concerned about the events of the last few days. So that there may be no mistake as to what I mean, I refer to the intensification and expansion of bombing. But we do ourselves injustice as a nation if, having those ideas, we proceed to wide condemnation of the United States and its policies. I disagree strongly with the latest initiative. I find it difficult to understand how, in the light of the experience of history, a nation can believe that however powerful its bombing capacity may be, it can destroy the fortitude and determination of a people. I think Canada should make it abundantly clear to the United States that this is the view of Canadians as a whole regarding this recent venture into extended bombing. Taking this stand however, we should not, as a nation, with the freedom of all mankind dependent on the United States and its forces, engage in the easy course of condemning without offering an effective alternative.
I ask the minister this: Will he not, when he speaks, give Canada and Canadians some hope? The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is going to the U.S.S.R. in a few days. A week from now he will be there. Will he carry a message not only from the United Kingdom but from other parts of the Commonwealth?
I have some knowledge of the reaction of the U.S.S.R. to anything in the nature of a conciliatory attitude. We had an example of this very recently at a dinner given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in honour of the parliamentary delegation from the Soviet Union. The Deputy Premier spoke out in a way which could not but be a
July 8, 1966

[DOT]contravention of accepted protocol. What he said has been said over and over again, it represents nothing new. At the same time, I say publicly, now, what I have said personally to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the manner in which he replied that evening in circumstances which were difficult and trying, was most worthy and deserving of the highest commendation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The stand he took was clear and definite while at the same time polite and considerate. There was no multiplicity of words to hide the meaning he wished to convey. He spoke in a way which left no doubt as to where Canada stood. I thought that evening that if he would follow the same course in the House of Commons he would indeed earn for himself the highest of [DOT]encomiums. I hope the stand he took that evening represents a new venture for him, a course of action which will enable him to tell us in short, terse and clearly interpretable language what Canada stands for in terms of the situation in Southeast Asia.
It is very frightening. It fills one with apprehension. History proves that however powerful a nation may be it cannot, in its dealings with other nations, throw the dice and always be sure it will come up with a winning combination. That is what I am concerned about. The latest venture has that kind of attitude about it in the field of international affairs. It is a dangerous game to play.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure my right hon. friend that there has not been, and will not be, any concealment of Canada's position with regard to this matter, but in my official capacity I have to determine, together with my colleagues, the circumstances and the occasions when we, too can enjoy the same freedom of exposition which rests with those who do not have the immediate responsbility of deciding the course that Canada must take in this or any other international matter.
I have examined the debate in the British House of Commons. I have read carefully what the Prime Minister of Britain said yesterday, and what Lord Home said yesterday, and I suggest to hon. members that there has not been, in any free parliament that I know of, more questions answered about this particular problem. While hon. gentlemen
Interim Supply
may complain about the generality of some responses, I suggest if they will examine the responses made by other foreign ministers they will find that Canada has been as forthcoming as she has a right and a responsibility to be at this time in regard to a matter, which the right hon. gentleman said, is one that gives him great concern, as it does all of us.
Of course I am aware that there is widespread concern here, and among Canadians generally, about the most recent course of developments in Viet Nam. The right hon. gentleman spoke of the speech made the other day by Lord Avon, the former British Foreign Secretary. Lord Avon was not referring to the current situation in Viet Nam. He was dealing with what he thought would be a desirable ultimate solution, a solution not unlike the proposition which the prime minister and I have put forward on two occasions, once in the house and once in the external affairs committee, as to what the ultimate disposition might be of this problem.
But we are addressing ourselves today not to what is going to happen when the conflict is over, but to how we are going to bring this conflict to an end, and to what we can do to realize this objective, and to what our view is about what is alleged to be a recent escalation in the pattern of war carried on by the United States against North Viet Nam.
Let there be no doubt we are all concerned about this problem. On a number of occasions the government has expressed its reservations with regard to the bombing of North Viet Nam and about the whole sequence of events which led the United States to the conclusion that it had no option but to adopt this course. I made my views known before the recent bombings took place, and in a manner which I believe was the most effective way to engage in consultations with a country with which Canada has such close ties.
One could be dramatic. One could engage in particular public postures that might bring acclaim, but I want to say that as long as I am Secretary of State for External Affairs, and certainly with regard to this situation, 1 am going to carry on in the way which I believe will most likely yield favourable results, rather than seek acclaim by some public position that is not capable of yielding a satisfactory solution.
The Prime Minister made clear on June 29 that we would be glad to see the bombing stopped, that we would be glad to see the

July 8. 1986
Interim Supply
infiltration of North Vietnamese troops into South Viet Nam stopped, and that we would be glad to see unconditional negotiations for peace started. This has always been our position. We urged a ceasefire before the President of the United States said he was prepared to enter into peace talks without any preconditions. When we now urge a ceasefire we must take into account some of the implications which were mentioned yesterday by Mr. Wilson. We could have talks if the parties were so disposed, without waiting for a ceasefire, and these talks in turn might lead to a ceasefire.
I think it important that we understand fully the implications of the action which has now been taken to bomb the oil storage facilities in North Viet Nam. I do not think we can limit our analysis merely to the military aspects of this operation. I propose to go beyond these aspects, to go into other implications which seem to me essential to a full appreciation of the present situation.
So far as the strictly military aspects are concerned, it can be argued that the general pattern of activity has not been significantly altered by the bombing of the oil storage facilities of North Viet Nam. On the understanding that has been communicated to me, it is not the intention of the United States government to extend the bombing to targets which are not directly related to the infiltration of men and supplies from North Viet Nam to buttress the insurgency in the south.
The fact is that the oil storage facilities which have been the target of recent attacks are located in close proximity to major concentrations of population in North Viet Nam.
I take it from the preliminary reports that have been made available to the government of Canada that every care has been taken to spare civilian life in those operations. Nevertheless I would be less than frank if I did not say there is a risk inherent in these operations in terms of giving this conflict a character, a complexion which I am sure all of us would be concerned to avoid, and which my right hon. friend himself said he was concerned to see avoided.
There is a further aspect to these latest operations which is bound to cause concern. That is the possibility, as my right hon. friend mentioned, of a greater engagement in this conflict by those who have supported and actively encouraged the policies and the efforts of the government of North Viet Nam. It is not possible, I think beyond a certain 
point, to estimate what the threshold of that greater engagement may be, but it must be clear that everyone in every country, in all of the continents, is concerned about the dangers flowing from any change in the pattern of the present conflict.
It seems to me exceedingly difficult to guarantee against a miscalculation on the part of one or other of the powers concerned who may consider the course of developments in Viet Nam as carrying a direct risk to their national security. All I can say at the moment is that, from all the information that has been made available to us, there appears to be a continuing recognition of the need for restraint on the part of all the governments directly concerned in the conflict.
I wish to deal with a matter which seems to me to be crucial from the point of view of the Canadian government and of other governments which believe that a negotiated solution is the right way of resolving the Viet Nam conflict. The question we must ask ourselves is whether these latest developments, or any future developments tending in the same direction, are likely to help or hinder the prospect of such a solution. This has been the cornerstone of Canada's policy and the guiding consideration in the efforts which we have been making in recent months.
I am bound to say on balance, that whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation may be, it is the judgment of the Canadian government that there is a relationship between this whole matter of bombing and the prospects of arriving at even a beginning of a process which might in due course yield an honourable accommodation of the interests of the major parties in the conflict in Viet Nam.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I should like to take this point a little further by explaining to the house the positions of the government of North Viet Nam and the government of the United States, as I understand them, on the basis of what has been said publicly and in private discussions. The government of North Viet Nam has called for a permanent and unconditional cessation of all bombing and other acts of war against their territory. This is one of the elements in a letter which president Ho Chi-Minh addressed to the Prime Minister on January 24, and in the absence of which the government of North Viet Nam does not appear prepared to envisage a political solution. The argument behind this formulation is that by bombing targets in North Viet Nam
July 8, 1966

the United States is encroaching on the sovereignty of that country, and that this is a violation of accepted standards of international law and international relations. The government of North Viet Nam accordingly does not think that a willingness to cease this bombing should be qualified by any conditions whatsoever, or that it warrants any countervailing undertakings by the North Vietnamese government in respect of its own policies.
I think the North Vietnamese point of view is well reflected in a statement issued by the Chinese authorities in Peking on July 3 last. The following extract is relevant to this matter:
U.S. imperialism long ago completely violated the Geneva agreements and broke the line of demarcation between South and North Viet Nam. It has now further broken this line by its bombing of the capital of the heroic Vietnamese people. The United States must be held responsible for all the serious consequences arising therefrom. With the breaking of the line of demarcation by the United States, the Vietnamese people have ceased to be subject to any restrictions.
This is a significant statement. The house will note that it refers twice to the demarcation line which, however temporary it was designed to be, was laid down in the Geneva cease-fire agreement of 1954. The statement appears to argue that, so long as this agreement has not been superseded by a permanent settlement of the whole Viet Nam question, that line must to all intents and purposes be regarded as a de facto political boundary between North and South Viet Nam, and must be respected as such.
This interpretation of the provisions of the Geneva agreement is, I think, one which Canada, as a member of the international Commission in Viet Nam is bound to take seriously. It is also, I think, an interpretation which lies at the root of the whole position of the government of the United States as regards the matter of support and sustenance which the government of North Viet Nam has afforded to the insurgency in the South. I regret to say, however, that it is only partially accepted in the statement from which I have read to the house. For, having placed due emphasis on the inviolability of the line of demarcation between South and North Viet Nam, the Chinese statement goes on to say that "all support and aid rendered by the North Vietnamese people to South Viet Nam are within the sacred right of the Vietnamese people". It is this evident inconsistency which is the crux of the problem we are facing in Viet Nam and to which we must address
Interim Supply
ourselves if there is to be any prospect of a peaceful and lasting settlement of the present conflict.
What is the position of the government of the United States? It is in the following terms as they have been given to us. The United States is prepared to stop the bombing of North Viet Nam at any time as part of a mutual reduction of hostilities on both sides. They regard the military activities in North and South Viet Nam as forming part of a single problem. If the North Vietnamese were prepared to respect the demarcation line in terms of the assistance they are providing to the insurgency in the South, the United States, for their part, would be prepared to match such a move by halting the bombing of targets in the north which are associated with that assistance.
This, then, is the impasse as I see it. There is a relationship between this matter of bombing and whatever moves it may be possible to make toward an eventual settlement.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question at this stage? Today's press refers to an Associated Press dispatch which reads as follows:
An unpublished report by Canadian and Indian representatives on the International Control Commission in Laos was cited Thursday by Conservatives attacking the Labor government's Viet Nam policy.
Anthony Royle, Tory MP for Richmond, Surrey, said the report gave Prime Minister Wilson firm arguments and firm evidence to enable him to give full public support to American bombing of oil installations.
What is the nature of the report by Canada which has not yet been published but which was utilized in debate in Westminster? What is the meaning of the statement that Canada had spoken, along with India, in such a way as to justify what was done in this connection.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I do not object to the question. I will deal with it right away. This was an interim report made by the commission-and it has been tabled-calling attention to activities of certain elements which were opposed to the government of the south operating in Laos.


