1966-03-25

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies of the usual budgetary papers in English and in French, and with the consent of the house I should like to have them appended to today's Votes and Proceedings and also to Hansard of March 29.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-155, to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals).


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make a minor amendment to the Criminal Code. The aim is to enable a magistrate who has imposed a sentence upon a person convicted of an offence of cruelty to animals to also prohibit such person from owning, harbouring or otherwise possessing an animal or a bird for a stated period of time as part of the sentence. This is in line with the wishes of the humane society of Ontario.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-156, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (Powers of Chairman and of the Board.)


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, once again, this bill is inspired by the present dispute between the C.N.T.U. and the C.B.C. with regard to a decision of the Canada labour relations board.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the industrial disputes legislation so that only the chairman of the labour relations board may be allowed to make a decision whenever there is a conflict between unions about union recognition for one group of employees.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[English1



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the need to take steps to end the nine week old strike in the trucking industry in the province of Ontario, most of whose employees fall within federal jurisdiction, and the failure of the Minister of Labour to implement the Canada Labour (Standards) Code by ordering a rapid transition to the 40-hour week provided in the said act, which would remove a major obstacle to the settlement of the strike.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that the urgency of the matter is self evident-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly address the Chair on the question of urgency of debate.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this strike has now gone on for nine weeks, with a great loss of earnings to the trucking firms, a great loss of earnings to the drivers and other workers in those trucking firms, and at tremendous inconvenience to the shipping public. Over 70 per cent of the employees involved in the strike are engaged in interprovincial and international transportation and therefore fall within federal jurisdiction.

March 25, 1966
Labour Relations
One of the major issues, if not the major issue, between the unions and the trucking firms is that of the 40-hour week which presumably is guaranteed under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. The failure of the minister to do anything under that act is, in my submission, directly responsible for prolonging the strike, and the prolongation of that strike is of great and urgent concern to the entire industrial complex, not only in the province of Ontario but throughout Canada.
Since it is within the power of a federal minister of the crown to make a major contribution to the settlement of that strike, I respectfully submit that the business of this house ought to be adjourned for the purpose of fully debating this matter.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I address myself for a moment to the point of urgency, which really has not been dealt with by the hon. member who has attempted to make this motion.
The question before the house is whether the proceedings ought to be interrupted at this point to deal with the matter raised by the hon. gentleman. While it is a very important matter, a matter which has engaged the attention of the Minister of Labour and other members of the house from Hamilton and other parts of Ontario, it is still a fact that we intend to move into supply when the orders of the day are called. The hon. gentleman will then have ample opportunity to raise this point.
On that ground, therefore, it cannot be argued that the ordinary proceedings ought to be interrupted in order to deal with this matter, because it can be dealt with the moment the orders of the day are called.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member for York South well knows, urgency within the rules does not apply to the matter itself, but to the urgency of debate. I refer him to citation 100 (3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition. As has been pointed out correctly by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, there will be an opportunity later today to discuss this matter which the hon. member has raised. In the circumstances I cannot accept this motion.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In

view of the co-operative effort and the excellent progress we have made with legislation, and in view of the fact that with one or two exceptions there are only minor pieces of legislation on the order paper, can the Prime Minister tell us when he expects to put on the order paper the major legislation that was dealt with in the Speech from the Throne?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there are matters on the order paper which could hardly be described as minor. We are at present debating a very important matter. After that we will have the budget debate. I can assure my hon. friend that there will be other important matters on the order paper in due course before we reach the end of the budget debate.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: would like to ask the Prime Minister if he had a meeting on March 23 with three of the national staff associations of the civil service with regard to bilingualism. If so, why was the Canadian Union of Postal Workers not invited to sit in at this meeting, in view of their great interest in this question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have received a letter from the postal workers bringing this matter to my attention. I am looking into it at once, because certainly we do not wish to discriminate against representations from any group of civil servants. It is my impression, but I should like to check just as soon as I get to my office, that it was not a question of invitation but that these three other agencies asked to be heard by the government. I want to emphasize that we do not want to discriminate against representations by the postal workers on this matter.
[Translation1


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, since the Minister of Finance is absent.
March 25, 1966

An agreement was signed the day before yesterday at Colombo whereby Canada will lend the government of Ceylon, $1,717,000 without interest.
Can the right hon. Prime Minister tell us if this loan will be made through the Bank of Canada?
[English1


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look into this matter. Under the Colombo plan we do give help to these countries, and certainly without interest; but I should like to find out the details of this particular matter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Would he consider the advisability of granting similar loans to the provinces and municipalities in Canada?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has checked to see how much the price of butter has risen to consumers in Canada and whether it is in line with the increase in price to the wholesalers.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, having in mind both this question and the question the hon. member asked the other day, I have checked into this question and I find there is no practical way in which wholesalers can take advantage of the increase inasmuch as retailers can, and often do, buy directly from the stabilization board at the new price of 59 cents. Therefore any wholesaler who attempted to take advantage of this position would be caught (a) by the competition and (b) by the fact that the retailers themselves can buy in carload lots directly at the 59 cents price.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Has the minister checked to see whether the retail price has gone up more than the wholesale price, whether it is the wholesalers or the retailers who buy directly?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my information to date the retail price has not gone up more than this, subject to the differential factor which I spoke to my hon. friend
Inquiries of the Ministry about in respect to western Canada, which is now being obviated.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is based on a wire just passed to me from the National Defence Employees' Association at Point Edward naval base, and my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. I am not going to read the whole wire but just a small portion to explain the situation to the minister. It says:
-recently Hon. Allan MaeEachen assured N.D.E.A. that any positions in the area first preference would be given to classified civil service employees already engaged at Point Edward naval base. Urge immediate reply-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Questions cannot be prefaced by the reading of telegrams, newspaper articles, or letters.


Robert Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he will investigate this situation and ascertain why these employees are not being given the opportunity that was promised to them by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In view of the fact that the minister had promised to me in this house that he would come with me to picket the headquarters of companies having no French Canadians on their board of directors, and in view of the fact that we have just received the annual report of the Polymer corporation, which has no French Canadian director, can the minister inform me whether next Monday would be agreeable to him for picketing the headquarters of that corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Regina City.
3166	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I feel my question is in order and urgent, for it is raised at a time when we have just received a report, and I would like to take this opportunity to ask the minister whether he would be ready to come and picket- lEnglisK]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that it is not within the administrative responsibility of a minister to picket the office of the president of a corporation.


Gilles Grégoire: That is what he promised, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I believe he met on Wednesday with the mayors of the cities concerned with the curtailment of passenger service by the C.P.R. Could he indicate to the house the results of this meeting?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the results of the meeting were very adequately described by the mayor of Moose Jaw, who was spokesman for this delegation, on radio and television last night.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know if the Minister of Transport suggests that members of parliament can obtain more information about the affairs of the country by watching television and listening to the radio than by asking responsible ministers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Sometimes, sir, I think that would be true. However, I do not want in any way to suggest that the hon. gentleman's question was not proper. I think it was. I myself did hear an account of the meeting we had, and I wanted to indicate that I thought the mayor of Moose Jaw had very accurately reflected both the atmosphere and the results of that meeting. An excellent presentation was made, with much of which I had a good deal of sympathy, and I undertook to study it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister addressing the house on a question of privilege?
CMr. Speaker.]
DEBATES	March 25. 1966



UNION BETWEEN CANADA AND U.S.-STATEMENT BY B.C. MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the statement made by Hon. Ralph Loffmark, Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce for British Columbia, in which he advocates economic and customs union between Canadian provinces and some states in the United States, and in which he calls for a quick and complete union between British Columbia and the states of Washington, Oregon and California? Has the government given any consideration to this most unusual proposal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that question is in order.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
Oni the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In his absence, I wonder if the acting minister or the Solicitor General might have some advice to give to the house on the many useful recommendations contained in the report on juvenile delinquency tabled one month ago in this house. Does the government have any intended action on this report?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, this report is under study by the office of the Solicitor General and by the Department of Justice. However, it has been temporarily delayed because the Solicitor General has taken on special duties relating to another matter.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I would ask the minister if the Dr. Donald report has been completed and, if not, when this document is expected.
March 25. 1966	COMMONS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: It has not yet been completed, Mr. Speaker. An extension has been given to Dr. Donald. However, I can say that the report will be in by the end of next month.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not realize that on January 28 he saidj this report would be ready soon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
DEBATES	3167
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT-INQUIRY AS TO HOUSE CONSIDERATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In the absence of the minister perhaps I should direct it to the government house leader, the Minister of Public Works. Can he inform the house when there will be an opportunity in this house to discuss the automobile treaty between Canada and the United States?



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and relates to a certain report pertaining to the prison break of February 9 at Collins Bay penitentiary. Does the Solicitor General now have this report, and will he table it?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the report referred to by the hon. member is a report directed to the commissioner of penitentiaries, not to the minister. It would ordinarily be considered a confidential document. However, I appreciate the special interest that the hon. member has in this matter, and I am prepared to make the document public. In doing so I would respectfully ask the house that it not be considered a precedent.
ST. VINCENT DE PAUI^SUICIDE OF PRISONER
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: My question is addressed to the Solicitor General. Will the Solicitor General say whether he intends to conduct an investigation into the suicide of Conrad Brunelle which took place yesterday at St. Vincent de Paul, especially as this prisoner tried to commit suicide three months ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt whether this question should be asked on the orders of the day and I would invite the hon. member to place it on the order paper.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, if I had my way it would be almost at once. However, it is a matter of what time the house takes on the very important measures before it at the moment. We expect to have the discussion very shortly.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister not indicate to the house whether this matter will come up before the Easter break?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a little difficult to answer that question now. The government house leader is trying to get all the legislation on the order paper as quickly as possible. On two or three occasions I have included this item on the list of business for the house to consider. On those occasions the house made very good progress with legislation, and I think all hon. members would have to agree that we made good progress, but did not reach this item. I cannot forecast how long the house wishes to take on any given measure brought before it. All I can do is indicate that we are anxious to get it through as quickly as possible.


Michael Starr: I rise on a question of privilege. The leader of the house is suggesting that if he had had his way, this resolution would have been discussed already. But he has always placed this resolution concerning the Canada-United States auto pact at the tail end of the business to be discussed. We have made excellent progress with some 14 pieces of legislation since the beginning of last week-surely the leader of the house must recognize this-and had he wished to deal with this resolution he should have brought it forward ahead of some of the other business he suggested.

March 25, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: I believe the rules provide that the government has to establish its own priorities, bearing in mind its responsibility for bringing forward legislation. We have brought this resolution forward for consideration on two or three occasions and on those occasions, as I tried to indicate, we have received good co-operation from other members of the house in getting legislation through, but we have not reached this item of business. I suppose one could accuse the government house leader of being somewhat impatient at times, but all I can say is we are anxious to get it through as quickly as we can.


Michael Starr: That is a lot of nonsense, if I ever heard it. It is sort of two-faced, too.


George James McIlraith: No, sir.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: If the
government and opposition house leaders have finished their discussion I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport, now that he has had time to catch his breath since his recent visit to British Columbia. I should like to ask him whether while in British Columbia he had the opportunity of holding any discussions with members of the British Columbia government concerning shipbuilding subsidies. I should also like to ask the minister quickly, if I may, before the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) who has a rather other worldly outlook on this question, whether he had any opportunity of looking into the provision of some form of causeway transportation to Vancouver island.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest this question should be placed on the order paper, unless there is an urgency about it which the Chair fails to see.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which I shall try to make somewhat narrower than the earlier question I addressed to the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would look into the matter of tabling a letter from the premier of British Columbia on the question of shipbuilding subsidies, which on March 1 he told

me he would be glad to do. Also would the Prime Minister inquire into the delay in tabling the correspondence which was ordered under notice of motion for production of papers on this same subject on February 2?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the correspondence had been tabled. There may have been one telegram which has come in which was not tabled. In any event, I will be glad to look into it and make the information available.



TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who I believe has responsibility for all manpower problems. In view of the critical shortage of teachers and the increasing pressure placed on teacher resources by the rapidly expanding technical and vocational training program, would the minister consider subsidizing teacher training programs under the government sponsored retraining scheme?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is a question of a very general nature, and not the type of question that should be asked at this time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: With deference, on a question of privilege, this is a matter of great urgency, as anybody who reads the papers these days must know. I believe the minister himself will be interested in this problem, because it was due to an oversight that teacher training was not included in the retraining program.


Mr. Speaker:: I still fail to see the immediate urgency of the matter. It may be very important and urgent, but it seems to me that nothing would be lost by having the question placed on the order paper or, if the hon. member prefers, by discussing it at ten o'clock.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I will discuss it at ten o'clock at the first opportunity.
March 25. 1966	COMMONS



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether he has anything to tell the house about negotiations reportedly being carried on between Air Canada and its opposite number in Russia in connection with a direct air service between Montreal and, I believe, Moscow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Some time ago the government authorized Air Canada to enter into discussions with the air line in the Soviet Union, Aeroflot, with a view to seeing whether conditions would be favourable for intergovernmental discussions preparatory to establishing a bilateral agreement. I heard the report on the news this morning, as no doubt the hon. gentleman did, that both parties seem to think quite good progress is being made in these talks. I hope it is.


John Angus MacLean: Is it contemplated that the Russian air line would have any subsidiary benefits? Would it have just one terminal, or would it have the right to carry passengers from, say, Montreal to Toronto?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think one would normally reply to a question of this kind while negotiations were in progress, but I should like to allay any fears that there is any thought of fifth freedom rights.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Am I right in understanding that it is the particular air lines which are negotiating this agreement rather than the governments?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The actual negotiations
would, of course, be between governments, but it would perhaps be somewhat futile to negotiate a bilateral agreement and then find that the air lines were not interested in flying. This is purely an exploratory operation.



NOVA SCOTIA-GRANT FROM ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house whether the Atlantic Development Board has approved a grant for power development in the province of Nova Scotia?
DEBATES	3169
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, sir.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Would he be as quick with a reply if he were asked to give comparative figures showing how much the Atlantic Development Board had done for Newfoundland as compared with Nova Scotia?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just as quick.


Malcolm MacInnis: Then I would ask the minister to give us the figures.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The figure is $12 million for Nova Scotia for the thermal plant.