John George Diefenbaker: When was it tabled?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I think about two months ago. I do not have the exact date.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the report to which reference is made?

July 8, 1966
Interim Supply


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister a question. Is the report to which the right hon. gentleman referred the one that was tabled?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it is not that report, I do not know what report it is. When the question was directed to me I assumed it must be that report. I do not know of any other such report in respect of Laos in recent months.
The North Vietnamese government believes that the bombing of their territory should be stopped by a unilateral commitment on the part of the United States. The United States government, on the other hand, argues that it is unrealistic to expect them to give a unilateral commitment of this kind which would leave North Viet Nam without any commitment in respect of their infiltration of men and supplies into the south.
What is to be the position of the Canadian government in this situation? I believe that there are two choices open to us. We can take strong public positions on any or all of the issues involved in the present conflict. That is the easiest thing we can do. Alternatively, we can continue to do what we have been trying to do. So long as I am in this office that is what I propose to continue to do, because I believe this is the only effective way available of achieving the objectives we have in mind. We will continue to conduct quietly and through diplomatic channels our efforts to find the basis for an accommodation in Viet Nam.
I would seriously suggest to the house that we can follow one or the other course I have mentioned. We cannot effectively follow both at one and the same time. I think we have to admit to ourselves that there are no simple solutions to this conflict. And, because there are no simple solutions, a settlement in Viet Nam will not be achieved overnight; it can only emerge from a patient probing of positions.
e (4:50 p.m.)
It will have to go right to the roots and the origins of the conflict in Viet Nam and it will have to be such as to hold out an assured prospect of peace and stability, not only in Viet Nam but in Southeast Asia as a whole. This is what Lord Avon had in mind when he talked of neutralization; not now, not as a meand to bring this conflict to an end, but as the kind of solution that would follow a negotiated settlement. If this is what we are

working toward, then I think it will be agreed we must take first steps first.
It is being put to me from time to time that Canada, either by itself or in co-operation with other countries, should issue a call to a new Geneva conference. Before we set out to determine the proposed new role for the commission, we had already done that. Before we sent Mr. Ronning to Hanoi and Saigon and elsewhere we had already done that. I now resist this course, not because it is unreasonable or because it does not represent a long-term objective of the government of Canada. We have had discussions with the government of India, and I mention India because of the speech made yesterday by her distinguished prime minister to the effect that there should be a conference called.
This proposal was made over a year ago and again last November before we contemplated the proposed role for the commission, and before we decided on the Ronning missions. I have now resisted this course, in the sense that I have resisted it before, because all the information available to me indicates that a call of this kind will not have the desired results in present circumstances, much as I would like to be able to say that the situation was otherwise. We have been told this without going to Moscow, on the highest authority. It is one thing to call for a conference; it is quite another thing to ensure its being attended by those who must be there.
It seems to me that a conference lies at the end of the road, not at the beginning. If one could be held now, and if the Soviet union, as co-chairman, acquiesced in the suggestion of the prime minister of India to join with Britain in calling such a conference, all of us would support this. But I would have to say, as I have already implied, that knowing what I do I would be greatly surprised if the representations that must be at such a conference would be prepared to attend one at this time, whether it would be on Viet Nam or indirectly on Laos or Cambodia.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do you mean Russia or the United States?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I prefer to leave my statement as it is.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is ambiguous.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: It is not ambiguous.
I cannot foresee what intermediate steps may have to intervene before the time for such a conference is ripe. But, on the basis of
July 8, 1966

all the discussion we have had, it is my assessment that it is likely there would have to be some preliminary undertakings, and I emphasize the word "undertakings", about the points of substance which are at issue in this conflict. What this means, in Canadian terms, is that we must do all we can to try to create the conditions in which the processes which will lead to an ultimate settlement can be started. This is precisely the task to which we have addressed ourselves.
I say again that we welcome the proposals made yesterday by the Prime Minister of India. The purposes and objectives behind her proposals are shared by the Canadian government and they are shared by all of us in this house. If these proposals commend themselves to the parties concerned, and if the parties concerned would attend the conference-I am sure the United States would be among those that would-and if progress on that basis were possible, I can assure the house and the government of India that Canada is prepared to do whatever may be required of us to see that these proposals are translated into action.
My right hon. friend spoke of Mr. Ron-ning's two visits to Hanoi. I would like to underline certain aspects of this initiative which may have been lost sight of in the great volume of publicity, and on this I regret to disagree with my right hon. friend, which Mr. Ronning's visits have generated.
First, I have said that this was a Canadian initiative and that it was carried out by Mr. Ronning on the instructions of the Canadian government, and not on the instructions in any way of any other government. I reiterate this today because the impression has been created in some quarters that Mr. Ronning's mandate may have been something other than it was.
Second, I would like the house to understand that the assignment we have taken on is essentially in the nature of a good offices assignment. It is inherent in such an assignment that we would be concerned to understand the positions and attitudes of all the parties, and that we would do our best to interpret and clarify the positions and attitudes of one side to the other. That, broadly speaking, has been the form which Mr. Ronning's assignment has taken.
Third, I would like to restate the ultimate object of this initiative. It has seemed to us that if a beginning is to be made in the long and patient process which we hope will lead to ultimate peace in Viet Nam, we must find
Interim Supply
a basis on which both sides would be prepared to see such a beginning made. The mere calling of a conference, desirable as that is, does not meet this essential objective, as we have learned in our discussions with both sides. This is the only potentially useful channel through which there has been contact with both sides in a long time. I will not say it is the only channel, but it is the only channel which has access to both sides. I regard this as a tribute to our country as well as to Mr. Ronning himself.
I do not wish to give the house a misleading impression of our results so far. We have not achieved any spectacular results and I think I can quite frankly say that we have had no illusions as to the pace at which progress was likely to be possible.
As I have explained previously to the house, we regard the two visits which have now been made to Hanoi-there may be others -as phases of a continuing effort. Over how long a period of time this effort may extend I cannot say. What is significant is that we have had a fair hearing, and on both occasions with the top personalities of the north and the south and, of course, with the government of the United States. I can say that if the channel we have established remains open, and if its potential usefulness is not called into question by any of those concerned, I do not think, in a situation where a failure of communication may be crucial, we can discount the significance of such a channel for the time when the circumstances for the solution of the Viet Nam conflict are ripe.
The situation facing us in Viet Nam is as serious as any which has faced us since the Korean war. Since that time there has been growing confidence on the part of the international community that it has the means of bringing its influence to bear on situations of this kind, and to put an end to armed conflict, and to lay the groundwork for political solutions. That is the essence of the concept of peacekeeping which Canada and others have tried to develop and strengthen through the United Nations.
We accepted the suggestion of the president of the United States that he would welcome any effort by any country to try and bring about at least preliminary talks that might lead to serious negotiations, which in turn might result in a negotiated settlement. It was in the light of this situation that we thought last December there was a role for the international commission. Canada, India and Poland, as members of this commission,

July 8, 1966
Interim Supply
have had experience in Indochina now for 11 years. Being the only body that has a continuing link with Hanoi and Saigon we thought that, quite apart from any authority given to that commission under the Geneva agreement, it might undertake the effort to try and bring about a narrowing in the position taken by the various parties.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
To that end we have had useful and fruitful exchanges with India and Poland. Our view was that the time had come to use the commission for this purpose. We did not suggest they were not as sincerely interested in peace as we were. One of the countries took the position that perhaps this was not the particular moment in which to establish a role for the commission as a mediating instrument. But we continue, all of us, India, Poland and Canada-and this was rearffimed yesterday by the Prime Minister of India-to look upon the commission as having a role in this situation.
The government of India reaffirmed yesterday that they would be happy to see the commission used to try and bring the parties together. Because we felt there would be some delay in trying to use the commission for the purpose I have mentioned, the government asked Mr. Ronning, a man born in China, who speaks Chinese, who knows many of the personalities involved, to undertake, if this could be arranged with the support of the governments	concerned-the	United
States, North Viet Nam and South Viet Nam-a series of discussions to find out if there was a basis for a preliminary discussion between the parties.
We have made a commitment, and we intend to respect it, to the parties concerned that what went on in Hanoi is a matter that must rest with the government of Canada until such time as we are in a position to report, finally, success or failure. It cannot be any other way. My hon. friend the member for York South the other day asked me whether I was in favour of the three proposals made by the Secretary General of the United Nations. He knows my views in these matters; he has known them for a long time. He knows where I stand and where this government stands. But if I had replied in specific terms to that question, I would have violated a commitment which Mr. Ronning, speaking for the government of Canada, made in discussions he has had. I do not propose in any way to endanger or destroy the credibility of a channel that is still open,

and which may yet be used to deal with this very serious situation.
We have had discussions only this week with representatives of the government of the United States, right here in Ottawa. I have had discussions, as the Prime Minister has, with the Deputy Premier of the Soviet Union who is visiting Canada. We will continue these discussions next week. Other countries are engaged in similar processes. I want this house and the country to know that there is no item on our agenda that is more important than trying to bring about some process of discussion between the parties concerned, in order that we can bring an end to the conflict in Viet Nam. That is the objective of all of us.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that a military solution of this problem of course is not possible by itself. We are all aware of the dangers that flow from the conflict that has raged in that area. We are dealing with the situation as it is now; we are not dealing with its genesis. We have sought not to emphasize the history of this situation, but to try and see if we could not make our position as a mediator more effective by taking the most objective position possible. I think thus far we have succeeded in doing this.
I can tell the house that no opportunity will go by without our making every attempt that we can, by ourselves, as a member of the commission or in concert with other countries, to try to bring about peace talks. When they do take place, whether by a Geneva conference or as a result of the kind of situation that developed in Korea and Malaysia, namely by gradual process, then we will address ourselves as one country in the international community to those methods by which we hope to bring about an effective neutralization of the whole area.
The objective that Lord Avon spoke of the other day will not be achieved without, of course, the use and support of the international community, through the United Nations or otherwise. Mr. Chairman, I resume my seat after saying that this undoubtedly is one of the most serious situations the world faces. It is not a conflict in which we are engaged. It is not a conflict in which we have any intention of dispatching Canadian armed forces. This, we continue to repeat, would be inconsistent with our role on the International Control Commission, just as Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom yesterday said that it would be improper for Britain to send forces to Viet Nam because of
July 8, 1966

her role as one of the co-chairmen of the Geneva conference powers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The same situation would apply to Russia, the other co-chairman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think so. We have done everything we know, with our friends, to put forward our point of view. We have done so as a result of the accommodation extended our representative, Mr. Ron-ning, in Hanoi. We intend to respect the nature of the conversations that have taken place there and elsewhere, in the hope that we might be able, as a result of this instrument, to bring about the beginnings of peace in Viet Nam. If we do not succeed, it will not be because Canada has not tried. We are not wedded to this method alone. If there is some other way by which peace negotiations can be begun, we will support it. But I want this house to know that we are not weakening in our effort to try to bring about peace in Viet Nam.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether this is altogether fair?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I agree.


John George Diefenbaker: No opportunity has been given to the hon. gentlemen of other parties to express themselves. I, for one, feel that we should agree not to be concerned with private members hour, but that hon. gentlemen to the left, who have not had as yet the right or apportunity to speak, should be given it.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I concur in this suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I think that we would want to give other parties, particularly the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the opportunity to speak.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was under the impression that private members hour had been eliminated lor both yesterday and today by an order of ;he house. Am I mistaken in that view?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was not actually an order; here was a bit of confusion yesterday, as we nay recall.


Robert Norman Thompson: It was our impression that orivate members hour would be dispensed vith today and we would go on with the msiness in committee of supply.
Interim Supply


Mr. Peters:: As one of those involved, Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement with this procedure. I think it should be noted that this action has been taken by the private members and we should probably continue the procedure until our recess.

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



[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,662,982,791.93, being the aggregate of-
(a)	four-twelfths of the total of the amounts of all of the Items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, not otherwise provided for, except Finance Item 15 for which the proportion is three-twelfths, and Transport Item 103 and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L40 for which no proportion is granted-$1,252,481,028.67;
(b)	an additional four-twelfths of the total amounts of Dominion Bureau of Statistics Item 10, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40, Loans, Investments and Advances Items L75 and L80 (Schedule A) of the said Main Estimates-$4,299,-333.83;
(c)	an additional three-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Mines and Technical Surveys Items 15 and 70 (Schedule B) of the said Main Estimates- $1,902,250.00;
(d)	an additional two-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Mines and Technical Surveys Items 55 and 75, Secretary of State Item 40, Loans, Investments and Advances Items L30 and L95 (Schedule C) of the said Main Estimates-$25,681,300.00;
(e)	an additional one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of Agriculture Items 5 and 55, Finance Item 10, Fisheries Item 10, Justice Item 1, Mines and Technical Surveys Items 20, 25 , 35, 45 , 60, 80, 85, National Film Board Item 1, Northern Affairs and National Resources Item 15 and Transport Item 5 (Schedule D) of the said Main Estimates-$16,293 -229.17;
(f)	seven-twelfths of the total of the amounts of all of the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates A for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament-$193,924,378.08;
(g)	four-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Agriculture Item 35a, Defence Production Item 20a, Finance Item 4a, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40a, Transport Items 102a and 103a (Schedule E) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$5,709,522.67);
(h)	two-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Finance Item 15a, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 75a, and National Research Council, including the Medical Research Council, Item 10a, (Schedule F) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$8,459 -333.34;
(i)	one-twelfth of the total of the amount of Loans, Investments and Advances Item L40a (Schedule G) of the said Supplementary Estimates -$966,666.67;
(j)	seven-twelfths of the total of all the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates B for the
[Stage Direction]
July 8, 1966
Interim Supply
fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament-$103,265,750.00;
(k)	four-twelfths of the total of the amount of Loans, Investments and Advances Item L32b (Schedule H) of the said Supplementary Estimates- $50,000,000.00,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate on interim supply that the committee should take some time to discuss the very serious situation which has developed in Viet Nam. I have listened with great interest to the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I must say that about all the minister has done has been to tell us about all the difficulties there are. He has given no leadership whatever, nor has he set forth any program which the government intends to pursue with a view to finding a solution to the unfortunate debacle in Viet Nam.
We have waited now for three years to get some statement of policy from the government. All we have had in three years, and again today, has been a series of platitudinous bromides calculated to put the house to sleep and to lull the fears of the Canadian people. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the fears of the Canadian people cannot be lulled quite so easily. The recent escalation of the bombing to include the areas of Hanoi and Haiphong has touched the conscience of the world. World leaders, some of whom had in the past supported United States intervention in Viet Nam, have now spoken out with alarm at this most recent escalation of the war.
The fact is that by this recent step, the government of the United States is now gambling with human survival and is, step by step, bringing this conflict to the place where it will inevitably spread into what may be a major world war. The President of the United States has been assuring his people that there really is not anything to worry about, that the Chinese will not react very violently, and that the main thing to do is to get the war in Viet Nam finished before the November elections. It almost seems as if the President has succeeded in brainwashing the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who referred today to the recent escalation of bombing as an alleged escalation of bombing.
Well, Mr. Chairman, there does not seem to have been merely an alleged-and I put the "alleged" in quotes-escalation of the bombing. The bombing has now been brought to

the capital city and to the chief port of North Viet Nam, and dangerously close to the borders of mainland China. If this process of escalation continues, it can only be a matter of time until mainland China becomes militarily involved. In an appearance before a congressional commission General John P. Lavelle, on March 5 said that American military forces had all their plans laid by which they could easily bomb the major centres of mainland China. He said there really was not anything to be concerned about if mainland China entered the war. What we have to ask ourselves is, after we have bombed the main centres of China where does the United States go from there?
[DOT] (5 .20 p.m.)
You cannot defeat a country just with air raids. If the United States seeks to land troops in mainland China and becomes involved in a land war with 700 million people, it would be like a fly on flypaper. Not only will it be involved in Asia, with a billion Asiatics violently hating the white man foi the barbarous bombing of Asiatic communities, but if the United States becomes involved in a war with mainland China it will have to blockade China and insist thal Canada stop trading with China, and that we do not feed the people of China. If anyone if so naive as to believe that the United States would continue to allow Canada to send wheat to China, I am sure that they are due for a very rude awakening.
Whether or not the military intervention o: mainland China will bring the Soviet Unioi into such a conflict, we do not know; but we do know that this most recent escalation hai probably brought the world closer to a majo: world war than anything which has happenee in the last 21 years.
We have made no secret of where we ii this party stand. We have said all along tha we believe that the United States has n< business in Viet Nam; that she is there ii violation of the Geneva accord agreement that she is there in violation of the charter o the United Nations. The only possible solutioi is, first, for the United States to discontinu the bombing unconditionally; second, th United States should be prepared to treat nc only with North Viet Nam but also with th national liberation front in South Viet Nan Third, the United States must be prepare to withdraw its forces, to be replaced by peacekeeping force; to give to the people c Viet Nam an opportunity to decide in supervised, secret ballot whether or not the
July 8, 1966