Malcolm MacInnis: And for
Newfoundland?



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: too, have a question for the Minister of Transport. It is based on a number of telegrams I received this morning from the Vancouver area. Can the minister say whether lay-offs are taking place in Vancouver air traffic control centre despite a reported shortage of such staff in other areas, posing a possibly hazardous situation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot do so without checking, but I should like to be permitted to say just this word, since the hon. gentleman referred to a possibly hazardous situation. I do not think anyone in the house would like the impression to be left that either the Department of Transport or our air lines would wilfully do anything which would create any hazardous situation.


Barry Mather: Would the minister undertake to look into this situation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will look into it just as soon as the orders of the day are reached.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compton-Fronfenac):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce but in his

March 25, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister.
Following agreements entered into with Pakistan in January 1966, on the financing of an atomic power plant for peaceful purposes, can the Prime Minister tell us whether this nuclear power plant will benefit Canada with respect to the sale of Canadian uranium?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be put on the order paper.
[English1



PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.-INCREASE IN ELEVATOR CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: In the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who usually makes announcements about these matters in British Columbia, I wonder if I can ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet reached a favourable decision about the grain elevator in Prince Rupert.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think I will leave the answer to that question and the venue to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister indicate when he will be in a position to announce the policy of the government with regard to the support price for the Canadian sugar beet crop during the year 1966-67?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the policy is under consideration and will be announced in due course in a short statement.
[Translation1
INVITATION TO MINISTER TO VISIT QUEBEC On the orders of the day:


Mr. Auguste Choquelte (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.

In view of the minister's successful trip in western Canada and the hearty reception Quebec gave the recently announced dairy policy, does the minister propose to visit very soon those areas of rural Quebec where he will be most welcome?


John James Greene: Soon, Mr. Speaker.
[English1



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. Would the Secretary of State kindly consult with the members of the Board of Broadcast Governors and request that there be more Sunday programs with a religious content?


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



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General when he expects the report from His Honour Judge Montpetit who is investigating the grievance of the postal workers.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, it is hoped that the report will be presented by the end of June.


Michael Starr: Would that be the final report or an interim report?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I do not think there will be an interim report.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General, and it is urgent. In view of the policy statement to the effect that 20 women are to be removed from Kingston penitentiary to the new institution at Matsqui, and in view of the fact that 19 of the 20 said they did not wish to be removed, is consideration to be given to the request of those who have stated their desire to remain in Kingston and not be removed to Matsqui?
March 25. 1966


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I have had a preliminary discussion with the commissioner of penitentiaries. He is now in western Canada, and as soon as he returns I believe I will be in a position to report on the matter.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Is the minister in a position to advise the house whether the government has as yet made a decision one way or the other in respect of the re-establishment of the roads to resources program?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister in a position to indicate when a decision will be rendered in respect of the reclassification and salary revision of the Canadian penitentiary service?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the report has been received and is being studied by the civil service association as well as the civil service commission, and the treasury board. There will be consultation after this, and I can promise when it comes to the treasury board after the consultations there will be no delay.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works. Having in mind the money which Canadians spend to beautify Ottawa, our national capital, and also considering the perpetually dirty and
Inquiries of the Ministry deplorable conditions of Ottawa streets, would the minister consider asking the National Capital Commission to take over and keep clean at least some of what appear to be the main Ottawa streets?


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



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether the government has yet made a decision in respect of which air line will be given the route between Toronto and Los Angeles, and which air line will be given the route between Vancouver and San Francisco?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the government is in the process of making these decisions at the moment.



REPORTED INTENTION OF BOARD MEMBERS TO RESIGN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. May I ask the minister if he can advise us whether one or two members of the Dominion Coal Board have left or are comtemplating leaving their positions? I would hope this is not so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not see how this question can be so urgent that it is the type of question which may be asked at this time.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I ask this, and the reason I consider it of great importance, is the fact that this board is of importance to the coal mining industry. We have a new coal board chairman, and I would hope we are not losing any members of the staff. I am sure the minister understands the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

March 25, 196&
Interim Supply SUPPLY
The house in Committee of Supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Mitchell William Sharp: Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $870,275,281.00, being the aggregate of-
(a)	two twelfths of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $817,997,151.83;
(b)	an	additional	nine	twelfths	of	the	totalamount of Transport	item 103 (schedule	A) of the
said main estimates, $408,000.00;
(c)	an	additional	four	twelfths	of	the	total
amounts of Agriculture item 35 and Atomic Energy item 5 (schedule B) of the said main estimates, $3,382,966.67;
(d)	an	additional	three	twelfths	of	the	total
amounts of Finance item 15, National Research Council item 10 and Transport items 95 and 104 (schedule C) of the said main estimates, $19,582,100.00;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the total amount of Legislation item 20 (schedule D) of the said main estimates, $959,816.67;
(f)	an additional one twelfth of the total amounts of External Affairs item 5, Justice item 1, Mines and Technical Surveys items 20, 25, 35, 55, 60, 70 and 85, National Health and Welfare item 41, National Revenue item 5, Northern Affairs and National Resources item 1, Secretary of State item 40, Solicitor General item 5, Transport item 85 and Veterans Affairs item 25 (schedule E) of the said main estimates, $27,945,245.83,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967.
[DOT] (11-50 a.m.)


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have the honour of being asked to fulfil a long standing engagement to address the John Howard Society of Saskatchewan tomorrow noon. I understand it has been traditional for the minister responsible for penitentiaries to honour such a commitment. Ministers of previous administrations have had this honour. There is also another very important event taking place in Prince Albert on the same day and I would be pleased to be able to attend it also. I would therefore ask the indulgence of this house to permit me to fulfil this engagement. There is a reference to a supplementary item of my department in the supplementary estimates, but it will be necessary for me to leave today to be in Saskatchewan in time for this appointment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before us regarding interim supply will be

followed by a bill to provide for all requirements of the public service up to May 31, 1966. We are asking for two months interim supply. I should like to give the usual assurance to the house that in no instance is the total amount of an item being released by this resolution or the ensuing bill, and that the forms of the resolution and the bill to follow are the usual ones for interim supply.
The passing of this resolution and the ensuing bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize the items of the estimates when they come up for consideration in committee of supply. I give the usual undertaking that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passage of this measure.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I am not launching into a full speech, so any applause I might receive will quickly subside. At this moment what I am doing is recording an objection so there will be no misunderstanding in the future. I do not consider it normal practice, usage or custom of this house to grant interim supply for a two month period at this time of the year. The normal practice has been to grant one month of interim supply at a time until the main estimates are passed, except in circumstances where a summer adjournment occurs or where advance notice of an election is given. Under those circumstances perhaps three or four months interim supply is granted.
Therefore I record my objection to this request for two months supply, and I hope this will not be considered as a precedent for the future.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rise to address myself to the question I posed earlier today, regarding a situation which I earnestly request the Minister of Labour to look at with more realism than he has done up to now. I refer to the strike in the trucking industry in the province of Ontario which, as was indicated earlier, has been going on now for some nine weeks with disastrous results to some 8,000 families, because there are 8,500 truckers involved. I imagine this has also had serious results for the 55 trucking firms involved, as well as for many hundreds of shippers throughout the province.
I appreciate that negotiations have been taking place for a long time, and that there was a conciliation procedure which was followed through the co-operation of both the federal and provincial governments. There
March 25, 1968

was a conciliation board report which the unions were not willing to accept.
I want to draw your attention first, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that I am not raising this matter on the floor of the federal House of Commons lightly. I know a little about the organization of this industry, having been involved in court in one or two cases on problems of jurisdiction as between federal and provincial authorities. I am certain in my own mind that the strike involves the federal authority very much more than it involves the provincial one because, in my opinion, at least 70 per cent of the employees concerned are engaged in interprovincial and international transportation and are therefore covered by the federal law.
Last Saturday night I was in Hamilton, and that is the reason I am raising this issue with some urgency today. I addressed a meeting concerned with raising some funds to augment the benefits paid to striking workers who are members of local 879 of the teamsters' union which has its headquarters in that city. I learned from some of the workers that they are reaching the point now where their personal lives and the lives of their families are pretty seriously affected by the continuation of the strike.
I also learned from the president of the local union, Mr. Ray Taggart, who is also chairman of the negotiating committee involving all the unions concerned, that there are now three remaining issues of any importance in dispute between the unions and the trucking firms. The first is the question of a 40 hour week; the second is the question of the owner-operators, and the third is the question of certain retaliatory steps taken by some firms against local unions for earlier alleged wildcat strikes.
From my knowledge of the situation I would urge the Minister of Labour not to worry about what are called reprisals; that is, the actions by trucking firms, grievances and damages against local unions, particularly the local in Hamilton; because I am confident that cannot and will not be an obstacle to a settlement if the 40 hour week problem is settled. That is why I speak with very considerable indignation about the attitude of the Minister of Labour in a situation of this sort.
I have often said that a strike is a very regrettable interruption of the normal peaceful labour-management relations that in most cases does, and in all cases should, if at all possible, obtain. When a strike does occur it usually occurs as a result of the accumulation
Interim Supply
of pretty serious grievances by the people concerned. When a government has the power to do something that will hasten the settlement of a strike but fails to act, it is guilty of a very reprehensible omission of action within its authority. If a government cannot do anything because the matter is merely one of negotiation between the workers and the management concerned, and only offers its good offices and the offices of its labour department to seek conciliation, mediation and negotiation, that is one thing. But when a government has within its hands a law for which it is responsible but fails to act quickly enough or with enough vigour and devotion to the situation, then it is dangerously dilatory.
This government does have a law which it brought in and which was heralded throughout the country as a great social advance for labour, and it could act. The previous minister of labour, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare, made some very moving speeches about this great benefit he was producing for the workers under federal jurisdiction when he introduced the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There were some wonderful advertisements in the papers.


David Lewis: There were some very good ads in the papers, as my leader suggests. I did not have the pleasure of listening to the minister when he introduced this legislation, because I was not a member of parliament at the time; but because of my interest in this field I carefully read the reports of his speeches which indicated that they were speeches of great hope and satisfaction, if not smugness, in regard to the great good he was performing for the workers of Canada.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
So you pass a law, and the law says that the standard work week is to be 40 hours. Then you have a strike of workers precisely on the issue of the 40 hour week, and the Minister of Labour sits back and lets the strike continue for nine weeks, doing nothing at all about it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Lewis: I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I might have raised this issue on the floor many weeks ago. I did not. Instead I wrote to the Minister of Labour as long ago as February 22. I was not interested then, no more than I am interested now, in raising the issue on the floor merely to make a lot of noise. So I wrote to the Minister of Labour

March 25, 1966
Interim Supply
on February 22 and pleaded with him to make a decision and announce the decision on the application for deferment of the hours of work provided under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.
I indicated in my letter to him that even if he was not prepared to say the 40 hour week shall be applied immediately, he would perform a service in the present strike if he had the imagination and the will and were ready to say at least that the hours of work from then on would be 42 or 43 hours a week for the next 18 months, and at the end of that time we would have to go back to what the law provides. Even that would have been of some help to the negotiating parties.
I received an answer from the minister dated February 28. I will paraphrase it instead of reading it-and I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I will paraphrase it accurately-in which he said, "The parties are negotiating. Therefore I am not going to make any statement. I do not think it would serve any purpose."
Therefore I wrote again to the minister on March 1 and pointed out to him what was obvious, that it is his law; that he has a duty to administer it; that he has a duty to make sure the law is applied, not at the whim of employers or even of unions but in the interests of the public; that he has a duty so to act without waiting for the negotiations to drag on and allowing all the evils of the strike to continue. He replied saying, "I don't agree with you. I am not going to act because these people are in negotiation."


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


David Lewis: Yes.


David Réal Caouette: Before the strike took place, how many hours a week were these people working in the transport industry in Ontario?


David Lewis: An outrageous number of hours, in my opinion. Many of them were working as many as 48 hours a week. Some of them were working a lesser number of hours, but many were working as many as 48 hours a week. They have been fighting to my knowledge for many years to have their hours reduced to the 40 hours which is the standard work week throughout Canada.
Not only has parliament said that there was to be a 40 hour week, and this is what I consider to be-I use this word deliberately-the criminality of the Minister of Labour in not taking action, but I am confident in my

mind that the union might not even have asked for the 40 hour week if it had not been the law. It is an experienced, well established union, and might have asked for a reduction only of four or five hours from the 48 rather than a reduction of the full eight hours. The only reason it asked for the 40 hour week is that it said "Here is the law of Canada. Our parliament said to us that we should not work more than a standard work week of 40 hours. So we go to the negotiating table and ask for it. We ask for what the law provides. Then we are denied it, not only by the trucking firms but by the government that introduced this law." I am almost speechless with indignation at this kind of irresponsible and callous behaviour toward a law of parliament for which the government itself is responsible.
1 said the other day in another connection that I took the trouble, at some considerable time and with some help, to go through the various Canada Gazettes some time ago to find out how many firms and what firms asked for deferment, particularly of part 1 of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, namely the part that deals with hours of work. This was because a question placed on the order paper by my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North had not been answered, and I do not think it has yet been answered. Therefore I looked for this information myself. I think I am not exaggerating, in fact I am sure I am not, when I say there is not a single firm that comes under federal jurisdiction which has not asked for deferment under part 1 of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.
May I take a moment to remind hon. members of the following facts about that code. The code provides that if an application for deferment is made and it appeared in the Canada Gazette for July 1, 1965, there was an automatic deferment of part 1 of the act without any other action by anybody. That automatic deferment could last for no more than 18 months; then the minister is given authority to provide for a further deferment for another 18 months once he has made up his mind on the application for deferment. After that there is provision for a further inquiry in case there is another application for deferment. This, after all, makes the act not a very demanding piece of legislation, despite what the minister boasted about in regard to its provisions. It was not providing
March 25. 1966

the 40 hour week for employees under federal jurisdiction; it was providing an opportunity for them to get it in 36 months or perhaps a little longer.
This is what my letters to the minister requested him to do, namely to indicate that they would have it at the end of the period of deferment provided in the act. Even that the minister has refused to do. If members are told by anybody who replies, if anybody does reply for the government, that there are other issues, let me say that after long years of experience in negotiations and many conversations with leaders of the negotiating committee of the union in the past couple of months, I am absolutely certain that if the minister had the will to carry into effect the law which his government put on the books, there would be a settlement of this strike within days after his so doing; because the issue about which the membership feels most keenly, and rightly so, is that of the 40 hour week.
When I spoke to a number of these workers last Saturday night in Hamilton the answer invariably was "All the people in the Steel Company of Canada, in Canadian Westinghouse and in every other industry in Hamilton, and the same in Windsor, London and Toronto, work a 40 hour week. This is the standard. The federal parliament passed a law giving us the right to the 40 hour work week. Why don't we get it? And we are 'so-and-so' if we go back to work before we get it."
The members of the negotiating committee have said to me-and I am sure they would not mind my saying it to this House of Commons, even though it is part of their negotiations-that they will not necessarily insist on getting the 40 hour week the moment the agreement is signed; that they are prepared to consider-this is why the earlier motion I moved did not say "the immediate implementation of the 40 hour week" but a "rapid transition" toward it-a rapid transition toward the 40 hour week if the employers were willing to consider it.
I have outlined the facts of this matter, Mr. Chairman. I do not intend to prolong my speech. I say it is in the hands of this government to take steps today which within a week will settle the strike which has now lasted for nine weeks. I say that the government has a duty under its own law to take those steps today, not next month or two months from now after people have suffered unnecessarily for a further eight to nine
Interim Supply
weeks. The government has a duty to do this today, because the law is there on the statute books. I say if it does that, it will act like a government with conscience and sense of responsibility for the laws of Canada. If it does not, it will show complete callousness and complete contempt for its own law and its duties under that law.
[Translationi


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member for my information?


David Lewis: Certainly.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Could the hon. member tell the house whether the truckers or employers officially asked the government to intervene in the conflict?
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
[English1


David Lewis: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, they have made many demands for intervention by the federal government. As a matter of fact I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare will recall some of these because he answered some of them. I have in my file a copy of a telegram that went to the Prime Minister on October 27, during the election campaign. The reply at that time was suitably honeyed; it did not make any definite promises or undertakings, but it had all the honey that a reply during an election campaign is expected to have. I do not blame the right hon. gentleman for that.
I have in my hand a copy of a reply to a telegram dated November 9 to the president of local 879. There have been other communications from the teamsters' locals to the Minister of Labour. There have been numerous interventions emphasizing the request that the 40 hour week be implemented by the government in accordance with the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.
I want to say one further word about a related matter, one of the other issues in dispute, which again could be settled very quickly by the Minister of Labour and the government. I refer to the problem of owner-operators. This problem can be simply stated. It is possible for an employer to circumvent the legislation by making a legal arrangement, either with his own employees or with someone else's, whereby the people doing the trucking are, under the law, not employees of the trucking firm but independent owner-operators. Every time the laws have pinched

March 25, 1966
Interim Supply
the employers too hard, in their opinion, this is what they have done. In the letter of February 22 to the Minister of Labour, to which I have referred, I said this, Mr. Chairman:
You could be of similar assistance with respect to owner-operators. Obviously the labour code is not of much value to an industry like trucking if it is possible for the employer to evade the law by the simple expedient of hiring owner-operators or making some technical legal arrangements enabling the employer to transform employees into alleged owner-operators. The obvious way of closing this loop-hole is to amend the act so that it covers owners-operators as well as employees.
The minister, in his reply dated February 28-I am referring to the present Minister of Labour-stated in the last paragraph:
As regards the inclusion of owner-operators within the scope of the code, this suggestion certainly merits consideration and is one that will be studied when possible amendments to the code are under review.
In this respect, Mr. Chairman, I make this simple suggestion and simple appeal to the minister. If he is studying the proposal and if he is likely to introduce amendments to provide for the inclusion of owner-operators under the code, then let him say so. I appreciate that if it is done it will be done with the necessary qualifications to ensure that we will not be including someone who is really an employer of other people rather than simply an owner-operator. A mere announcement by him that he is giving favourable consideration to that, and that this session or within a short time the act will be amended to cover this loophole, would be sufficient for the unions to give careful consideration to withdrawing their demands in the present negotiations.
These are the reasons, Mr. Chairman, I considered the question one of urgent importance, and why I raised it on the floor of this house. In my submission it is entirely within the hands of this government to end the trucking strike within a few days if the government will act.


Mr. Munro:: The hon. member for York South has indicated grave concern for the welfare of the workers in the trucking industry who have suffered from a long period without work. I think we all share that concern. Perhaps the solution is not quite as simple as the hon. member has suggested. I wish it were that simple.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who is in the house, will recall that when the labour code was under discussion in

the house grave concern was expressed about the effect it would have on the trucking industry because their operations were based on a longer work period. There was also a suggestion that the workers in the trucking industry were not primarily the employees the code was designed to affect. They were not the workers we wanted to upgrade. The workers with whom we were concerned at that time were those receiving ridiculously low wages or ridiculously low hourly rates. The code, which was widespread in application, had to include workers in industries who had collective agreements, and workers who had bargaining agents who had great experience in this labour relations field.
The hon. member for York South refers to the fact that the law sets up a 40 hour week and asks why we are not applying this law to the trucking industry. I wish it were that simple. In so far as certain industries are concerned, such as this one, where serious dislocation would be created by the application of the law, there is a provision for deferment. One of the reasons for deferment is the fact that in rtiany cases unions in these industries have bargained for benefits far beyond those provided under this minimal standards legislation. We did not want to dislocate them too greatly.
Great concern on this point was expressed at that time by N.D.P. members as well as by Liberals and, I believe, members of the official opposition, although I do not have the record before me at the moment. It was felt that if we applied the 40 hour week to these employees without a sufficient interval of time for this arrangement to be worked out between employees, employers and the government, serious loss of wages would result.
I can recall this concern being expressed in this house at the time the code was being discussed. This is one of the reasons this procedure for deferment was provided in the legislation. We all recall that the trucking industry put on a tremendous lobby to have their industry exempted entirely from the legislation. This pressure was resisted, but at the same time there was great concern on the part of employees in the transportation industry that this 40 hour week provision would be applied without any qualification, and too quickly. It was for this reason the deferment period was provided. This was especially true where serious dislocation would be experienced, and wide latitude was given for negotiation between employers and employees.
March 25, 1966


Michael Starr: I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would allow me to ask him a question. In view of the fact that time allotted to interim supply is part of the 30 day limit on supply, would he consider postponing his remarks until we are considering the supplementary estimates?
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
We just have one more speaker who will take five or six minutes, and then we can pass interim supply and get on to the supplementary estimates.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take very much longer in any event, but I think some of the points raised by the hon. member for York South, who as he said was not in the house at the time the labour code went through, should be answered to clarify the situation.
Some rather strong language has been used, words like "callous," "careless" and "utter disregard for the worker". That is pretty strong stuff. One has to go back to the time the legislation went through to put the situation regarding the passage of this labour code into its proper perspective. With regard to the trucking industry, particularly trucking employees, there was not such a hue and cry over how callous the government was when we put into the bill, the provisions for deferment why?-because they would be just as beneficial to the employees of that industry as to the employers. It was the employees who were concerned about the marked loss in their wage packets received at the end of the week were we immediately to implement a 40 hour week.
There is no question about that, because at the time this provision was put into the legislation I talked to these employees myself. In the interval since that time negotiations have been going on at all levels of government with the employees and employers. Talks have been held throughout this strike in an endeavour to work out some arrangement through the collective bargaining process. This being so, it is a strange phenomenon to me to find the hon. member for York South now advocating that the government step in, ignore the provisions of the law regarding the opportunity for deferment and, in effect, force a settlement. That is what he is suggesting.


David Lewis: No, it is not.


John Carr Munro: It certainly is. The hon. member said that if we were to enforce a 40 hour
Interim Supply
week tomorrow the strike would be settled immediately.


David Lewis: I did not even say that there should be a 40 hour week tomorrow. I said there should be a rapid transition toward that.


John Carr Munro: As I recall the theme of the hon. member's remarks it looked to me, with some knowledge of the labour code and the background to it, as if the hon. member was making the suggestion that there should be a form of compulsory arbitration, or that the government should come in and settle the strike. But I would point out that there are provisions to enable a union such as this to settle disputes by the collective bargaining process.


David Lewis: Nonsense.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member mentioned that if it had not been for the fact that provision is made in the legislation for a 40 hour week, the unions might not have asked for it at all. That is precisely one of the reasons that we put in this deferment period, in the case of unions in the same position as this particular union, which has developed sophisticated bargaining arrangements. We put in these deferment provisions for the benefit of these particular workers.


David Lewis: Would the parliamentary secretary permit a question? If that was the intent, why did the government not have the frankness to exclude from the code those employees covered by collective agreements? They did not do that. What right has the parliamentary secretary now to interpret the law in that way? The law is there, and he cannot now interpret it in this fashion.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member for York South dealt at some length with his interpretation of the law and I assume that I have the same right, especially when I was in the house at the time this particular law was debated and the hon. member was not. I do not know whether he has read the speeches made during the passage of the legislation, including speeches made by members of his own party, but I think it smacks a little of political opportunism now to stand up and say the government is negligent for not applying this particular section and to suggest that we are not adhering to the law, particularly when it comes to assisting the employees in this industry. It is not prejudicial to them, and the hon. member's party did not object to it at the time.

March 25. 1966
Interim Supply


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a question arising from the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. The hon. member made reference to the position taken by the New Democratic party during discussion of the labour standards code. He suggested that the hon. member for York South was not in the house at that time. I was one of the members who were in the house, and I suggest to the hon. member, if I may, that he had better check the record again. The concern some of us had about these deferment provisions was that the government, with these provisions in the code, would do precisely what apparently it is now doing, namely making the real purposes of the act completely inoperative.
That is the concern which was in the minds of those in this party who were in this house when that code was put through. I myself very clearly remember attempting to suggest that the principle of the 40 hour week was the one which would be applied. We had a lot of discussion on the question of averages, but at no time did we ever suggest that we felt these deferment provisions should be in the code or that they should be used in order to postpone indefinitely the application of the 40 hour week.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre reminds me that we made specific proposals for cutting down the deferment period.


John Carr Munro: My point, which I thought I had made clear, was that there was, of course, concern on all sides of the house. There was concern on this side and in the New Democratic party that any succeeding government might in fact use this legislation to deny the privileges of the act to those employees that it was most desirous they should reach, namely those who were employed earning less than the minimal wage standards. I do not think, recalling what went on at the time of the debate, that our concern was with respect to employees of the trucking industry who had collective agreements and relatively high hourly rates. We were concerned with those receiving the low hourly rates when we passed the code.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I suggest the hon. member speak for himself in this matter, not for the members of this party.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for York South. I regret that he has left the

house, but I am sure he has left for a good reason.
The Canada Labour (Standards) Code is made up of four components; hours of work, wages, statutory holidays and vacations with pay. Before I get into the provisions of the code may I say it is still the fact that this legislation, providing as it does for a range of conditions in these four fields, has no rival in any country of the world. It is unrivalled in its comprehensiveness and in the extent to which it attempts to apply favourable conditions to the life of the worker.
With respect to statutory holidays there were no deferment provisions. With respect to vacations with pay there were no deferment provisions. Deferment provisions were provided in the case of minimum wages and hours of work. There have been requests to defer the application of the minimum wage but none of these requests has been granted. That fact has not been noted. At least to my knowledge there has been no request granted to defer application of the minimum wage.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
With respect to hours of work, two choices were available to the government at that time. One choice was to do what had been done in almost every other jurisdiction, which was to provide for a range of exemptions so the law would never be operative with respect to hours of work. That was the course taken in the United States; it was the course taken in the province of Saskatchewan; it was the course taken in almost every province of Canada where, with respect to hours of work, there were a series of blanket escape clauses so the hours of work would never become applicable.
We resisted that course and provided that within a certain period of time the standard hours, or the 40 hour week, would become applicable. I remember very clearly the pressures that came upon me as Minister of Labour not to maintain that principle, from the trucking industry, from the employers and from the employees in the trucking industry. I had delegations of workers coming to my office asking that this provision not go into effect because they were afraid, as we all were, that the immediate application of the 40 hour week would result in a reduction in take home pay unless there was a supplementary provision proviidng for the maintenance of take home pay, as it had been made available under the previous regime.
March 25, 1966

We knew the effects of that. It would be very disruptive, especially because our jurisdiction federally is applicable to interprovincial and international trucking, and there were many trucking firms under our jurisdiction which were in competition with trucking firms that were totally within provincial jurisdiction. Provincial ministers of labour and provincial governments were very concerned about the effect of the immediate application of our law with respect to firms that were not within our jurisdiction, and which would be immediately affected.
We took the course that there would be an 18 month provision for deferment upon application, and then, if in the opinion of the minister it were necessary, an inquiry would be held and a further order made in order to determine what ought to be the appropriate regime with respect to hours in any industry.
The trucking industry, of course, provides a classic case. Hon. gentlemen on the other side are complaining today about the effects of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. I am surprised, because the evidence of the bite, of the effect, of the importance of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code is demonstrated in what is happening in the trucking industry today. In the absence of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code this problem would not arise, and there would be a continued regime of longer hours prevailing in an industry which ought to have reduced its hours a long time ago. In the absence of that code this reduction would not have been effected.
Of course there is disruption. Does the hon. member for York South think social development and social progress will take place without some disruption in normal patterns of counduct and normal patterns of behaviour? If he does, it seems to me he is escaping from his own position as a member in this house.
That is the situation. Undoubtedly, by the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, the government and parliament have tilted the balance in favour of reduced hours. We have left the matter to be worked out, if possible, within the framework of collective bargaining, with the sure knowledge that there is an opportunity within the law, through determined or predetermined procedures by parliament, to induce an appropriate regime of lower hours in this industry.
I am surprised that the hon. member for York South should take this occasion to beat the government over the head with the
Interim Supply
Canada Labour (Standards) Code, especially when we all know that at the present time very serious negotiations are taking place. Provincial and federal officials are at work in Toronto and other centres in Ontario in order to induce a settlement. Active discussions are taking place in Toronto now, and will take place over this week end, among Ontario departmental officials, federal departmental officials, and representatives of the trucking industry on the employer and on the employee side. They are considering further proposals, and the Ontario department involved is hopeful for a settlement. The federal department involved is also hopeful for a settlement.
I do not think I should add anything further that might frustrate the achievement of this settlement, except that I was persuaded to say something by the remarks of the hon. member for York South who, I think, unfairly used the Canada Labour (Standards) Code to denounce the government for appropriate action being taken at the present time.
This is a good labour bill. The hon. gentleman did nothing to help it by his conduct and his remarks today.