want to unite North and South Viet Nam; and to determine the kind of government which they shall have. That has been our position, and it has not altered.
The Leader of the Opposition said that our position has not been the same as the position taken by the prime minister of Great Britain, and that is true. I have differed with Prime Minister Wilson, both publicly and privately, on this question. However, I would point out that even Prime Minister Wilson, who has up until recent days supported the position of the United States, has now dissociated himself from the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong, and has expressed his strong disapproval of this most recent escalation of the war.
Mr. Wilson is not the only one who has altered his position somewhat with reference to the Viet Nam situation. My friends to the right in the Conservative party, who a year ago last May were making speeches completely in support of United States intervention in Viet Nam, are now beginning to have very serious doubts about the long-term effect of that military venture.
This is because what both the official opposition and the government have failed to recognize, Mr. Chairman, is that it is only a difference of degree between bombing the villages and the hamlets of North Viet Nam and then starting to bomb the cities of North Viet Nam. The first step was bound to lead to the next step, just as the step now taken of bombing Hanoi and Haiphong will inevitably lead to a further escalation-either the destruction of the port of Haiphong or the mining of the port, or the destruction of the railway leading into mainland China.
I fear that the United States is making the same mistake which it made in Korea, when the President of the United States and General MacArthur assured the people of that great country that there was no danger in United States troops going up to the Yalu River, and that the Chinese had been so intimidated that they were not likely to intervene. But they did intervene.
Fortunately the world managed to get itself out of that debacle, but I am not so sure that it can get itself out of this one unless the leaders of the western world are prepared to take more forthright and courageous steps than the Canadian government has indicated it is prepared to take today. The Canadian government-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit me to ask him a question. Does 23033-470^
Interim Supply
my hon. friend agree with the initiative that we have taken both with regard to the commission and with regard to the services of Mr. Ronning? If he does agree, as I must assume he does, knowing his interest in these matters, does he think that we would in any way strengthen the Ronning mission, and what all parties hope will be the result of this mission, by taking some of the positions which he asks us to take?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I will deal with that in detail in a few moments. May I as a preliminary answer say to the minister that of course we agree that any attempts which Mr. Ronning can make to find some basis for agreement are all to the good. But that does not relieve the government of the responsibility which it has to lay out a program, to state its position clearly to all the nations of the world, and to follow that program.
I want to say to the minister that we are in a new age of diplomacy. These are no longer the days of Metternich and Disraeli. We no longer need the diplomacy of Talleyrand-Perigord. It is a new kind of diplomacy and leadership which is needed today. This is not all going to be done behind the scenes; it is going to be done by governments and by men like the Prime Minister of Canada and the Secretary of State for External Affairs giving some leadership among the nations of the world.
That is exactly the point to which I am coming. Canada has always placed as the cornerstone of its foreign policy the effectiveness of the United Nations and the building of collective security as the best means of maintaining world peace. United States intervention in Viet Nam has been carried out in complete defiance of the charter of the United Nations, which requires nations to negotiate their differences and to report immediately to the United Nations any alleged measures of self-defence which they propose to take. The United Nations has been scrupulously ignored and avoided by the United States in this whole sorry mess.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Appeals by the Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant, have been ignored and brushed off abruptly, and sometimes not too courteously. Recently he set forth a proposed program not too different from that which I suggested a moment ago as a possible basis for a solution. He received no answer at all from the United States. Secretary U Thant has described what is happening in Viet Nam

July 8, 1966
Interim Supply
as the most barbarous war in history. Yet this man who is the spokesman for the United Nations gets no hearing, and no action is taken on the proposals he is making.
When we talk about the idea of collective security, is the United Nations only for small powers? Is it only to be used to police the conflicts in Gaza, or in Cyprus, or only to intervene in Suez? When a great power like the United States or the Soviet Union, or when some other major power is involved, is the United Nations supposed to creep away to a corner and pretend that a war is not taking place?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yet, this war is going on. The minister says "Of course not". The United Nations should not ignore it, and yet the United Nations has been ignoring it, and the minister has done nothing to take this matter to the United Nations, to attempt to obtain a clear statement of opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the hon. member not aware that the Secretary General of the United Nations said last January when the United States took the Viet Nam question to the Security Council, that that was not the place for the Viet Nam question, and that it could only be decided within the framework of a Geneva conference, because the parties concerned were not all members of the United Nations organization. That is why this is not before the United Nations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just made an excellent point. Yet, not more than half an hour ago he argued that he was going to resist calling the Geneva powers together for a whole series of reasons. He gave us reasons as to why that course would not succeed. Now he is stating that the United Nations can do nothing.
Having ruled out both these international organizations, what does the minister propose?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We did not rule out the Geneva conference.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not interrupt the minister while he was making his statement, and I would appreciate his not interrupting me. May I tell the minister that one of the reasons why the United Nations cannot be effective in coping with this problem is because the nations most vitally involved are not members of the United Nations.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And why are they not members of the United Nations? Because the government to which the minister belongs, or governments which have preceded this one have never had the courage to support the admission of mainland China to the United Nations. The minister is still prepared not to support such a measure.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: How do you
know?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the minister is prepared to support that measure I shall sit down now, to give him a chance to make a statement. As a matter of fact, I tell the minister that he will never support the admission of mainland China to the United Nations until the day that the United States government admits that it is prepared to admit mainland China to the United Nations.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: That is your view.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is when the Government of Canada will move on this matter.
Since the United Nations is not able to cope with this problem, by virtue of the fact that some countries most vitally involved are not in its membership, this leaves only one international body that has any hope of resolving this problem. I refer of course to those nations which attended the Geneva conference in 1954 and which signed the Geneva accord. That is why some of us have been urging now for some years that the Canadian government, as a representative on the International Control Commission which was set up by that Geneva conference, should insist upon the reconvening of that conference.
We are playing a ludicrous part in an international farce. We are a member of an International Control Commission on which there are Canadian personnel and on which we have spent millions of dollars. Yet the body that set up that commission has never been reconvened to deal with the report of the commission.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes it was; in 1962.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It has done nothing to meet, and to endeavour to implement the recommendations of that report. The minister is not telling me that anything was done to implement the recommendations of the report of 1962?
July 8. 1966


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I said that the body concerned had met in 1962, having met in 1954.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes. Nothing has been done to call the conference together, or to take the recommendations made by the International Control Commission, and to seek to implement them.
In 1962 Canada and India signed a majority report complaining about the violation of the Geneva accord by both sides. Nothing was done about this. Canada has never insisted that something should be done about it. We have reached the stage where we ought either to insist that the two co-chairmen reassemble the Geneva conference, and do something to exercise the authority which that body gave to the International Control Commission, or we ought to ask the commission to absolve Canada of any further responsibilities, and to recognize that that phase of the whole story is at an end.
The minister says that it will not be easy to get the Geneva accord powers together. I suggest that the first thing to be done is for the Canadian government to call on the United States government to unconditionally stop the bombing. Nobody is going to attend a conference while the bombing is going on.
The minister spoke as if he thought it was too much to ask the United States to stop the bombing unconditionally. Why? Here is a great power bombing a small nation with which it is not legally at war. It has been bombing that small nation for over one year killing its civilian men, women and children, laying waste its villages and destroying its crops. Surely it is not too much for Canada and for the other western powers to say to the United States: "In the hope that we can reconvene the conference, in the hope that we can begin negotiations toward peace, we want the bombing stopped".
The United States will not be making a concession because it discontinues the bombing. In my opinion it had no moral right to begin the bombing. It is not too much to ask that country now to discontinue, in the hope that the Geneva powers can be brought together, so that they can seek and find the solution to this conflict.
The second thing that will be necessary, if you get the Geneva powers together, is for the United States to state clearly, at this conference that it is prepared to negotiate not only with the government of North Viet Nam but also with the National Liberation Front in South Viet Nam. We may not like the
Interim Supply
National Liberation Front. We may not approve of its politics. The fact is that it represents over 50 per cent of the population, and occupies between 60 and 70 per cent of the territory of South Viet Nam.
The minister referred this afternoon to the National Liberation Front as "the insurgents". You will have some difficulty convincing the people in South Viet Nam that they are the insurgents, when what they sought to do was to obtain the benefits that were promised to them under the Geneva agreement. The people had been promised elections for July of 1956. They did not get them. The people had been promised that the demarcation line between North and South Viet Nam was a temporary line, and not to be considered a national boundary; that they were to have the right of self determination as to whether or not North and South Viet Nam would come together in a single and sovereign state; that they would have the right to determine what government they would have.
Instead of that they had a government foisted on them with United States bayonets, and maintained with United States financial and military power. The minister describes the people who object to this as insurgents. Whether or not they are insurgents, the fact is that there can be no hope of any solution until they are given a seat at the conference table, and until they have some voice in working out and negotiating a peace in South Viet Nam.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
There will be no peace in Viet Nam until all foreign troops are withdrawn. We recognize that to withdraw them without replacing them with some international peacekeeping force would probably introduce wholesale slaughter. A civil war cannot go on for more than ten years without a good deal of bitterness and hatred, as we saw even in Europe after the occupation by Nazi Germany. It therefore seems to me that, once the Geneva powers reach some basis of agreement between the conflicting parties, there will have to be an international police force supplied either by the Geneva accord powers or by the United Nations, stationed there for the purpose of maintaining law and order, for the purpose of supervising elections and for helping to set up a stable government in that war-torn country.
I readily concede that there is no easy solution. The minister is right when he says a solution cannot be found overnight. But this situation in Viet Nam has been going on for

July 8. 1966
Interim Supply
ten years and United States intervention on a large scale has been going on tor the last four years. The minister has been Secretary of State for External Affairs for over three years. I am not asking him to settle this conflict overnight, but unless the government takes some action fairly soon the world will see a long night descend upon it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question? He said the United States has been intervening for the last four years. Prior to that he said the government in South Viet Nam had been foisted upon them by American bayonets. Is it only in the last four years that there has been a government in South Viet Nam?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Oh no. As the hon. member knows, the so-called United States military advisors have been there, and military aid has been given to South Viet Nam ever since the Americans set up the well known Diem as a virtual dictator. However, the National Liberation Front which began to oppose Diem and his successors carried on guerilla warfare throughout the period from 1956 onward. But it is in the last four years that American intervention has been on a major scale. First it was military advisors. Then that pretext was brushed aside and the American forces which in 1964 numbered around 25,000 have been stepped up to a quarter of a million. Moreover, it is estimated that by next winter their strength will have reached 400,000.
Thus United States military participation has been growing steadily. It has ceased to be merely a small military effort buttressing that of the government. It has become a matter of America waging the war and the government of South Viet Nam merely going along for the ride.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The decision to intervene was made by President Kennedy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That may be, but the decision to bomb North Viet Nam, the decision to escalate the war, the decision to raise the number of troops from 25,000 to 250,000, the decision to bomb Hanoi and Haiphong was taken by President Johnson who was elected in opposition to the very program which he is now carrying out. The Goldwater program which president Johnson opposed in 1964 is now being put into action by the man who opposed it.
Before I was interrupted I was saying that I do not suggest for a moment the solution is easy. When a conflict of this kind is allowed

to build up over a decade and when it is not possible to undo the past, it is naturally not easy to find a solution. But neither this government nor this parliament can continue to commit the crime of silence. We cannot stand silent while a war is being carried on, a large part of it directed against defenceless civilians. We cannot stand idly by while a war is being escalated to the point at which it may involve all mankind, without speaking out.
I had hoped that the minister would make today a clear and specific pronouncement as to where Canada stands. Instead, he contented himself by supporting the United States decision while at the same time regretting that we were in the mess we are in. In one breath he says there was no hope of a military solution and in the next he was saying there was not much use calling a conference.