Robert Carman Coates: I am pleased that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is here, because I should like to have a few words from him on something which happened this morning during the question period, which in my opinion does nothing to strengthen federal-provincial relations between Nova Scotia and the federal government.
The Minister of Transport in a clandestine way, with the hon. member for St. John's West, endeavoured to make a policy announcement in the house, I presume with respect to a grant having to do with the Atlantic Development Board. He did that on orders of the day. During the last election campaign the Minister of National Health and Welfare on numerous occasions asked why-


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of privilege arising from the remarks of the hon. member for Cumberland. It has been brought to my attention that he made some suggestion that I was being used by the Minister of Transport. I suggest that the opposite was the case; that I was using the Minister of Transport in order to gain some publicity.


Robert Carman Coates: That may be true.


Michael Starr: That is what we call collusion.

March 25, 1966
Interim Supply


Robert Carman Coates: What was being said with respect to federal-provincial relations certainly concerns the province of Nova Scotia. If this is the case, it is all the more reason for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to be making every effort to see that the province of Nova Scotia is used rightly by the federal government when announcements are to be made that are of direct application to that province and to the people of that province.
Not having Nova Scotia interests looked after is what we get sick and tired of on this side of the house. This is not the sort of thing that happened when the former member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings was the minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What is the hon. gentleman complaining about? Is it the $12 million?


Robert Carman Coates: There is an example of the attitude evident in the minister's party, about announcements. No, Mr. Chairman, we are not complaining about the $12 million. In fact, we didn't complain about $24 million for Baie d'Espoir, or for more than $20 million earmarked for Nova Scotia. We are complaining about the fact that while $20 million has been earmarked for Nova Scotia, nothing happened; and that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, then the minister of labour, sat in his seat in this house and did nothing for the people of Nova Scotia. That is what I am complaining about.
If the minister thinks just two members from Cape Breton island are going to give him difficulty, I want to warn him now that he has another think coming, because there are ten members from Nova Scotia sitting here in the Progressive Conservative party who are going to create for him a lot more trouble than he has had yet, if he does not smarten up.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That does not worry me.


Robert Carman Coates: When he complains outside the house to members of the press gallery that he is not allowed to speak, that is besmirching the record of parliament. You will not get off your seat and get up in the house and answer questions that we demand should be answered. If you were the kind of minister you should be, you would be answering about affairs in Nova Scotia.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Minster of National Health and Welfare that if matters

involving Nova Scotia and involving $12 million are to be made public, those announcements should be made in the proper atmosphere. They should be made in an atmosphere which indicates that some weight is given to the announcement that is to be made, an atmosphere which indicates that some importance is attached to the programs to be carried out, and some attention paid to the problems we have in Nova Scotia. No attempt should be made to smuggle these announcements into the House of Commons, through colleagues of the minister, in a clandestine way because members opposite are fearful that some member of the Progressive Conservative party might, in some strange way, get credit for what has been done. It is not a matter of who gets credit for what; it is a matter of keeping federal-provincial relations at a high level.
When we were in office no federal minister was complaining about the kind of treatment he was receiving. No federal minister was complaining about the way the premier of Nova Scotia was doing things. There was co-operation.
I see that our great and true friend, the leading spokesman for the Atlantic provinces, has joined the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Perhaps he will be good enough to rise in this debate and tell the people of Nova Scotia in a straightforward way what the Atlantic Development Board is trying to do, instead of smuggling the announcement into the house in a clandestine manner with the help of the hon. member for St. John's West. Let us have no more of the type of federal-provincial relationship which has been in existence in the past. We are sick of that in Nova Scotia. If this government think they are given rough times by the members of the Progressive Conservative party from Nova Scotia, they have no idea of what is coming.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to reply to the hon. gentleman.


Robert Carman Coates: Why don't you do it in the proper way?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is, of course, an authority on proper conduct.


Robert Carman Coates: I am just as much an authority on it as you are.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not pretend to be. I try to keep my own conscience and I find that quite a large enough task. I do not try to
March 25, 1966

keep other men's consciences, and I think we would have a much better parliament if other members took this attitude.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There seems to be a notion, one which has not always existed in this parliament, that no private member on this side of the house has any rights. It is also a rule of this house that one cannot reflect on the motives of other members. The hon. member for St. John's West, even though he supports the government, has just as much right to ask a question in this house as has the hon. member for Cumberland. He asked a question, as was his right. The question did not appear to the Speaker to be of a kind which should be answered on orders of the day. On the other hand the hon. member for Cape Breton South asked a question and I was permitted to answer very briefly.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity now to expand on my earlier answer. I am very pleased that the premier of Nova Scotia made this application to the Atlantic Development Board for a new kind of aid. It is true that in the case of Mactaquac and Baie d'Espoir grants were made to assist in the development of hydroelectric power. At that time the government of Nova Scotia took the view that it had no hydroelectric resources which it wished to develop. This was not the kind of government aid the premier of Nova Scotia wanted.
The premier and I had quite lengthy discussions, and the chairman of the board had many more discussions with the premier of Nova Scotia about aid to secondary industries. A good deal has been done in this field, but in the main this kind of activity is taken care of by the area development agency of the Department of Industry. The premier recognized this very well. Though the board had set aside $20 million at the request of Nova Scotia to be reserved for this kind of aid, after the area development agency was established and after certain provisions were made for industrial parks and things of that kind, the premier made this submission to the board which I welcome very much, because it is in accord with what I had suggested when I was on the other side of the house.
It was my view that more coal should be used in Nova Scotia for the development of electric power in that province to promote industrial growth. This proposition was made by the board to the government, and the
Interim Supply
government gave it the most careful consideration. We came to the conclusion-and we only reached this conclusion yesterday-that in principle this was a very sound thing to do. The Atlantic Development Board is having a meeting in Halifax on Monday, at which time the development of this program will be further considered. There will be discussion, I am sure, between officials of the board and, probably, the chairman of the board and the government of Nova Scotia to achieve an end which I am sure the hon. member for Cumberland has very much at heart, that is the accomplishment of anything we can possibly do to provide an infrastructure and base for greater industrial growth in the Atlantic provinces. It has been a matter of deep regret to me-and I am sure the hon. member will not question me when I say this-that we had not until yesterday been able to find projects in Nova Scotia of the kind that come within the scope of the board on a scale comparable with those in New Brunswick and Newfoundland.
This was only because of the electrical development. As far as other things are concerned there is not much disparity among the three large Atlantic provinces. But these grants of $20 million for hydro development did make the distribution look very unequal. I did not like this any more than the hon. gentleman did, but I also respected the basic principles upon which the board has acted, that we must co-operate with the provinces concerned.
This represents an important proposal for the improvement of the infrastructure of Nova Scotia. It will also do something I have wanted to see done for a long time. I believe that if we can transform the coal in Nova Scotia in such a way that it can be used as electricity in Nova Scotia, or even elsewhere in the Atlantic provinces, as a base for better industrial development there it will be a lot better than paying a big subvention to ship it to Quebec or Ontario. I hope this will be productive of secondary developments which will enable us to go a lot further in this direction.
I go so far as to say I am grateful to the hon. member for Cumberland for raising this matter and giving me an opportunity to say much more than, under the rules, I could possibly have said in answer to a question this morning.


Robert Carman Coates: I have one question for the minister. Does he think this is the kind of

March 25. 1966
Interim Supply
thing which should be announced by way of question and answer on orders of the day?
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it would have been quite easy for me to issue a press release this morning. I agree with the view about executive actions, that where there is no policy involved-and the policy of aid of this kind was established some time ago-and we merely are carrying out a policy, we should do the things we have to do here, such as pass estimates and legislation, and should not be taking up time in the house with self advertising announcements made on motions in the House of Commons.
When it is a question of a new policy the house is entitled to hear about it first, if parliament is in session; but when one is merely carrying out a policy which is presently well known, the proper thing to do when an announcement is required is to make it in the normal way. In my department, which spreads itself around in many directions-some people think too far-I suppose we issue one or two press releases a day. Most of these are as dull as dishwater. If I were to come in and make statements on motions on each of these things I think the hon. member really could criticize my conduct, and perhaps I should be expelled from the house.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to go back to the issue I raised and in respect of which the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the hon. member for Hamilton East spoke. First may I say that the hon. member for Hamilton East said something about political opportunism, and I would like to say with all the kindness I can that that is an unworthy retort made when there is nothing to be said which is worth saying. I would hope that the young, and I am sure well meaning, member for Hamilton East would not quickly descend to that kind of unworthy reply.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I have always thought I am reasonably able to articulate my ideas, but apparently one fails frequently when exchanging ideas with political opponents. I did not speak from notes, but I would be ready to bet whatever reputation I have on the statement that never did I, in my statement today or at any other time, criticize the code. I did not say that the labour code was bad. I did not criticize any part of the act which the minister introduced, today nor at any other time.

What I criticized was the failure of the minister to act in accordance with the code and the circumstances as they require it. That is what I criticized, not the code. I am perfectly well aware that my colleagues who were in parliament when this code was introduced supported it. Any criticism they had was with regard to deferment. So I am aware they support it, and so do I. I do not hesitate for one moment to say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that it is a useful piece of legislation, even though introduced by a political party which I do not support. I was glad to see it on the statute book. I said it then, and I say it now without hesitation.
I say to the hon. member for Hamilton East that it is wrong to suggest I was trying to do something for political opportunism. Let me tell him why. I spoke to the Minister of Labour on a few occasions and said I did not want to ask a question because I did not want to make this a matter of political controversy on the floor of parliament, knowing that negotiations might be taking place. That is not the way to deal with negotiations.
As I said earlier I wrote the minister a letter a month ago without making it public. The hon. member can think what he likes, but I tell him I desisted from making any public statement except to ask an occasional question, as did the hon. member for Ontario, as to how the negotiations were going on, so long as it seemed to me that the negotiations were taking place. The point I wish to make is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare-and I say this with respect-is mistaken when he says serious negotiations have taken place. The fact, as I am instructed by the leader of the union, is that the negotiations have not been serious and that the parties have met and dispersed.
The fact is that the person who now has become the chief conciliation officer in the provincial government, Mr. William Dickie for whom I have the greatest respect and with whom I have worked for many years, has been unable to get the parties to discuss their issues seriously. My entire point was and is that even though a minister has the right to defer, he has a duty to see what the developing situation is and to take action if the developing situation requires it. In my humble opinion it requires it now.
I did not raise this matter in the first two, three, four or five weeks of this strike; I raised it after the strike had been on for nine or ten weeks. If you let this thing alone it can
March 25, 1966

drag on and have permanent consequences to the trucking industry. As shippers develop new, alternative ways of shipping goods, both the firms and the employees will be permanently harmed.
I raised the matter today because I see no possibility of a quick settlement which the situation requires. I have no doubt that if you leave it alone it will be settled in some weeks. I raised it today because this mornings' papers carried the news of the Ontario Federation of Labour coming into the picture, because there was news of the Minister of Labour in Ontario saying in the legislature that there was no use his doing anything about it because the major responsibility is that of the federal minister of labour.
These are the incidents and facts in the matter, and it is my submission that it is the duty of a member of this house who has some knowledge of the affair to raise it today and not next week or the week after. I did use strong language, because it seems to me, in my study of political science, there is nothing more reprehensible than a good law which is not implemented. It raises false hopes; the hopes are then dashed because the administration refuses to use the good law which it has. This is the basis of the complaint.
I do not wish to take any more time of the committee. However, I would like to repeat an appeal to the minister. If he is satisfied from his knowledge that serious negotiations are taking place over the week end, then he will not take any action today or tomorrow. If I may say so, I will know on Monday whether they have been serious; we both will know whether the negotiations have been serious. If it should look as though they are approaching settlement then, sure, leave it alone for another day or two; but if it looks, as I am sure it does, that the normal course will take weeks longer, then I appeal to the minister to use the authority he has under the good law-and I use this term deliberately-in accordance with its terms and thus hasten settlement of this regrettable strike.


Mr. Macaluso:: Mr. Chairman, I have not taken part in this discussion-


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a question of privilege. I wonder whether this matter could not be discussed further when we reach the supplementaries under the labour item. I asked earlier whether there would be co-operation on the part of government members not to encroach upon the time that is provided for us, where we are 23033-203
Interim Supply
limited now, under the new rules, to 3C days for the discussion of estimates and interim supply. What is happening here is that this matter which is being discussed now could be properly taken up, without any wastage of time so far as I am concerned, in the time we have in the future. I wonder whether there could be that co-operation and whether we might pass on to supply and get into the supplementary estimates.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak to the question of privilege, I would say to the hon. gentleman that I had not planned to take part in this proceeding whatsoever.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
However, the question of the teamsters' strike was raised and I promise the hon. member I will not take more than five or six minutes of the committee's time to refer to it.
I have some personal knowledge of this matter which I should like to put before the committee because I may be able to be of assistance.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I would ask again that the hon. member defer his remarks until we reach the consideration of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Labour, at which time he can make his contribution.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: When will those estimates be coming before us?


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Why not call them as the first item?


George James McIlraith: I imagine they will be reached later this afternoon.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: In that event I am prepared to accept the suggestion.


The Deputy Chairman:: I recognize the hon. member for Renfrew North.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I think the government is now purposely attempting to take up the time that is allotted to the opposition for the discussion of the estimates of the current fiscal year.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I should like to make a few remarks on this point. As a government supporter I have always objected to the suggestion in this house that private members on the government side do not have equal rights to speak. There are many occasions on

March 25, 1966
Interim Supply
which we do not speak for the sake of pacifying the opposition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do you not want the estimates passed?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the question of privilege that has now been brought forward by the hon. member for St. John's West. No one disputes the fact that the government backbenchers and frontbenchers have the same rights as anyone else, but we are asking now for co-operation so that these matters can be brought up during consideration of the supplementary estimates.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the opposition house leader did not mean to imply that the government was deliberately taking up the time of the committee.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for St. John's West implied that. I did not.


George James McIlraith: I would hope that the hon. member would withdraw his suggestion. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding among members because of the fact that for the first time we have a time allocation for the consideration of estimates which also covers interim supply but not the final supplementary estimates, the next item of business for today. I think that now we have that misunderstanding cleared up there will be no more speeches made by members on this side.


Michael Starr: The Minister of National Revenue is trying to get up.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps the minister piloting the bill through should be given a few minutes to speak.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of making a speech, but I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would like me to correct something he said at the beginning of the proceedings. He said it was unusual to ask for two twelfths of supply at this time. I have checked the records for the past 25 years and I find that the first interim supply motion has always been for two twelfths or more except for one year.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Edgar John Benson: Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, the sum of $370,275,281.00, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Benson (for Mr. Sharp) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C 157, for granting to Her Majesty certains sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31 March 1967.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-$870,275,281 granted jor 1966-67.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we could obtain an explanation regarding clause 2, and particularly paragraphs (b) to (f) in respect of which instead of granting two twelfths we are being asked to grant nine twelfths, four twelfths and three twelfths in some instances as well as two twelfths for certain departments.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I could go into this matter in some detail if the hon. member would like me to. In some instances it has always been the case on interim supply motions that amounts of cash are needed to a greater extent than two twelfths. For example, the total expenditure for a particular appropriation might have to be made in the month of April. The items listed here for which more than two twelfths are being asked are items in respect of which expenditures or large portions of them will have to be made by the end of May. We will therefore have to exceed two twelfths in order to meet current accounts which come due.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A to D inclusive agreed to.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
On Schedule E-
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question on schedule E? If the minister's
March 25. 1966

statement of a short while ago was correct- and I am not quarrelling with it-and in view of the fact that it has been customary to pass two twelfths at this period of the year, why in schedule E is the amount being granted only one twelfth of the various totals affecting 11 departments?


Edgar John Benson: The reason that one twelfth is being granted, I would presume-and I shall be pleased to look into this question further for the hon. member-is that it is anticipated that for these particular departments only one twelfth will be spent by the end of May. This is exactly the opposite of the situation which the hon. member raised with regard to clause 2.
In some cases you may have to spend a little more or a great deal more than two twelfths because the bills fall due faster. In other instances you are not expecting to make expenditures up to the normal two twelfths so you do not ask for two twelfths. In other words, you are only asking for the amount of money that is absolutely necessary to carry on the business of the country until May 31.
If the hon. member will look at the record of interim supply in previous years I think he will find that exactly the same course was followed in previous years. The departments generally ask for and receive two twelfths. In some instances they ask for more and in other instances less. I could get the explanation with respect to these items for the hon. member.


Mr, Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to hold up anything but on this issue can the minister tell us, in order that we may properly carry out our responsibilities, what will be the total amount involved in those items which are for more than two twelfths? If the information is not readily accessible that is all right, but I think this would go to the root of the issue. How many millions of dollars are involved in the items with regard to which we are going beyond the two twelfths which was the basis of the original request?


Edgar John Benson: I have now received an explanation with regard to schedule E. The one twelfth in schedule E is additional to the two twelfths generally appropriated. This is to carry over into a schedule the intention stated in clause 2. Two twelfths of all items amounts to $817,997,151 out of $870 million, so the difference between the $817,997,000
23033-201J
Supply-Agriculture
and the $870,275,000 is the amount which is in excess of two twelfths.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In other words, in schedule E you are really getting three twelfths?


Edgar John Benson: That is right. That carries on from the items the hon. member raised with respect to clause 2, items (b) to (f).


Gordon Minto Churchill: If I may refer back to schedule A, Mr. Chairman, the minister is not asking for any more there than just the nine twelfths or is the nine twelfths in addition?


Edgar John Benson: It would be nine twelfths plus two twelfths.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is eleven twelfths?


Edgar John Benson: Yes. If the hon. member reads the item he will see that this money is required in respect of the International Exposition in Montreal for harbour works which have to be completed and are expected to be completed by the end of May. It is a particular item with regard to which the total amount of work will be completed by that time. We are leaving one twelfth so there may be a full debate as to its propriety but these payments have to be made to the contractors of Expo.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Edgar John Benson: By leave, now.
Sone hon. Members: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of supply, supplementary estimates E for the financial year ending March 31, 1966; estimates of the Department of Agriculture, vote No. 17e.

March 25, 1966
Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, as an acknowledgement of the good grace of the hon. member for Hamilton West in forgoing his remarks on interim supply, may I suggest that with the approval of the committee we take up the Department of Labour item first. To my knowledge there are a number of members who wish to speak to certain items and in order to give them an opportunity of so doing at the beginning of the consideration of these supplementary estimates I suggest that we then deal with the item under transport, followed by finance, public works, Indian affairs and roads to resources, if this is agreeable to the committee.


Edgar John Benson: That is agreeable, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Chair is in some doubt as to the procedure suggested by the hon. member.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I suggested that with the agreement of the committee we proceed with the first item under labour to be followed by transport, finance, public works, Indian affairs and roads to resources and then consider the rest of the departments.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree that we proceed with the estimates of the Department of Labour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
le. General administration, $47,500.
Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the house leader and the hon. member for Ontario for allowing me the opportunity to make a few short remarks under the supplementary estimates of the Department of Labour with regard to the trucking strike. I should also like to thank the committee for permitting me to make these remarks.
I have very few remarks to make on the matter raised by the hon. member for York South with respect to the teamsters' strike. I have some personal knowledge of the strike and must admit that I and many other hon. members have been very discouraged by the fact that there has not been a settlement of this very costly strike by management and the teamsters' officials. There is no doubt that this strike is causing hardship to families and is also a serious matter so far as the economy of the country is concerned.
[The Chairman.]
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
I have discussed this matter with the Minister of Labour. I must agree to some extent with the hon. member for York South when he says that some of the discussions which have been held between management and the teamsters' officials have not been serious. They have broken down continuously. I was pleased to hear the Acting Minister of Labour state today that serious negotiations are now being conducted. I suggest to him that he should keep a close eye on this matter because unless proper negotiations are conducted within the next week the federal minister must take some part in bringing the parties together. He may do this through a conciliation officer or by calling the parties together in his office to discuss the matter. I have some personal knowledge of the problems because my associate in my law office in Hamilton has been doing work for the International Teamsters' Union.
I have asked him from time to time how negotiations were going and have been very discouraged to find that negotiations have been breaking down. There is no doubt that part of the difficulty involved lies in the fact that damages are being claimed against employees in the trucking industry because of what has been termed a wildcat strike. I think management perhaps does bear some responsibility because negotiations have not been handled in a serious way. I do not want anything I might say to jeopardize the situation but I believe the Minister of Labour has to keep a much closer eye on this situation. Perhaps he is doing so now but I suggest to him that if the negotiations which are now going on break down once again he should intervene and take part with the provincial minister in bringing the parties together.
In so far as the application of the Canadian Labour (Standards) Code is concerned, there have been some complaints with regard to the application of the 40 hour week to the trucking industry. There have been cases where the employees have not requested the 40-hour week apply to them. This is only one issue and there are many issues now. I will obtain some knowledge this week end about the advancement of negotiations. I certainly feel strongly that if negotiations break down again management will have to bear some responsibility and be answerable not only to the provincial minister but to the federal Minister of Labour.
March 25, 196G

I suggest, therefore, that after this coming week end I will have more personal knowledge of this matter, as no doubt the hon. member for York South will as well. As a result of my closeness to the situation I certainly feel that the employees of the trucking industry do have some serious complaints. We must consider the hardship on the families concerned and the possible damage to the economy of this country. Although I may not have contributed a great deal to the solution of the problem with these few brief remarks I say again that I do have some personal knowledge of this matter, and I trust the minister will give consideration to some of the relevant facts I have put forward.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something about this matter. Unfortunately I was not here an hour or so ago when the subject was first discussed. I hope that I do not repeat what has been said. I want to add my hope that the federal Minister of Labour will take a much more active part in settling this dispute which has had and will have very serious consequences for the economy of the province of Ontario. I suggest this not only because I think it is important that everything be done which can be done to settle this dispute but because I feel this dispute has arisen, continues and cannot be solved to a large extent because the federal Minister of Labour has not exercised the authority he now has.
During the last session of parliament we passed the Labour (Standards) Code. According to members on the other side the passage of this act would guarantee to all employees coming under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament certain basic minimums such as $1.25 per hour, time and a half for overtime and a 40 hour week. The 40 hour week was so good, that the government of Canada advertised it in a full page advertisement in the newspapers. Hon. members will recall we raised a question about this because the advertisement included a picture of the former minister of labour, but it was alleged this was just a drawing which looked remarkably like him.
Being a curious member of parliament, I put some questions on the order paper which were answered on February 2, 1966. Hon. members can find the questions and answers on page 573 of Hansard. One of the questions I asked was, how much money was spent on an advertising campaign to explain to the
Supply-Labour
Canadian people the provisions of the Canadian Labour (Standards) Code?
The answer revealed that the total amount spent on advertising was $185,000. I then asked for a breakdown of how the money was spent as between daily newspapers, weeklies, radio and so on. I do not believe that is important, Mr. Chairman. What is important is that the people of Canada spent $185,000 to explain what a wonderful act we had. I would not have minded if the Liberal Party had spent its own campaign funds. However, the people of Canada spent $185,000 so that they could be told that this was one of the best acts passed by any government in the world.
This act was passed, as I recall, virtually unanimously. Nobody questioned the fact that it would take some time for adjustments to be made. The minister was given 18 months during which time the industries affected could ask for a deferment and the minister could give them a deferment to work out the details. One reason the teamsters are striking is their desire to have a 40 hour week. I do not know how many times since this session started the Minister of Labour has been asked by the hon. member for York South, by myself, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and members of other parties when he would proclaim this section of the act. Would it take a full 18 months? Would it take less than that or would he come back and ask for an extension of that time? I recall on one occasion asking the minister if he was aware of the fact that his own deputy, in a meeting with the railway unions, assured the railway unions that this section of the act would be proclaimed very shortly. The minister said he was aware of it, but the best answer we have been able to get so far is that he is studying the matter.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
There are thousands of people on strike, Mr. Chairman. The whole business of shipping goods in a large part of Ontario is being made extremely difficult owing to the strike. I am not suggesting that the minister proclaim the 40 hour week section right away, though I think he should have done so by now. But if the minister would make a decision and announce that the section of the act will come into force on July 1 or on September 1, then the workers concerned, their union and the industry would know. I believe this problem would then no longer be part of the difficulty and differences between the workers and their union on the one side

March 25. 1966
Supply-Labour
and the industry on the other side. I think it is a disgrace and negligence of the worst kind that the minister has not only not proclaimed that section of the act but, more than that, has refused to give any indication when he will act in that regard.
The minister is not in the house at the moment and neither is the acting minister, but if they have not recently done so I think they should take another look at the speeches which they made when the legislation was introduced. They should note the importance which they gave to the act and should look at what they promised the people of the country who would be affected by the act. I suggest they stop studying questions which they surely must have studied in detail before introducing the code; otherwise they would be guilty of a most cynical attitude toward both this house and the people of Canada. I cannot believe that they really did not study the implications of the legislation which was introduced with such great fanfare. I cannot believe that they did not have a pretty good idea that it would affect both the workers and the companies involved. I am sure they did.
I do not know what pressures are being exerted on the Minister of Labour to postpone the implementation of the provisions of the code but I think he should do the job he is required to do by law and either proclaim this section now or announce the date when its provisions will come into effect.
If he does that, Mr. Chairman, I am sure, echoing the sentiment expressed by the hon. member for Hamilton West, that the chances for an early settlement will be immeasurably improved. I hope that before many days pass we will get some action instead of the kind of stalling we have had from the Minister of Labour.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, just a few words following the remarks made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and also those made at noon by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) about the teamsters who are on strike in Ontario.
Both hon. members concerned urged the government and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) to enforce the section of the federal legislation concerning the 40 hour week.
I asked the hon. member for York South what were the hours of work before the strike.