Mr. Martin (Essex Easi):: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman? I am sure he would not want deliberately to misinterpret what I said. The statement I made was a careful statement prepared by the government so that it would reach all concerned. We were trying to explain in this statement the role we had undertaken-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What the minister is saying is that he proposes to work quietly behind the scenes. If the minister thinks that is the role for Canada to play, that is his decision. All I want to say is that silence at this stage of events is, in my opinion, criminal. I believe that in the world today Canada should be taking a position alongside those who have spoken out.
The Prime Minister of India has spoken out and called for the reconvening of the Geneva accord conference.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So have we.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Prime Minister of Britain has dissociated himself from the most recent escalation of the bombing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So have we.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He is going to Moscow to try to persuade the Soviet union and the other co-chairman of the Geneva powers to agree to calling a conference. General de Gaulle has spoken out. He has as much right to be diplomatic and to work behind the scenes as has the minister.
July 8, 1966



The Depuly Chairman: I must inform the hon. member that the time allowed for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.
The Depuly Chairman: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to continue?


Robert Norman Thompson: Some of the rest of us would like an opportunity to speak, too, and there is only ten minutes left.


Gordon Minto Churchill: For our part, we are prepared to go on beyond six o'clock to enable hon. members to speak on this very important subject, on the understanding that we shall complete the discussion on Viet Nam this evening and do not resume it on Monday. I decided to forgo my opportunity to speak under those conditions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will take only two minutes.
The Depuly Chairman: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to go on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was saying to the minister that Prime Minister Gandhi, Prime Minister Wilson and President de Gaulle who have much more reason to be cautious and diplomatic than the minister has-have spoken out. Senator Fulbright, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the United States has spoken against it. Senator Mike Mansfield, who is majority leader for the Democratic party in the United States Senate, has opposed his own president on this matter. Senator Robert Kennedy has spoken out in protest against this most recent escalation of the war. I am saying to the government that if these world leaders can speak out now, not as enemies of the United States but as men and women who recognize that unless something is done, and done quickly, mankind could slide into a nuclear holocaust that could destroy our civilization and everything that it means to us, then I hope before this debate is over the minister, or the Prime Minister, will make a statement to the effect that either one of them is prepared to fly to Moscow to reinforce Mr. Wilson's plea for a reconvening of the conference.
It may be, as the minister has said, that there are difficulties. He has told us all the
Interim Supply
difficulties. He should be known as the minister of difficulties. Of course there are difficulties. We don't need him to tell us of the difficulties. We need him to tell us what he is going to do. So far all he has told us is that he is going to work quietly behind the scenes. This country needs dynamic leadership in the present world situation, but we are not getting it. Silence at this critical moment in the history of mankind is criminal.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, the time is now six minutes before six o'clock and I would like to know whether we are going to continue this debate past six o'clock, because if there are only a few minutes left I shall have to adjust my remarks accordingly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was a good one. I thought we had all concurred in it so that my hon. friend could speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would accept a slight modification. We are prepared to sit on. In fact we are prepared to sit to hear the hon. member for Red Deer and one of the Creditistes who may wish to speak; but there are other hon. members who wish to speak in this debate and we would not want to have it ended.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was not my recommendation. I was willing to forgo a speech myself, if the subject of Viet Nam were concluded today; but if it is to continue on Monday then we should not sit beyond six o'clock.


Robert Norman Thompson: In view of this I think we should call it six o'clock because it is impossible to speak on a matter of this importance in such a limited time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just before doing that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a correction. I was asked a question about a report. I thought it was a report that I had tabled, but apparently the report referred to in the United Kingdom yesterday is that of the international commission in Laos dealing with an attack in March, 1965, by forces of North Viet Nam on a royal Laotian government training school at Dong Hene. The report has been forwarded by the commission to the two co-chairmen, but they have not yet given authority to publish it. I shall make it

July 8, 1966
Interim Supply
available as soon as appropriate action has hope of maintaining the rule of law in the been taken by either one of the co-chairmen, world.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Since there are a couple of minutes left before six o'clock I would like to ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam a question with respect to his suggestion that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should insist that the co-chairmen of the Geneva conference re-assemble that conference. How does one insist; and if the insistence fails, then what action would be taken? If you are going to insist on something, then unless it is a bluff you have to do something else.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs cannot use force to make them call the conference together. If they do not, then is the only action left in his hands withdrawal from the International Control Commission, or what is the action he would take if his insistence fails?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know this was not in my hon. friends proposal, but in view of the fact that two party leaders have spoken, would he agree to sit on so that we could hear the hon. member for Red Deer?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not under those circumstances.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, if there is no agreement to sit beyond six o'clock, may I call it six o'clock?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I was asked a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Canada is a member of the International Control Commission and if the two co-chairmen are not prepared to carry out their responsibility for reconvening the conference I do not see why we should continue on the commission. I do not think the commission has any value.
If the two co-chairmen do not consider it sufficiently important to call a meeting to deal with the reports of the commission, and to deal with the situation which is their responsibility, Canada must say to them, "Either you call a conference, or there is not any use in continuing the farce of having a commission in Viet Nam." If we know that neither of the chairmen can agree to reconvene the conference, then the only world organization left is the United Nations. Otherwise we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is no collective security and no


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that there is no agreement to go beyond six o'clock, may I call it six o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Government notices of motion-The Minister of Public Works-the following proposed motion:
1.	"That notwithstanding the provisions of standing orders 2(1) or 6(1) or any other standing order, the hours of sitting for the remainder of this week shall be as follows:
Thursday, July 7-2.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.
Friday, July 8-11.00 a.m. to 11.00 p.m.
Saturday, July 9-11.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.
2.	That notwithstanding the provisions of standing orders 15(3) and 39-A or of any other standing order, the adjournment proceedings on Thursday, July 7 and the private members' hour on Friday, July 8 shall be suspended.
3.	That the order of business and procedure on Saturday, July 9 shall be as for a Friday, except that there shall be no private members' hour."
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the consent of the house to withdraw the notice of motion appearing on the order paper under my name, and having to do with the hours of sitting.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the withdrawal of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: I should add that I propose putting a new one on the order paper for Monday. Because of a curious anomaly in our rules it is not possible to have a motion to extend the hours of sitting brought forward without unanimous consent, unless two day's notice is given. The same anomaly arises about adjournment of the house. The purpose of the motion is to have a vehicle on the order paper should, as we hope, those two considerations require the attention of the house very early next week.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the business we propose submitting for consideration by the house on Monday is interim supply; then the bill respecting conditions of employment at the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec; then the income tax bill; then the National Arts Centre bill; then the Canadian
July 8, 1966	COMMONS
Film Corporation bill, and then the medicare resolution. If the measures mentioned first are not completed on Monday, we would ask the house to consider the medicare resolution on Tuesday. I make that statement on the assumption that interim supply will be granted Monday, because I think hon. members appreciate that a need for it will have developed by Monday night.
DEBATES	7435
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are we to understand that the business announced for Monday will be called in the order indicated by the minister?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
7436
[Stage Direction]
July 8, 1966