They varied between 42, 43 and 48 hours a week. What I find strange is that not so long ago, about a week ago or at the beginning of this week, both hon. members protested against the increase in the cost of living and asked that a price control board be set up in Canada to prevent such increases. Today, the government is urged to intervene in that labour conflict which has been going on for nine weeks, so that the regular work week will be reduced to 40 hours and time and a half will be paid after 40 hours.
How can they reconcile their anti-inflation policy in their opposition to increases in the cost of living and their price and salary control policy, on the one hand, and their asking the government to help increase the salaries and income of the workers, in this case truck drivers in the province of Ontario, on the other?
Those people often like, Mr. Chairman, to quote as examples countries like Russia and Czechoslovakia where everyone works, where there is full employment. Well, I went to Russia and Czechoslovakia last year and I found that, after 50 years of communist rule in Russia, the work week was 46 hours and the right to strike did not exist.
When the workers protest against the boss which is the government everywhere, they can be condemned to hang or to other forms of punishment by that same government.
Mr. Chairman, the Ralliement Creditiste is certainly in favour of workers living decently and enjoying better working conditions throughout Canada.
Although this question of labour is primarily one of provincial jurisdiction, Quebec coming under the provincial government of Quebec and Ontario under the provincial government of Ontario, first representations should be made to the provincial authorities and not to the federal. The federal authorities should be called upon last but not with a view to initiating certain steps or recommendations.
The member for York South made another point this morning, to the effect that after nine weeks of strike, they complain that their wives and children are suffering hardships. That is not the fault of truck owners, the Ontario government, nor that of Ottawa. I say and I repeat, that the ones to be blamed are those labour leaders who spend their time rousing employees against the employers. Instead of acting as conciliators between labour and management, they distribute boxing gloves to both groups, so that hatred is
March 25, 1966

Supply-Labour
fostered as much as possible between employers and employees.
If strike promoters in Canada could prove to me that a strike has solved labour problems, then I would fall into step with them. Never, anywhere in the world, has a strike solved any labour problem. Still, labour leaders strive constantly to maintain misunderstanding between management and labour. To what advantage? To whose advantage? For the benefit of people who, as in Russia, have established a government which is the absolute master of all and without whose permission no one can act freely or decide for himself.
Mr. Chairman, many people contended in the past, that I was opposed to trade unions, that I fought them. No. I am all for unions, but I say that blue-collar and white-collar workers, in short all social classes must be represented by a competent union, to speak on their behalf. I am not for certain organizations working against others. No. I favour an organization which serves the best interests of its membership, which assists its membership, which, in short, is a conciliatory organization, not a boxing or wrestling organization. Those class struggles are what we are strongly against, in any province, indeed in Canada.
We also oppose those allegations or those positions adopted by the members of the New Democratic party, who often advocate salary increases and higher standards of living for workers. We agree, but let them try to reach agreement, to submit a logical policy of what they want for the worker, for the Canadian people as a whole.
We cannot, on the one hand, raise the price of goods and, on the other, say that we want to fight inflation, just as we cannot keep on raising salaries, which enter in the cost of operations, of merchandise or consumer goods, without causing inflation or without going around in circles, as I said recently. Mr. Chairman, let those people try to be logical with themselves, in their proposals.
Unions are necessary, but there are union leaders in Canada who are less than necessary, who are even detrimental to understanding in this country, who spend their time stirring the various classes of the population, instead of enlightening them. As a matter of fact, all strikes, without exception, have been detrimental to those who took part in them or supported them. And strikes have been occurring in every sphere of the economic activity of our country.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
In fact, there almost was a strike of Quebec civil servants which was fortunately averted at the last minute. However, this strike will result in higher taxes in the province of Quebec. Because of this increase in taxes, some people-and we too-will cry out against the higher cost of living and the threat of inflation. Why? Because we know that under our present system, it is impossible to find an acceptable solution likely to improve the standard of living of Canadians without increasing the cost of living.
The standard of living of Canadians is being raised today, but immediately or within a few days or a few weeks, the cost of living will be just as high as before. So, nothing has been gained, and we have been going around in circles like this for at least 25 years.
It is funny, Mr. Chairman. While no solution has been found to help our workers, our organizations, our industrialists, in short, the entire population, in the same breath, the government, through the Departments of Public Works, of National Revenue or of Finance, when it is not the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) himself, comes to the assistance of underdeveloped countries.
This morning, I asked the government where will be found the funds required to loan $1,717,000, without interest, to the government of Ceylon in order to help or complete the modernizing of an airport in that country.
We can do it for others, and I wonder why it cannot be done for our country. Why is the government powerless to help the municipalities, the provinces, the school boards of our country, in short, to help the workers, the white collar workers, the Canadians who toil and build this country?
It seems that when we put a question to find out the reason for the government's inaction or why they do not use the Bank of Canada to finance without interest the needs of the provinces and the municipalities, as they do for other countries, it seems that we never have the right to ask these questions.
We can ask questions about the teamsters, about the truck drivers who are not making enough wages, who are working too many hours, but we may not ask questions concerning our financial or monetary system, which is very well operated to help the underdeveloped countries of the world but is not at all suitable to help the Canadian people.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further comments on item le of the labour department, but I

March 25, 19G6
Supply-Labour
trust that in the future, the government will act in accordance with the needs of our population and that we will not give credence to the attitude of those who on the one hand, show their opposition to increased cost of living but who, on the other hand, will in no way prevent an increase in salaries which bears directly on the cost of operations or goods in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, the Ralliement Creditiste is proposing a solution just as logical as that of the present government which has set up a program to assist certain underdeveloped countries of the world. We do not intend to minimize what the present government is doing for those countries. In fact, kindly note that we are not objecting to helping others, but we are objecting to the failure to help, first, Canadian citizens who are building and developing this country. We believe that we should legislate to their benefit and to ensure security on a par with the utmost freedom.
1English1


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the item carry?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, we are hopelessly lost. We are shooting through this very rapidly. Can you tell us where we are?


Edgar John Benson: Under the Department of Labour there is only one vote, vote le in the supplementary estimates.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee is agreed that we should take the supplementary estimates under the headings I suggested, namely, Labour, Transport, Defence, Public Works, Indian Affairs and so on. So that the committee will know exactly what item is being called, I wonder whether the Chair would be good enough to call out the number of the vote and the department because we are jumping from place to place. I suggest that that course be followed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. It was the understanding of the Chair that the agreement was that we should deal with the estimates having to do with the Department of Labour. Up to this point the Chair has called nothing but the Department of Labour. If the committee wishes to do anything else the Chair would be very pleased to be so advised. Until the Chair is advised differently by the committee the committee is still on the Department of Labour.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, you called a number of items and carried them. So far as these supplementary estimates are concerned there
[Mr. Caouette.l
is only item le under the Department of Labour. What were the other numbers that the Chair was calling?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. After item le of the Department of Labour item 15e was called which has to do with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This is under the Department of Labour. It was my understanding that we were to complete the supplementary estimates of the Department of Labour.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Because we are jumping from page to page of the estimates, would the Chair be good enough to call the particular heading of the department concerned and the vote number?


Herman Maxwell Batten: May we proceed again to make sure that we are correct?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
[Stage Direction]
15e. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, pursuant to section 35 of the National Housing Act, 1954, for expenditures incurred during the period January 1, 1965 to December 31, 1965, for housing research and community planning as contemplated by Part V of the National Housing Act, 1954, $1,489,905.
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I am confused. I cannot find this vote at all.


Edgar John Benson: The difficulty arises because Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is listed in the final' supplementary estimates under Post Office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edgar John Benson: This was necessary in order to conform with the original estimates for 196566 when the present Minister of Labour was Postmaster General. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was under him. If the hon. member will turn to page 13 I think he will find the vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Labour for the year ending March 31, 1966.


An hon. Member:: And Post Office.


Herman Maxwell Batten: As agreed earlier the committee will now proceed to the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport vote 5e.
March 25. 1966

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Marine services-
5e. Administration, operation and maintenance, $210,000.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise an extremely important matter arising from an event which took place in Montreal harbour on September 14 of last year when in the early morning a ship of Canada Steamship Lines, the Fort William, lost her equilibrium-I think that is the proper term-or lost her stability and capsized. As a result there was a movement in the steel which was part of this vessel's cargo. This caused sparks and resulted in an explosion. The ship sank and the lives of five of the seamen aboard the ship were lost. Even though there was a commission of investigation into this tragedy I submit there is a certain guilt devolving upon Canada Steamship Lines and upon the Department of Transport and the government in general in connection with this tragedy.
It may be mere coincidence that for the past two days the house has been talking about murder. The circumstances of the event which took place on September 14 when the Fort William sank were not very far short of murder. Later I will make a few brief quotations from the report of the committee of investigation to indicate the extent of the guilt which I think exists with respect to this tragedy and the loss of the lives of these five sailors.
A court of investigation or committee of inquiry was set up under Mr. Justice H. F. Gibson. Before I read from the report of his findings I should like to make a comment or two about certain general matters which are also applicable to this particular investigation. In the first place, the unlicensed personnel of the ship, that is, the sailors, were not parties to the inquiry. It is true that some of them were called as witnesses but there is a distinction between being a party to an inquiry and simply appearing as a witness. The only parties to this formal investigation were Canada Steamship Lines, the master of the ship, Samuel Wilkinson, and the first, second and third mates.
Since the sailors were not parties to the inquiry they were not entitled to be represented by counsel and they were therefore not permitted the protection which counsel offers or should offer to people who appear before such inquiries. Because they were denied the right to their own counsel they were not able or may not have been able to tell the story of the tragedy from their point 23033-202
Supply-Transport
of view inasmuch as they were limited to answering questions by the commission and by counsel for the parties, namely, Canada Steamship Lines and the officers aboard the Fort William. Yet one of the individuals who appeared as a witness before this inquiry was on watch at the time the tragedy occurred and played an important role in it. This was the situation in the case we are considering and it is the situation with respect to other similar cases where sailors, unlicensed personnel, are denied the right to have counsel represent them at hearings of this kind. I say their rights and freedom are not fully protected.
Similarly, the widows of the five seamen, not being parties to the investigation, were unable to be represented by counsel even though the activities of their late husbands aboard the ship might have been brought into question. I think this is another failure on the part of the laws of Canada and in my opinion such groups should have the right to be parties to investigations of this kind and to be represented by counsel.
While we are dealing with this matter involving the widows in this particular tragedy there is something else I should like to bring to the attention of the committee, something which I think is a damnable insult to the widows of all sailors in Canada. It is something which should have been expunged from the statute books many years ago.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
I should like to quote from the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, chapter 178, section 41.
Where it is found by the board-
The board is the Merchant Seamen Compensation Board established under this act.
-that the widow to whom compensation has been awarded is a common prostitute or is openly living with any man in the relation of man and wife without being married to him, the compensation to such widow may be discontinued or suspended-
And so on. I Think it is most insulting that this should be found in the statute law of Canada because the implication is too clear to escape, namely, that all wives of sailors in this nation might become, as the act says, common prostitutes or might enter into a relationship with another man without being married to him.
That sort of archaic provision in our law should be removed. The Department of Veterans Affairs took steps in this direction some years ago not only to bring their law up

March 25, 1969
Supply-Transport
to date but also to recognize for the purpose of pensions the social fact in our society that men and women sometimes do live together without benefit of clergy. I say that all sailors' wives are placed in a position where a stigma is attached to them by this very section of the act. The widows of these unfortunate men who lost their lives because of the stinginess and lack of action on the part of the Canada Steamship Lines also are placed in the position of having this stigma attached to them. If we could repeal this provision now it would not be too soon.
So far as the amount of money accruing to the widows is concerned, $75 a month, it is insignificant compared with what is payable under the compensation laws that exist in my own province and other provinces.
I have expressed certain thoughts about the sinking of the ship itself. I should now like to refer to a few sections in Mr. Justice Gibson's report where he refers to the cause or causes of the capsizing and sinking and certain events leading up to it. With regard to the stability of the ship Mr. Justice Gibson says at page 6 of the report:
-it is probable that this vessel was properly loaded when it left Hamilton which is the last port at which cargo was taken aboard prior to its voyage to Montreal-except that too much weight was stowed in 'tween deck and on the spar deck with a minimum of ballast on board making the vessel tender and giving it a GM of 7 inches when it left Hamilton.
This is a technical reference to its degree of stability or instability. The reference to "tender" here is a common one when referring to a ship which is unstable or is on the verge of being topheavy and thus difficult to control. In subsequent parts of his report he deals more fully with this matter indicating that the ship listed to starboard and then to port and back again and this was corrected as a result of a considerable amount of effort in pumping water into the ballast tanks.
On page 8 of his report Mr. Justice Gibson has this to say with regard to the ballast. This is important and it is a contributing factor to the cause of the ship sinking. He speaks first about certain statistical information relating to the drums or tanks numerically and other matters. Then he says:
These facts are particularly significant as will appear later in this report because the action taken in respect to discharging some of this water ballast together with the opening of certain of the cargo doors in conjuncture was the cause of this casualty.

I should point out that the cargo doors to which he refers are 10 feet by 11 feet in diameter, that there are four of them on each side of the ship, that they are located in such a way as to be relatively close to the water line rather than on the top of the deck as is the case with ships that load and unload through cargo hatches, and that this was quite a contributing factor to this tragedy.
I want to point out now what occurred just prior to the ship capsizing and sinking. First, it pulled into the dock at Montreal in the early hours of the mornng around three o'clock. It takes about 20 minutes to tie up a ship of this kind. The crew is aroused from bed to come out on deck and assist in tieing up the ship, which they did. Canada Steamship Lines, by policy direction to its master, decided that they would use the seamen who had already been aroused to tie up the ship to open the cargo doors also, and they opened four on one side and two on the other. In this way Canada Steamship Lines got around having to pay extra for the opening of the doors.
Mr. Justice Gibson goes on to point out that it was this opening of the cargo doors which contributed to the sinking of the ship. I submit that Canada Steamship Lines was stingy in trying to save $12 which is what it would have cost to have left the cargo doors closed until such time as the load on the top deck had been taken off which affected the potential topheaviness. They should have left the doors closed at that time and waited until the longshore crew were there in the morning to open the doors after the load of steel on the top deck had been taken off. Twelve dollars equated with the lives of five Canadian sailors does not balance the scales so far as I am concerned.
One of the questions which the commission had posed to it related to the matter of the culpability which might be assessed to any person. Question No. 16 was:
Was the capsizing, fire and subsequent sinking of the Fort William caused or contributed to by the wrongful act or default of the owners, the master or any other person or persons?
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Mr. Justice Gibson's unequivocal answer was:
The owner for the reasons more specifically set out in the main body of the report.
He refers not to the master or any other person but to the owner, Canada Steamship Lines, which contributed to the capsizing, the
March 25, 1966

fire and the sinking of this ship by a wrongful act or default. There is no question in his mind at all about that aspect of it. Later he goes into this question further, as if there was any doubt about it, by referring to the opening of the cargo doors at the same time as the water was being pumped out of the ballast tanks in order to raise the ship in the water so the cargo doors and the top deck would be at the same level as the area of the dock for unloading purposes.
In regard to the pumping out of the ballast tanks in order that the ship would rise in the water Mr. Justice Gibson has something to say at page 21. Incidentally, in pumping out the water from the ballast tanks the ship not only rose but it became top heavy and consequently became unstable and tipped over. Mr. Justice Gibson says:
While the pumping abovementioned was taking place the cargo doors should have been left closed. It is of vital importance that the cargo doors be left closed and in the instant case even though the above suggested procedure of pumping tanks was not carried out, it is the opinion of R. P. Burnside, the expert called from the Department of Transport, that probably the vessel would not have capsized.
The assessors also advise and I accept their opinion that in the instant case also before any pumping was done and before the cargo doors were open the spar deck cargo should have been discharged first.
There is absolutely no question about that. He follows that up later by talking about the matter of pumping and the effect this had on the ship. On page 8 of the report he says:
As will appear later in this report it is what took place in connection with this pumping which created free surface water and caused this vessel to lose its equilibrium.
Let us consider what he means in terms of the construction of this ship. In the first place, it was built in a shipyard owned by Canada Steamship Lines, the same company which owned the vessel. It is interesting to note in this regard that the steamship line is going to be one of the greatest beneficiaries of the government's decision to reduce the vessel construction subsidy.
James Richardson and Sons refer to Canada Steamship Lines in dealing with this situation in a report in March, 1966, and state:
The government shipbuilding subsidy was reduced this January from 35 per cent to 25 per cent. Beginning January 1st, 1969, further reductions of 2 per cent will be made annually until the subsidy is reduced to 17 per cent. The cuts will place severe pressure on marginal yards and improve Canada Steamship Lines' competitive position.
Supply-Transport
Canada Steamship Lines owns the shipyard that built the Fort William.
It is considered normal and safe practice to have baffles placed in the ballast tanks in such a way that they are parallel to the keel of the ship. In other words, they run longitudinally so that when the water is in the process of being pumped out of the ship there will be an even distribution of weight contributing to the stability of the ship.
Mr. Justice Gibson says that as water is pumped out of the ballast tanks there is free surface water in the ballast tanks concentrated at one side of the bottom in the angle created by the keel and the hull of the ship. He says that this contributed to the list of the ship, be it on the port or starboard side. The free surface water would tend to move by the force of gravity to the side of the ship which was listing, thus contributing to its capsizing. So in effect the pumping out of these ballast tanks, because of faulty and unsafe construction of the ship, actually contributed to the ship capsizing by reason of the additional amount of weight on the listing side.
A very interesting part of this report deals with the loading of the ship. At page 10 and subsequent pages Mr. Justice Gibson points out that the master of the ship has no knowledge whatever of the loading of the ship, its cargo, the weight of the cargo or the manner in which the cargo is loaded. No officer is in a position to have sufficient knowledge about the cargo to assess the degree of stability or instability of the ship as a result of the loading of the cargo.
Mr. Justice Gibson refers to the loading and stowing of cargo and on page 10 he says:
The evidence clearly indicates that the shed for-men and the terminal superintendents at the various ports in the waters where this vessel traded loaded this vessel and all vessels of the owner. The vessel's officers in the practice of this trade carried on by the owner had practically nothing to say about the loading of cargo on this vessel. Clearly the vessel's officers did not know at any time prior to visiting any port the nature of the cargo to be loaded or its weight.
He expands on this point and states at page 11:
As a consequence, the seaworthiness of this vessel at any material time after loading was for all practical purposes assumed by the shore personnel.
As a result, the master or the first mate at any material time was left in almost difficult if not an impossible position in so far as being provided with adequate information to enable them or either of them to make any precise calculation of the stability of the vessel.

March 25. 1966
Supply-Transport
At page 12 in reference to written orders as to loading of the vessels he states:
There were no written standing orders regarding the loading of the vessel or the seaworthiness of the vessel after loading. The only written orders from the owners were concerning proper stowage of cargo to avoid claims for cargo damage from third parties.
There was no concern about the seaworthiness of the ship. There was no concern about the lives of the people who sailed her and no concern whatsoever about humanity. Apparently the only concern was in respect of dollars and cents. As the result of the exercise of that selfish attitude Canada Steamship Lines participated in the murder of five sailors on September 14, 1965.
I could go on and read other extracts from this report about loading and causes contributing to this accident, all of which would be expansions of those factors to which I have referred.
There is another matter regarding the manning of this ship to which I want to refer. Up until three years ago there was a certain minimum standard in regard to ship personnel. Three years ago Canada Steamship Lines decided that it had sufficient crews on its ships if they had one deck officer, which is all they had in this case, one wheelsman, which is all they had in this case, and one engineer, which is all they had in this case. They only had three officers, the deck officer, the wheelsmen and the engineer.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Let us see what happened after the ship had tied up. Orders were issued to start pumping out the ballast tanks in order that the ship would rise and be level with the area of the dock for purposes of unloading. Unloading was to start at seven o'clock that morning, some three hours later. The wheelsman, who I think had worked four days for that company, was on deck supervising the pumping of the ballast tanks. The engineer was down in the engineroom operating the pumps. There was a telephone at the control panel in the engineroom. There are sets of pumps in the engineroom for the ballast tanks, one set on the port side and one on the starboard side.
When the instructions were given to start pumping certain tanks, because the ship was so tender, in other words, so close to its equilibrium being upset because of the topheaviness of the cargo, the wheelsman on deck by telephone communication with the engineer-incidentally, the deck officer was

not paying any attention to what was going on; he was carrying out his duties and making up the manifest-said that the engineer could start pumping a certain tank. The engineer had to take that communication on the telephone, go down some steps in the engineroom and proceed to the particular area where the controls for the pumps were located.
As the engineer started to pump on one side the ship heeled over because as water was removed from the ballast tanks the ship rose in the water, lost its equilibrium and the topheaviness of the ship became more pronounced. The order was then issued by the wheelsman to stop pumping on that side and start pumping on the other side.
The engineer had to run up from one set of pumps, answer the telephone, go down to the other set of pumps and start them and carry on this process, all the while contributing to the death of five people because of the instructions and the stinginess of Canada Steamship Lines. I will not go into any more detail on this matter because I am sure it is easy for hon. members to see that with the deck officer busy with the manifest, one man up on deck watching the ship from side to side and one engineer in the engine room trying to operate the pumps, the ship being in a condition of tenderness which was known ever since the ship had left Hamilton, they could do nothing else but capsize the vessel if they persisted in carrying out the order to pump out those tanks, which they did. When the vessel listed over far enough on one side water entered the open cargo hatches and contributed further to the capsizing of the vessel. Canada Steamship Lines, guilty as they are, did not even have their wrists slapped because they were simply ordered to pay money.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The time allotted for the hon. member's speech has expired.


Mr. Hopkins:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad we have got the cargo loaded and unloaded on that particular ship. I have been waiting for two and a half hours to try to start building an airport. In previous speeches I have had the opportunity of delivering in this house I have outlined many of the problems that exist in the upper Ottawa valley in general and in Renfrew county in particular. I should like to say that I appreciate the sympathetic hearing I have received from the ministers concerned with these matters.
March 25, 1966

At Chalk River in Renfrew North we have the plant of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Because of the nature of this plant many scientists find it necessary on various occasions to travel to and from conferences at the plant. Personnel come to the plant from various universities not only in Canada but abroad. This necessitates a requirement for an improvement in transportation and particularly more rapid transportation. An airport is the transportation facility which I have in mind.
Twelve miles from the Atomic Energy plant at Chalk River there is the Petawawa military camp which is now the home base for the special mobile force. The existing facilities at Petawawa military base are being improved and repaired but there is a great possibility that more adequate air facilities will be needed for a camp such as is planned at Petawawa. In previous speeches I have also informed the house that we lack adequate transportation into and out of the area. This is a great hinderance to the business community.
With all these factors in mind, more adequate transportation for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., more adequate transportation for the military base at Camp Petawawa -both these enterprises are of great importance to our area-and the need for more rapid transportation for the business community, I should like to impress upon the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence the importance of this facility and ask them to take into very serious consideration the establishment of perhaps a joint Department of Transport-Department of National Defence airport in the Pembroke-Petawawa-Deep River area.
At the present time there is a small airport in this area but its facilities are certainly not capable of handling traffic of the nature that I have been discussing. I do not know whether there have been precedents in the past whereby governments have entered into arrangements with private enterprise to develop air bases, but if this is the case there is certainly the potential in the area to warrant such a development. The management are more than willing to expand their facilities and co-operate in any way possible. If the Prime Minister and the ministers concerned would take this suggestion into consideration and at some future date put it into effect,
Supply-Transport
the people of Renfrew county would indeed be grateful.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, as a new member of the house I may take a minute of its time to deal with a matter of a different nature. I should like to address my remarks to every member in this chamber. As a new member I should like to compliment my colleagues upon the greatly improved attitude of mind that has existed here during the past week. It would be a wonderful situation if we could at all times sit in this house and make progress in matters that vitally affect our nation such as national unity, the future of the Canadian people and the dignity of this nation in the eyes of the world. These matters should be taken to heart by us at all times.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
As a young member of the house I should like to appeal to all my colleagues to face up to 1967 with a co-operative, humanitarian attitude, one that has only the best interests of our nation and the future of Canada and her people at heart. After our one hundredth birthday the people of Canada can then look back and say that while the twenty seventh parliament ran into some severe difficulties the members of that parliament had the ability to pick up the pieces and go on in a spirit of co-operation and national unity for the benefit of Canada as a whole and that they did indeed show the world that the Canadian people have initiative and drive and that we can live up to the humanitarian principles involved in the various religious faiths to which we belong.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that my colleagues were touched by the passionate appeal from the hon. member who just resumed his seat.
For my part, you may be assured of my co-operation if ever you should need it.
With regard to the estimates of the Department of Transport, I should like to make a few comments that could apply to all departments, all crown corporations and all public corporations.

For the last 15 years, Mr. Chairman, the municipal councils, Chambers of Commerce, both junior and senior, and the school boards of my home town and riding have been writing to the various federal departments to underline the fact that the name of my home city is Trois-Rivieres. This is true even in

Maich 25. 1966
Supply-Transport
spite of the English version because the city is incorporated under the name of Trois-Rivieres. A proper name is not translated and it is a grammatical error to translate a proper name. For instance, the name of our Speaker is Mr. Lamoureux but I would not speak of him in English as Mr. Lover. Mr. Batten is an English name but 1 would not call him Mr. Planchette if I were speaking French to him. We have a minister by the name of Mr. Winters but I would not call him Mr. Hiver if I were speaking to him in French. The name of my riding is Trois-Rivieres and I do not know how many hundred times we have to emphasize that fact.


Mr. Deachman:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Yes, sir.


Grant Deachman: I wonder why it is then that so many people from the province of Quebec insist on calling my fair city "Van-couvair"?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: The hon. member should realize that this is perhaps because they are not used to the English pronunciation. When I speak English I call it Vancouver. I say "Paree" in French but I say "Paris" in English. If I want to speak to Mr. Lamontagne I do not call him Mr. Mountain in English, This is a mistake.
I know that many people from my riding have written to ministers about this name. I have several times communicated with the Minister of Transport about this mistake. I should like the ministers to give their departments instructions about the proper name.


Frank Howard: May I rise on a question of privilege? My question of privilege relates to the hon. member for Renfrew North. I wanted to ask the hon. member not to leave his place because he made some comments at the opening of his speech with which I feel I must deal. I should like to have him present when I reply and I see he is about to leave. I would appreciate it if he remained.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. May I suggest that there is no question of privilege here? If the hon. member wishes to communicate with another hon. member he should do so by some other means rather than through the Chair.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that the comment I have just made

was not inspired by narrow-mindedness. My hon. colleagues will realize that, even if our city is the second largest French speaking city in North America, its people took the trouble to learn English and to speak it well enough to communicate with our fellow-citizens in all the other provinces.
But the pride we show in wanting our city's name to be expressed in our mother tongue should not be held against us.
If I mention that while the estimates of the Department of Transport are being discussed, it is because I am afforded the opportunity. However, I should like to make the same comment with regard to all departments and I shall deem it my duty, in the next few days, to send a letter or memo to all ministers asking them to kindly give the required instructions so that the name of my home town and of my constituency are not to be changed at every opportunity.
You see it on trucks, in literature, in correspondence, and it does not please the people, even those who are English speaking.
Mr. Chairman, I listened a little earlier to the hon. member who was asking the Department of Transport to give him an airport in his region. I told him he could count on my co-operation, if it could be useful to him; it was promising him a lot. I just want to say that he is perfectly right. We are getting deeper and deeper into the century of aviation. I say that not only to support his request, because I know very well that it is important for the economy of the country, but also to point out that I have had previously the occasion to mention that we have a magnificent airport in Trois-Rivieres and that it would be important to extend the runway in the months to come, in view of Expo '67, as mentioned a little earlier by my hon. friend.
The airport in Trois-Rivieres will necessarily become an auxiliary airport for Montreal because the airports in Montreal will not be sufficient while Expo '67 is on.
We are about 80 miles from Montreal but there is no doubt that the big airliners coming from all over the world will be rerouted either to Trois-Rivieres or Sherbrooke.
The runway at our airport is 6,000 feet long. It is known that a length of 8,000 feet is required to accommodate some of those big airliners.
I would ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) for the second or third time to grant special attention to that request to
March 25, 1966

extend the runway in order to improve the situation in view of the needs for Expo '67.
I have something else to say but I will not be long. It is about the problem-and again I am bringing it up for the third time, I wrote and will write again about it until the problem is solved-which concerns my riding as well as the country's economy, since it is about our elevators and our grain which is shipped throughout the world, that grain which comes from the west and is shipped by railway. Operations have been going on at full capacity for several years. But over the last few months a misunderstanding has been dividing the administrators of the grain elevators and the municipality of Trois-Rivieres, concerning which the Minister of Transport has already intervened, since a delegation of the National Harbours Board came to our city to meet the municipal council and the parties concerned.
But things drag on. We have yet to find a solution. Not that I want to insinuate that the Department of Transport or the National Harbours Board are solely to blame. It is possible, though I do not wish to pass judgment, that the municipality did not act as diligently as it should have, but the fact remains that the problem with regard to the operations of our grain elevators is acute.
An important sector of our economy in greater Trois-Rivieres and the area, as well as an important part of the services which export western wheat through our area, are being jeopardized by this imbroglio.
I should like to insist again with the minister that he use all his influence with a view to expediting, if at all possible, the solution to the problems of grain elevators at Trois-Rivieres.
Another point, Mr. Chairman, and I shall resume my seat. I apologize for insisting, but we, newcomers, are precisely taking advantage of the fact that our audience is enthusiastic in the house to express our complaints.
We already had the opportunity to refer to an appointment made by the National Harbours Board. The manager of national harbours was appointed and, at the time, I maintained the appointment smacked of patronage or protection if you prefer. I am of those who believe appointments should be made according to certain standards.
For instance, I feel that within the public service qualifications and seniority should be taken into account. But if they are not, Mr. Chairman, if there is to be patronage in my
Supply-Transport
riding, then, I want to be the one to dispense favours, and I do not want to leave it to public servants; my stand is as simple and clear as that.
But still I advocate the observance of some standards which, for instance, are accepted in the civil service, that is that account be taken of the experience, education and number of years of service of the candidate. With this, I agree.
Now, I say that, until otherwise proven, this is not what was done in the appointment of a national harbours board manager at Trois-Rivieres.
There are, at the national harbours board, several employees with 10, 15 and 20 years of service, while the appointee had only five.
I was told, on one occasion, that he was an engineer and that, because of developments in the port of Trois-Rivieres, it was imperative that he should be an engineer.
I know engineers with 10, 12 or 15 years experience at the national harbours board who would have filled that position more ably.
There is something I do not understand about this appointment, and I intend to talk about it, not because I have something against the present incumbent-I realize he must make a living like everybody else-but because I know that there is involved, Mr. Chairman, a matter of principle that has always been recognized in this house, that is promotions and appointments must be on the basis of qualifications, experience and seniority. And I would like the same process to apply in this case as in all other cases. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
[English!