[Stage Direction]
1.	Each employee will receive 40c. for every hour worked as of January 1, 1966, made up as follows:-[DOT]
20c. increase per man-hour worked retroactive to January 1, 1966, and effective up to but not including the day work resumes; and
20c. per man-hour worked retroactive to January 1, 1966, effective up to but not including the day work resumes in compensation for improvements in productivity.
From date of resumption of work the above increases shall be applied on overtime as well.
2.	An additional 15c. per hour increase in wages to be effective January 1, 1967; and a further 25c. per hour increase in wages to be effective on May 1, 1967 also in compensation for improvements in productivity. These increases shall be applied on overtime as well.
3.	Call up of Montreal gangs for Monday morning to be before Saturday at 1:00 P.M. for ships in port except for gangs working on Saturday afternoon, Saturday night and/or Sunday.
For vessels arriving after 1:00 P.M. Saturday, orders for gangs to be given between 3:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday.
The companies will co-operate with the Union Local 375 in the establishment of a mutually acceptable system to handle the reception of such calls with the installation and rental charges to be paid by the Union to the communication company.
The companies and the Union agree to meet with Judge Lippe as soon as practical to work out the details of such system.
4.	Paper cups to be provided for use with drinking water containers.
5.	All cargo hooks to be fitted with tongues.
6.	When closing hatches, all hatch beams, including the centre beams, to be in place.
7.	When men are ordered out on any vessel it is recognized that the work of opening and closing hatches, other than mechanical type
hatches, is to be performed by members of the Union. In the event that the mechanical type hatches are opened by ship personnel it is agreed that the hatches shall not be opened before the commencement of the period. When closing mechanical type hatches with ship personnel men shall leave the hatch fifteen minutes before the end of the period. In the event that any hatches are opened by ship personnel prior to the commencement of a period the gang concerned shall be entitled to fifteen minutes pay.
8.	An additional 3c. per hour to be paid to checkers and coopers in Montreal as of date of return to work plus a further 3c. per hour on January 1, 1967.
9.	An additional 5c. per hour to longshoremen and checkers in Quebec as of date of return to work plus a further 5c. per hour on January 1, 1967.
10.	An additional 5c. per hour to longshoremen in Trois-Rivieres as of date of return to work plus a further 5 c. per hour on January 1, 1967.
11.	Vacation pay to be increased from 4 per cent to 5 per cent on earnings as of date of return to work.
12.	A four hour guarantee for each recall to be introduced as of date of return to work to be provided in agreements of Montreal Locals 375 and 1552, and Quebec Locals 1605 and 1739.
The agreements terminating on December 31, 1965, shall be amended by incorporating therein the terms of settlement set out above and these amended agreements shall remain in effect until December 31, 1967, unless amended by negotiations or otherwise. The parties agree to attend a meeting convened and presided by Judge Lippe for the purpose of signing the new agreements in accordance with the above. It is understood that all of the above is subject to ratification by the membership of the respective I.L.A. Locals and of
July 8. 1966
[Stage Direction]
the membership of the Shipping Federation of Canada.
SIGNED on behalf of the International Longshoremen's Association, Atlantic Coast District by Vice-President.
Gerard Tremblay.
SIGNED on behalf of the following International Longshoremen Association Locals:-
Local 375 (MONTREAL)
Paul Asselin, President Jean-Marc St. Onge, Business agent
Local 1552, (MONTREAL)
Romeo Jobin, President Marcel Cardinal, Business agent
Local 1657, (MONTREAL)
Justin McCarthy, President
Local 1846, (TROIS-RIVIERES)
Gerard Tremblay, Atlantic Coast District, Vice-President on behalf of Norman Quigley, President -and-
Marcel Thibeault, Business Agent
Local 1605, (QUEBEC CITY)
Philippe Duguay, Director Gerard Tremblay, Atlantic Coast District, Vice-President
Local 1739, (QUEBEC CITY)
Roland Frigault, Business Agent
Legal Counsel, for I.L.A.
Ph. Cutler
SIGNED on behalf of the Shipping Federation of Canada:
Alexander C. Pathy Member, Executive Council
In the presence of:
Hon. John R. Nicholson, Minister of Labour Judge Rene Lippe, Mediator George V. Haythorne, Deputy Minister of Labour
Ottawa, June 14, 1966.
CUTLER, LAMER, BELLEMARE, BURNS & ROBERT Barristers and Solicitors Avocats
June 20, 1966
The Honourable John R. Nicholson Minister of Labour Parliament Buildings Ottawa, Ontario My dear Mr. Minister:
We are enclosing for your information copy of an opinion sent to Mr. Gerard Tremblay as requested.
Sincerely yours,
Cutler Lamer Bellemare Burns and Robert Per: Ph. Cutler
June 16, 1966
Mr. Gerard Tremblay, a.c.d.
Vice-President
International Longshoremen's Association 5583 Marcel Monette Street Montreal North, P.Q.
Re: Terms of Settlement as between I.L.A. St. Lawrence River Ports Locals and The Shipping Federation of Canada
Dear Sir:
With regards to the "speculation" on the part of certain persons concerning possible legislation by the Parliament of Canada on gang crews productivity or similar matters, our position is quite clear and unchanged.
Throughout mediation with Judge Rene Lippe, the various Ministers, or the Prime Minister of Canada, it was made clear as to terms that:
1.	We have not and we are not asking for any legislation, since we take the view that productivity in the above ports has continually increased;
2.	On the other hand, in the event that The Shipping Federation of Canada or others should ask for legislation, we do not join them or support them, either directly or indirectly;
3.	Should legislation be introduced in the Parliament of Canada on the request of the employers or otherwise, we will of course study the proposed legislation in order to determine our position. However, we will continue to oppose any final and binding arbitration, as we have throughout the negotiations and mediation and as shown in the "terms of settlement" wherein there is no reference to final and binding arbitration despite the various attempts of The Federation of Canada to include such terms;
[Stage Direction]
July 8. 1966
4.	Should parliament adopt legislation amounting to final and binding arbitration contrary to the "terms of settlement", it will be despite our every licit opposition in cooperation with the Canadian Labour Congress policy as stated to the Prime Minister and the other Ministers by President Clause Jodoin;
5.	Should it be decided to have an inquiry, but without final and binding provisions, and only for the purpose of guiding the parties and clarifying the situation, it is my opinion that we should cooperate, and of course we will make all necessary proof to show the fallacy of the position taken by certain employers with regards to productivity which has in fact increased over the years in these ports.
There is no hesitation in giving you this opinion, since you will recall that again and again was this stated throughout the negotiations and we will not allow any pretence of a tacit agreement or other hidden understanding between the parties or with representatives of the Government of Canada.
There is only one document containing all the "terms of settlement" and these terms are clear and precise in themselves and cannot be added to or in any way changed.
Trusting that this will comply with your request for our opinion, we remain,
Yours very truly,
CUTLER LAMER BELLEMARE BURNS & ROBERT per: Ph. Cutler
Ottawa 4, Ontario, June 27, 1966
Mr. Phil Cutler,
Messrs. Cutler, Lamer, Bellemare,
Burns & Robert Barristers and Solicitors,
Provident Building,
507 Place d'Armes,
Suite 405,
Montreal 1, Que.
Dear Mr. Cutler:
I have received your letter of June 20 and appreciate your action in forwarding a copy of your letter of June 16 to Mr. Gerard Tremblay, Vice-President of the Atlantic Coast District of the International Longshoremen's Association.
In order to clear up any possible misunderstanding with respect to the settlement reached on June 14 between the International Longshoremen's Association Locals in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec and The
Shipping Federation of Canada, there are a few observations which I would like to make on your letter to Mr. Tremblay.
During our discussions on June 13 and 14 and previously on June 11 and 12, both Mr. Pickersgill, who was the Acting Prime Minister in Mr. Pearson's absence over the weekend, and I stated that, provided the parties reached agreement on all of the other items in dispute, the government was prepared to establish an Industrial Inquiry Commission to carry out an independent and objective study of problems in connection with improvements in productivity, job security and related matters, and to take steps to have the conclusions reached as a result of this independent Industrial Inquiry Commission implemented by legislative enactment.
You will recall that the same commitment was made by the Prime Minister during the meetings held in his office on the night of June 13.
This commitment was directly associated throughout our discussions with the wage settlement for both 1966 and 1967 which, as you know, was only accepted by The Shipping Federation of Canada on the strength of this commitment.
It was also connected, you will recall, during our final discussions with the question of calling up and recalling of men.
You made it clear that the International Longshoremen's Association was not requesting the establishment of an Industrial Inquiry Commission or that legislation be introduced in this respect. You did say, however, that the International Longshoremen's Association would co-operate with the Industrial Inquiry Commission and that, if legislation were passed which provided for the implementation of the conclusions of this Commission through legislative enactment, the International Longshoremen's Association would not oppose the legislation and that you, as counsel for the International Longshoremen's Association, would advise that the law be respected.
The Terms of Settlement signed on June 14 include the following statement: "The agreements terminating on December 31, 1965, shall be amended by incorporating therein the terms of settlement set out above and these amended agreements shall remain in effect until December 31, 1967, unless amended by negotiations or otherwise." It was my understanding, and this has been confirmed by both Judge Lippe and Dr. Haythorne, that the words "or otherwise" were included to
July 8, 1966
[Stage Direction]
provide for conclusions reached by the Industrial Inquiry Commission to be implemented by legislative enactment.
It was, as you will recall, agreed that there would be no reference in the Terms of Settlement to the Industrial Inquiry Commission or to the mediator's recommendations with respect to its Terms of Reference or to the way in which its conclusions would be implemented.
The absence of any reference to the Industrial Inquiry Commission in the Terms of Settlement must not be interpreted, and this was made clear to you and to the members of the International Longshoremen's Association during our meetings, as an indication of any change in the understanding which was reached with both parties with respect to this Commission including the manner in which its conclusions would be implemented.
Yours sincerely,
original signed by Hon. J. R. NICHOLSON John R. Nicholson.
Jun 30 302 PM '66 CANADIAN PACIFIC TELEGRAM ZC H0048 ZC 670/649 RX RX RX Ilex No Montreal Que 30 207P Est The Honorable John R Nicholson Minister of Labour Parliament Build Ottawa (to be dely before 3 pm or fone)
We are instructed to inform you that our clients, the International Longshoremen's Association St. Lawrence River Ports locals protest any attempt to ignore our constant opposition to final and binding arbitration in collective bargaining stop
You are surely aware that president Claude Jodoin of The Canadian Labour Congress was speaking
H0048 Hon R Nicholson Ottawa 2 49
For all of us when he informed the Honorable Lester B Pearson, Prime Minister and all other ministers present on the night of the strike settlement, that any attempts to legislate or bring about final and binding arbitration would be strenuously opposed as contrary to free collective bargaining stop H0048 Hon R Nicholson Ottawa 3 50
You and your colleagues are aware that we have constantly stressed that any attempt on the part of the Government to legislate as requested by the employers, members of the Shipping Federation of Canada, would be strenuously opposed stop
You are aware that the terms of settlement of the St. Lawrence River ports strike drafted H0048 Hon. R Nicholson Ottawa 4/54/50 and signed in your office on June 14, 1966 by the representatives of the parties and by you, Mr. Minister, constitute all of the settlement and that the ILA locals have not agreed to any other conditions of settlement than those contained in the June 14 1966 H0048 Hon Nicholson Ottawa 5 52 50 14th Document stop.
We were of course aware that some employers were urging the Government to legislate in their favour, but we trust that you will do our clients the courtesy of informing the House of Commons and the interested public that the ILA locals never joined these employers in 14th H0048 Hon Nicholson Ottawa 6 50
Their unreasonable demands for legislation, never agree to any legislation and at all times forewarned that all legislation directly or indirectly seeking final and binding arbitration would be strenuously opposed and that every means afforded to us in law would be used to meet what our clients consider to be
H0048 Hon Nicholson Ottawa 7 53 50 A threat to free collective bargaining stop We are further instructed to protest that your mandate to Mr. Laurent Augustin Picard denies him the freedom to investigate objectively by putting more than 10-0/0 of longshoremen in the ports concerned outside his jurisdiction and therefore subject to loss of employment stop
H0048 Hon Nicholson Ottawa 8 52 49
In this way, Mr. Minister, whether or not it was your intention, you have already gone a long way in telling Mr. Picard to give the employers exactly what they are asking since the employers have never asked for more than a 10-0/0 reduction in basic work gangs stop
10-0/0
H0048 Hon Nicholson 9 79
Our clients are particularly amazed to find that you have submitted calling up and recalling of men employed in longshore work as part of the mandate to Mr. Picard since we were not even aware that the employers were asking this and you will recall that Mr. Jean-Marc St-Onge business agent informed you and your colleagues on behalf of all ILA delegates that there would never be a collective agreement without the minimum four hour guarantee on recall stop
[Stage Direction]
July 8, 1966
H0048 Hon Nicholson Ottawa 10 79 68
Your mandate to Mr. Picard dated 23rd June, 1966 makes no mention of this conclusions becoming the object of legislation to set aside or amend the terms of settlement between the parties and signed by you on June 14, 1966 and, in these circumstances, we are further mandated to send a copy of this telegram to Mr. Picard and to invite him to consider whether he agrees that he should
H0048 Hon Nicholson Ottawa 11/53 withdraw in order to refrain from being instrumental in bringing about a situation that in the view of the ILA will surely be condemned by all of organized labour in Canada and the public in general stop
The ILA locals reiterate their position that any inquiry the Government chooses to institute despite ILA
H0048 12 38 Hon Nicholson Ottawa
Opposition should be the basis for voluntary negotiations for the next collective agreement since to do otherwise would be creating the dangerous precedent of disrupting the relationship between management and labour during the life of a collective agreement.
Cutler Lamer Bellemare Burns and Robert Attorneys for I.L.A. ST Lawrence River Ports Locals

[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1966
Messrs. Cutler, Lamer, Bellemare, Burns
Barristers and Solicitors
Provident Building
507 Place d'Armes
Suite 405
Montreal 1, Quebec
Re your telegram June 30 copy of which you have indicated was sent to commissioner Picard am greatly surprised at contents of your wire especially in view of my letter to your Mr. Cutler dated June 27 which you indicated you had received an which I understood you accepted as a factual statement of the situation Stop Mr. Cutler will recall that in final stages of negotiations the crucial issues in dispute were the size of the wage increase and job security and calls and recalls on the one hand and technological changes on the other Stop After weeks of negotiation and lengthy bargaining it proved impossible to agree on the one without the other Stop The position of the union members re wages and job security was acknowledged by the federation through the substantial wage increases
agreed to by them only on condition that an independent inquiry commission would be established and that its conclusions would be implemented as early as possible in 1967 as result of legislative enactment Stop The commitment of the government to establish such a commission and to recommend to parliament implementation of its conclusions through legislation was made in course of those final negotiations and as set forth in my said letter to Mr. Cutler it was made on the distinct understanding that the parties would reach agreement voluntarily on all other matters as in fact they did on June 14 Stop Pursuant to the statement we made at the time, the terms of reference of the commission are restricted to technological changes and related matters job security and calls and recalls of men Stop There had been throughout full opportunity for free collective bargaining on all these matters and after several months of negotiations after five weeks of a costly strike and after strenuous mediation efforts voluntary agreement on such matters had proved to be impossible Stop The terms of settlement signed on June 14 contain a reference to amendments to collective agreements being made by negotiation or otherwise Stop It was clearly understood that these last two words were inserted in the terms of settlement in order to ensure that findings of commission would form part of collective agreements should the commission recommend any changes Stop It is a fact that the International Longshoremen's Association made it clear during final stages of the negotiations that it was not requesting the establishment of an industrial inquiry commission or that legislation be introduced in this respect but Mr. Cutler did assure me and my cabinet colleagues in presence of union officials that the International Longshoremen's Association would co-operate with the industrial inquiry commission which we stated would be established and that should legislation be introduced by government providing for the implementation of the conclusions of such commission through legislative enactment your clients the International Longshoremen's Association, though they would not support the legislation, would obey the law and that he as counsel for the association would so advise them Stop The terms of reference of the industrial inquiry commission now provide for meritorious cases to be included under job security plan as
July 8, 1966
[Stage Direction]
determined by the commission Stop The government is proceeding to fulfil its commitment Stop
John R. Nicholson Minister of Labour

[Stage Direction]
Office of the Prime Minister Cabinet du Premier Ministre '66 June 30 PH 4 03 ZC H0050 ZC678/657 RX RX RX
HO Montreal Que 30 207P Est The Honorable Lester B. Pearson Prime Minister Parliament Buildings Ottawa (PLS Rx Dely or Fone)
Copy of Telegram sent to the Honorable Nicholson
We are instructed to inform you that our clients, the International Longshoremen's Association St. Lawrence River ports locals protest any attempt to ignore our constant opposition to final and binding arbitration in collective bargaining Stop
You are surely aware that President Claude Jodoin of the Canadian Labour Congress was speaking for all of us when he informed the Honorable Lester B Pearson, Prime Minister, and all other ministers present on the night of the strike settlement, that any attempts to legislate or bring about final and binding arbitration would be strenuously opposed as contrary to free collective bargaining Stop You and your colleagues are aware that we have constantly stressed that any attempt on the part of the government to legislate as requested by the employers, members of the Shipping Federation of Canada, would be strenuously opposed Stop.
You are aware that the terms of settlement of the St. Lawrence River ports strike drafted and signed in your office on June 14, 1966 by the representatives of the parties and by you, Mr. Minister, constitute all of the settlement and that the ILA locals have not agreed to any other conditions of settlement than those contained in the June 14th document Stop
We were of course aware that some employers were urging the government to legislate in their favour, but we trust that you will do our clients the courtesy of informing the House of Commons and the interested public that the ILA locals never joined these employers in their unreasonable demands for legislation, never agreed to any legislation and at all times forewarned that all legislation directly or indirectly seeking final and
binding arbitration would be strenuously opposed and that every means afforded to us in law would be used to meet what our clients consider to be a threat to free collective bargaining Stop
We are further instructed to protest that your mandate to Mr. Laurent Augustin Picard denies him the freedom to investigate objectively by putting more than 10-0/0 of longshoremen in the ports concerned outside his jurisdiction and therefore subject to loss of employment Stop
In this way, Mr. Minister, whether or not it was your intention, you have already gone a long way in telling Mr. Picard to give the employers exactly what they are asking since the employers have never asked for more than a 10-0/0 reduction in basic work gangs stop
Our clients are particularly amazed to find that you have submitted calling up and recalling of men employed in longshore work as part of the mandate to Mr. Picard since we were not even aware that the employers were asking this and you will recall that Mr. Jean-Marc St-Once business agent informed you and your colleagues on behalf of all ILA delegates that there would never be a collective agreement without the minimum four hour guarantee on recall stop
Your mandate to Mr. Picard dated 23rd June, 1966 makes no mention of his conclusions becoming the object of legislation to set aside or amend the terms of settlement between the parties and signed by you on June 14, 1966 and, in these circumstances, we are further mandated to send a copy of this telegram to Mr. Picard and to invite him to consider whether he agrees that he should withdraw in order to refrain from being instrumental in bringing about a situation that in the view of the ILA will surely be condemned by all of organized labour in Canada and the public in general stop
The ILA locals reiterate their position that any inquiry the government chooses to institute despite ILA opposition should be the basis for voluntary negotiations for the next collective agreement since to do otherwise would be creating the dangerous precedent of disrupting the relationship between management and labour during the life of a collective agreement.
Cutler Lamer Bellemare Burns and Robert Attorneys for I.L.A. St Lawrence river ports locals
[Stage Direction]
July 8. 1966

[Stage Direction]
June 30,1966
Messrs. Cutler, Lamer, Bellemare, Burns and Robert
Barristers and Solicitors Provident Building 507 Place d'Armes,
Suite 405,
Montreal 1, Quebec
Referring your telegram to me of today's date in which you refer to your wire to Minister of Labour I have seen his telegram in reply stop My own knowledge of the facts fully confirms this reply
Lester B. Pearson HO Montreal Que 4 213P EST The Honourable Lester B Pearson Prime Minister of Canada
Re your telegram June 30th apparently you were unaware of following facts Stop
When I.L.A. St. Lawrence river ports locals delegation left Montreal for Ottawa it was determined that no member of delegation would meet alone or without witnesses in seeing any minister or any representative of federal government Stop
While such an attitude may appear hostile it was the unanimous decision of the 18 delegates who having met with government representatives on two previous occasions in same dispute refused to go to Ottawa unless that rule be observed Stop
In fact no member of the delegation ever saw or spoke to any minister or government representative without being accompanied by Claude Jodoin, President, Canadian Labour Congress, Gerard Tremblay, I.L.A. VicePresident, Phil Cutler, one of the three attorneys present Stop
Furthermore, it was determined that the question of final and binding arbitration in all its aspects be left to President Jodoin as the spokesman on this issue Stop
At the very first meeting with several of your ministers when the Honourable Pick-ersgill put a question concerning final and binding arbitration to Phil Cutler, attorney, President Jodoin immediately and emphatically intervened to inform the various ministers present and all others that he, as Canadian Labour Congress President was mandated to reply and to state categorically that the I.L.A. was opposed to final and binding arbitration in any form as a settlement of this dispute and that Canadian Labour Congress supported this position of its affiliate as being identical to congress policy Stop
While we assume, Mr. Prime Minister, that you were not aware of the above facts, you will however recall that in your office and in your presence, the Honourable Nicholson raised the question of final and binding arbitration and again president Jodoin strenuously opposed final and binding arbitration being part of any settlement as a threat to free collective bargaining Stop
You may further recall, Mr. Prime Minister, that it was on that occasion that the Honourable MacEachen intervened concerning a recent speech he had made and assured president Jodoin and all others present that there was no decision on the part of the government to impose final and binding arbitration Stop
In any event, Mr. Prime Minister, since President Claude Jodoin was always present whenever any member of the I.L.A. delegation or any of the three accompanying attorneys met with you or other government representatives from the time we arrived in Ottawa until the time you, as Prime Minister, announced the settlement of the strike, we have communicated with President Jodoin and we understand that he will communicate with you so that knowledge of the facts be complete as to the reasons why the I.L.A. St Lawrence River Ports Locals continue to oppose final and binding arbitration as emphatically as stated to you personally and to your ministers by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress on behalf of its affiliate prior to your announcement of the strike settlement.
Cutler Lamer Bellemare Burns and Robert Attorneys for I.L.A. St. Lawrence River Ports Locals

[Stage Direction]
Jul 5 230p.m. '66
'66 jul 5 p.m. 2 37 RAW2 521/507
RA Montreal Que 5 1205P EDT The Honourable Lester B. Pearson, Prime Minister
Parliament Buildings Ottawa
Copy of these telegram sent to Mr Claude
Jodoin.
We have now received and we are sending you under separate cover a signed copy of the report sent by Judge Rene Lippe acting as Commissioner of an Industrial Inquiry Commission appointed in law by the Honourable John R. Nicholson, Minister of Labour. Stop
July 8, 1966
[Stage Direction]
You will note that the reports sets out in chronological order inter alia on page 9, and we quote a text prepared in close cooperation with officials of the Department of Labour end of quote for the establishment of a commission of inquiry to investigate the structure of gangs and other matters and we quote the text was acceptable to the federation but not to the association end of quote. Stop
Having set out that the I.L.A. St. Lawrence River ports locals had rejected the text for an inquiry, Judge Lippe then goes on and from the same page 9 we quote terms of settlement for a two year collective agreement between the parties were signed in Ottawa on June 14, 1966 end of quote. Stop
Nowhere in the cited terms of settlement is there any mention of either the establishment of another industrial inquiry commission and certainly nowhere in the terms of settlement cited by Judge Lippe is there any question of final and binding arbitration by special legislation or in any other way. Stop
These terms of settlement are shown to bear the date of June 14 1966 and they are signed by Judge Lippe and the others. Stop
We particularly draw your attention to page 13 of Judge Lippe's report which sets out quite clearly that on June 23rd or some ten days after the terms of settlement were signed, he, Judge Lippe, recommends to the Minister of Labour that there should be an industrial inquiry commission established concerning the size and structure of gangs and other matters and that the conclusions should be implemented by legislation. Stop
Since Judge Lippe was at all times present during the sessions in Ottawa and when the terms of settlement were drawn up and signed and he himself signed the terms of settlement and still found it necessary some ten days later to recommend the establishment of an industrial inquiry commission and special legislation, it is clear that Judge Lippe's report refutes those who have pretended that an industrial inquiry commission with a final and binding decision through the enactment of legislation was already agreed to some ten days before his report. Stop
No doubt the good ministers of the Crown in Ottawa will agree that Judge Lippe would not recommend on June 23rd something already agreed to on June 14 or before. Stop
Since we have already informed the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour that the International Longshoremen's Association St. Lawrence River Ports Locals, as an affiliate
of the Canadian Labour Congress, prefer to have you, President Jodoin, take up any difficulties or misunderstandings in order to avoid any further conflict in the concerned ports, this information is being sent to you. Cutler Lamer Bellemare Burns Robert Attorneys for I.L.A. Lawrence River Ports Locals

[Stage Direction]
Jul. 5 2:30 p.m. '66
RAW4 521/507
RA Montreal Que 5 1205P EDT The Hon. John R. Nicholson, Minister of Labour
Parliament Bldgs Ottawa 0158
Copy of these telegrams sent to Mr. Claude Jodoin.
We have now received and we are sending you under separate cover a signed copy of the report sent by Judge Rene Lippe acting as commissioner of an industrial inquiry commission appointed in law by the Honourable John R. Nicholson, Minister of Labour. Stop You will note that the report sets out in chronological order inter alia on page 9, and we quote a text prepared in close cooperation with officials of the Department of Labour end of quote for the establishment of a commission of inquiry to investigate the structure of gangs and other matters and we quote the text was acceptable to the federation but not to the association end of quote. Stop
Having set out that the I.L.A. St. Lawrence river ports locals had rejected the text for an inquiry, Judge Lippe then goes on and from the same page 9 we quote terms of settlement for a two year collective agreement between the parties were signed in Ottawa on June 14, 1966 end of quote. Stop Nowhere in the cited terms of settlement is there any mention of either the establishment of another industrial inquiry commission and certainly nowhere in the terms of settlement cited by Judge Lippe is there any question of final and binding arbitration by special legislation or in any other way. Stop These terms of settlement are shown to bear the date of June 14, 1966 and they are signed by Judge Lippe and the others. Stop We particularly draw your attention to page 13 of Judge Lippe's report which sets out quite clearly that on June 23rd or some ten days after the terms of settlement were signed he, Judge Lippe, recommends to the
[Stage Direction]
July 8, 1966
Minister of Labour that there should be an industrial inquiry commission established concerning the size and structure of gangs and other matters and that the conclusions should be implemented by legislation. Stop
Since Judge Lippe was at all times present during the sessions in Ottawa and when the terms of settlement were drawn up and signed and he himself signed the terms of settlement and still found it necessary some ten days later to recommend the establishment of an industrial inquiry commission and special legislation, it is clear that Judge Lippe's report refutes those who have pretended that an industrial inquiry commission with a final and binding decision through the enactment of legislation was already agreed to some ten days before his report. Stop
No doubt the good ministers of the crown in Ottawa will agree that Judge Lippe would not recommend on June 23rd something already agreed to on June 14 or before. Stop
Since we have already informed the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour that the International Longshoremen's Association St. Lawrence river ports locals, as an affiliate of the Canadian Labour Congress, prefer to have you president Jodoin, take up any difficulties or misunderstandings in order to avoid any further conflict in the concerned ports, this information is being sent to you.
Cutler Lamer Bellemare Burns Robert, Attorneys for I.L.A. St. Lawrence river ports locals

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, July 7, 1966. Mr. Claude Jodoin, President,
Canadian Labour Congress,
100 Argyle Avenue,
Ottawa
In reply to your telegrams of July sixth to the Prime Minister and to me I would say that the traditional opposition of organized labour and management to the practice of compulsory arbitration in disputes over interests as distinct from grievances affecting rights is well known and I appreciate and respect the basic considerations underlying this attitude Stop It is equally well known and documented in the settlement of some disputes that labour and management have resorted to arbitration on specific issues that cannot be settled otherwise and which stand in the way of complete settlement Stop
Likewise labour and management have agreed to settlements which provide for binding arbitration within prescribed limits Stop Previous governments of Canada have enacted legislation providing for binding solutions Stop As you are well aware most of the issues involved in the recent longshore dispute were settled by agreement and those directly concerned realized that legislative action was necessary and was promised to solve the remaining issues and thus bring about a complete settlement Stop There is ample proof of this fact Stop As one instance, you will recall that on June thirteenth while you were present the Prime Minister read a statement to the ILA representatives concerning the two or possibly three issues remaining in dispute in which he suggested that the ILA drop its demand for the application of retroactivity to overtime and that the shipping federation accept the following proposal with respect to the four-hour recall quote that this item be submitted to the commission for examination and that the recommendation of the commission with respect to this item be binding in precisely the same way as the recommendation with respect to gang-size Stop The four-hour recall would then be dealt with and included or not within the contract in the manner specified by the commission unquote you will also recall that also in your presence the suggestions of the Prime Minister in this regard were later accepted by both parties.
John R. Nicholson Minister of Labour
CN TELECOMMUNICATIONS '66 Jul. 6 pm 4:54
1966 Jul. 6 pm 4:06
[Stage Direction]
MO GC113 57 1 ES FD Ottawa Ont 6 307P EDT-
Right Honourable Lester B Pearson, Prime Minister of Cda
House of Commons Ottawa Ont As indicated to you during negotiations concerning the International Longshoremens Association I wish to reiterate to you that as a firm matter of policy the Canadian Labour Congress is unalterably opposed to any type of legislation indicating compulsory and binding arbitration. This type of legislation is completely contrary to democratic methods and to normal collective bargaining-
Claude Jodoin President CLC
July 8, 1966

[Stage Direction]
1966 Jul 6 pm 4:05
[Stage Direction]
MO GC112 57/1 Ex Fd Ottawa Ont 6 307P Edt:
Honourable G R Nicholson, Min of Labour-[DOT] House of Commons Ottawa-
As indicated to you during negotiations concerning the International Longshoremens
Association I wish to reiterate to you that as a firm matter of policy the Canadian Labour Congress is unalterably opposed to any type of legislation indicating compulsory and binding arbitration. This type of legislation is completely contrary to democratic methods and to normal collective bargaining-
Claude Jodoin President CLC
[Stage Direction]

Monday, July 11, 19G6