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I want to make one comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Renfrew North and ask, him to reflect, if he would, on what he said at the beginning of his remarks. I say this for fear of his own safety. I have been dealing with the matter of safety on ships but if his comments remain on Hansard in the way he said them I think they could leave him open to a great deal of criticism. I am sure he did not meant to impart what I took from his remarks.
I think I have almost his exact words. He said he was glad that the ship to which I had been making reference had had its cargo loaded and unloaded because he had been waiting for some two and a half hours to

March 25, 1966
Supply-Transport
make a comment about an airport, I would simply point out to the hon. member that I would not want the impression to get abroad that he was disdainful of or disinterested in this ship and what took place with regard to it. I point out to him that the cargo of that ship was unloaded but in a most tragic fashion.
The ship listed to one side, dumping some of the cargo into the water and the rest of it between decks to one side of the ship thus bringing about sparks, an explosion, the death of five people and the sinking of the ship. That is the manner in which the cargo was unloaded and I merely mention it in the hope that the hon. member will, if he so desires, reflect on what he said and at some subsequent time clear up what may be a very bad interpretation placed on his remarks. I would not want people to think unkindly of him as a result of those remarks having appeared on Hansard.
Before my time expired earlier I had got to the stage of the imposition of penalties by the court of investigation into the sinking of the Fort William. A penalty was imposed on Canada Steamship Lines which was found to be negligent in its operation of the ship. As a penalty the court ordered the owner to pay part of the costs of investigation up to $10,000.
I submit that that is not even a slap on the wrist to a company like the Canada Steamship Lines with profits ranging into millions of dollars. That sort of penalty for its actions is really nothing more than a licence fee for that company to carry on in the same fashion of having its ships loaded at ports without the master or the mates of the ships having any knowledge of the distribution of the weight load. It is a licence fee for that company to continue to cut back on the manning of its ships and the watches on those ships to the point where they are manned by skeleton crews. It is a licence fee for that company to continue to build ships which are unsafe and in some conditions unmanageable. It is a licence fee for that company to continue to exploit its sailors all for the almighty buck. It is a licence fee for that company to continue its composite practices to the end that we may have another tragedy such as that which struck the Fort William and the people who worked upon her.
Perhaps no retroactive action can be taken but something can be done for the future. I said earlier that there was guilt on the part of the company. The court of investigation

under Mr. Justice Gibson proved that conclusively, and their guilt was set out throughout his report. I also think there is guilt on the part of the Minister of Transport and the government.
I notice that the hon. gentleman who in Hansard is referred to as Member of the Administration but who in common parlance is referred to as Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, is in the house. I understand that somehow he is an adjunct to the Minister or to the Department of Transport, so I hope that some time during the consideration of these estimates he will make some declaration of policy and interest on behalf of the government with respect to this matter.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I think that the government and the Minister of Transport are at least guilty of disinterest in having refused so far to promulgate regulations under section 410, if my memory serves me correctly, of the Canada Shipping Act in connection with manning requirements on ships. I think that the tragedy to which I have referred today shows conclusively that if there had been a sufficient minimum watch requirement on ships and one further unlicensed member of the crew had been on watch at four o'clock on the morning of September 14, perhaps this tragedy would not have occurred. Perhaps the lives of the five sailors would have been saved.
The statement of the wheelsman who was on watch was to the effect that if there had been one other person on watch with him he would have sent that other person to awaken the crew and prepare them to abandon ship because he sensed very clearly the tragedy which was about to happen. In his statement he indicated, as others had, that he was very scared. Some members of the crew were not even desirous of going to bed that night because of the situation which had prevailed on the ship ever since it left Hamilton. The situation was such that when they pulled up at the dock at Iroquois locks they were ordered by one of the officers controlling the locks to pull alongside and stabilize the ship or they would have to weigh anchor. He would not let the ship go through the locks. The crew had to pump all the ballast tanks full in order to put the ship low enough in the water for it to be stable.
The wheelsman and other crew members knew of the instability of the ship. They
March 25, 1966

knew of the potential danger and expressed concern when the order was given to pump out the ballast tanks with the cargo doors open. They knew what might result. If there had been one other person on the ship, if minimum manning requirements on a minimum basis had been established by the minister and the government under section 4(10) of the Canada Shipping Act, which specifically gives the government the right to make such regulations, perhaps the lives of five people would have been saved.
I say that the government is guilty of disinterest, if not of outright negligence, in procrastinating on the question of manning requirements under the Canada Shipping Act.
I say that the government is guilty of disinterest in allowing an almost archaic Canada Shipping Act to remain on the statute books. The Canada Shipping Act provisions are responsible partly for the type of court of investigation. The act is responsible for the fact that certain unlicensed personnel on that ship were not permitted to appear before that court as parties and accordingly were not permitted to have counsel represent them. This is partly the result of having a Canada Shipping Act which is long overdue for overhaul.
To give an example of what I mean, I was reading a section of the act in which there is reference to certain types of screwdriven and other steamships which, on August 26, 1889, had certain factors attributable to them and the section specifies that they shall be dealt with in a certain way. Mr. Chairman, 1889, is a long time ago. I doubt that any ships that were plying the lakes in 1889 are currently plying the St. Lawrence or any of the waters of Canada or any other trade routes. Provisions of this sort are found in the Canada Shipping Act. The one to which I have referred is indicative of sections throughout the act which are absolutely archaic and which relate to the time of Admiral Nelson of the British navy.
The act is completely out of date. It does not take cognizance of current day shipping factors and it should be overhauled. The act should be cleaned out from stem to stern and brought up to date.
I say that there is a clear and unequivocal responsibility upon the shoulders of the government to do this. The Minister without Portfolio is here and, to use his own words, he was seconded by minister or by the department. I do not know which statement
Supply-Transport
would be more applicable. I think there is a responsibility upon the hon. gentleman to give some indication to the committee what the government's or his own intentions are with respect to studying and modernizing the Canada Shipping Act.
I think there is also a responsibility devolving perhaps not on him but on the government with respect to the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act which in a denigrating way refers to the widows of sailors and classifies them as potentially common tarts. This is the sort of inheritance in our law that should be removed so that we can have an up to date Canada Shipping Act which takes cognizance of the matters I have mentioned with which we are concerned. In particular and overriding all else, there must be established some sort of accident prevention rules or safety precaution methods. The lives of Canadians are involved in the Canada Shipping Act. Five lives were lost on September 14, 1965, because of arrogant stinginess and negligence on the part of Canada Steamship Lines and because of disinterest on the part of this and other governments.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Skeena and also to indicate that members of the house are going to have to give consideration to safety on the Great Lakes. The Minister without Portfolio has spoken to the house about the problem of safety and that, of course, is probably where I came in.
I attended a meeting not long ago that the minster arranged. It was of a fairly technical nature and the discussion concerned safety on the Great Lakes. I was surprised to find that the shipping companies, the pilots, the representatives of the S.I.U., the tug boat companies, the representative of the people concerned with shipping on both the Great Lakes and the seaway, were pretty well in agreement as to what should be done. They said what ought to be done was going to cost the government some money. They were talking of providing v.h.f. radio equipment immediately for the beginning of the season.
What really surprised and shocked me was that the Department of Transport said, "No, no, no" or "but, but, but". Everybody else agreed that certain things should be done in this way or that way. However, immediately that was said the deputy minister jumped up and said: But we cannot do it for this reason or for that reason. Finally he made the idiotic

March 25, 1966
Supply-Transport
statement that we did not own the waterway, that everything below Montreal is in international waters and the government of Canada can do nothing about it.
If this is true, I think the hon. member who spoke-I believe he is from Three Rivers-will find himself in one of the areas far beyond-


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: May I ask a question?


William Arnold Peters: Wait till I finish-he will find himself in the position of being on the international waterway and not on what we consider to be the St. Lawrence Seaway. If we cannot call it the seaway we can call it the St. Lawrence riverway, which we believe falls within the jurisdiction of the government of Canada.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Would you please allow a question? When the hon. member referred to Three Rivers did he mean my constituency? As I said when I spoke, it is Trois-Rivieres.


William Arnold Peters: I stand corrected. It is Trois-Rivieres. If what the deputy minister said was true I presume that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, being in an area below Montreal, would obviously be outside the federal jurisdiction. This might not matter to many members of parliament because most of them do not represent maritime areas. However, I was shocked to find representatives of the S.I.U. saying something which nobody has corrected if it is wrong. They said that over 10 per cent of S.I.U. members working on the Great Lakes last year were casualties. In other words, there were accidents to more than 10 per cent of all the people that the S.I.U. represented.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Can you think of any other group of workers in any other field of endeavour who would accept one out of every ten employees in that industry being injured?
I think this is a record of which we certainly cannot be proud. The first thing is to convince the Department of Transport of the need to do something about it. I have listened to the technical arguments. I am no expert but I do know what was said was really an excuse for inaction. We were talking about something which would cost, at the extreme, not more than $50,000. I do not know how much the Minister of Transport considers the life of one seaman to be worth, but on this one ship which my hon. friend from Skeena was talking about, five lives 
were lost and I do not think anyone here would wish to put a price on those lives. I am not saying, of course, that expenditures in the interest of safety could have prevented this particular tragedy. Nevertheless I have read reports which strongly suggest that safer conditions generally would be brought about if there were a more positive program on the part of the department.
It surprised me to learn there are no logs kept on ships engaged in Great Lakes traffic. If I were, say, an able seaman on a ship sailing outside the Great Lakes I would be in a position to make a complaint about the condition of any part of the ship which fell within my own responsibility. I could have an entry made in the ship's log accordingly and my own responsibility would be removed or diminished. The subject of the complaint would then become a matter for investigation and action by a higher authority. But the Department of Transport does not license ships on the Great Lakes. Mr. Chairman, your wife could go down and become a helmsman on the Great Lakes as long as somebody would hire her. And if the price was right, they probably would.
If I had sailed for 20 years on the lakes and it appeared to me that a certain ship was unsafe, do hon. members know what I would have to do? I would have to go to a customs officer, ask for an inspection and deposit total demurrage in respect of the time the ship was laid up awaiting and undergoing inspection. I would have to put up $20,000 in cash before I could ask for an inspection, no matter what my qualifications might be.
My hon. friend from Skeena has pointed out what happens when an inquiry is held. The seamen have no right to counsel; they have no right to cross-examine. This has been the case for years under the mining act in Ontario which has long been considered to be an archaic piece of legislation designed to protect the companies rather than the workers. Under that legislation, too, the miners were never asked the questions necessary to elicit answers upon which a reasonable conclusion could be based. They were asked questions by the inspectors, who were always considered to be acting in the interest of the mining companies rather than of the miners. They only asked questions which were likely to produce the answers they wanted to hear. In the case which was brought to our attention by my hon. friend, the employees are similarly not given any right to cross-examine and the information they are able to give
March 25, 1966

is seldom presented, unless by accident when an inquiry officer makes a mistake.
This is an important topic. Canada is becoming more and more dependant each year on trade through the Great Lakes. This trade is increasing rapidly, yet we are unwilling to face the fact that the Canada Shipping Act belongs to the old sailing days rather than to the modern diesel age or even to the age of steam. Everything but cutlasses is discussed in this legislation. It should be amended, and amended immediately. I am sure that after listening to this debate the minister will tell us that though he is in favour of doing something we should first consider the matter for a very long time. But if the unions are not to be forced into taking drastic action by supporting a walkout every time they consider conditions to be unsafe, we ourselves must introduce the changes in the shipping act which will enable the Department of Transport to do the policing which it is now charged with doing, but which it is incapable of doing. There are only 11 inspectors, I am told, to deal with all the shipping on the Great Lakes. Thus, if an inspection is called for it may be several days before an inspector can get to the port, and the demurrage charge makes the whole procedure impractical.
I was interested to hear that officials of the department are interested in this v.h.f. equipment which they feel constitutes a useful safety measure. It was pointed out that this year an international safety agreement has been negotiated to which Canada is a signatory. We were told a meeting will take place in the near future at which Canada will be represented by the deputy minister of transport. I believe that, whoever represents Canada, this meeting should urge that a change be made as soon as possible to allow Canada to have some control over the type of equipment being used on the St. Lawrence River, particularly in those areas not now served by v.h.f.-the area below the port of Montreal. Unless we are able to put before that meeting specific information as to what changes are considered desirable so that shipping from all parts of the world may be able to equip themselves with the necessary permanent radio installations, there cannot be much hope of early success and Canada will be bound to find some loophole, some means of bringing about this result by subterfuge. And I do not think this is the way in which this objective should be reached.
Supply-Transport
I hope the minister, when he replies, will tell us that the wishes at the safety meeting which I had the opportunity of attending will be communicated to this forthcoming conference by Canada's representative. I hope the views expressed at that meeting will be put forward in the strongest terms in order that some consideration may be given to the installation this year of permanent v.h.f. radio equipment on shipping not only in the lower St. Lawrence but throughout the Great Lakes, as is now required after joint negotiation between Canada and the United States.
I hope also that the minister is in a position to say that there will be amendments to the Canada Shipping Act-that the entire act will be revised and brought up to date, taking into consideration the many changes that have taken place and the obvious agreement which existed between the shipping companies and all parties interested in safety on the lakes, and in developing a much safer waterway this summer.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, at this time it to say that there will be amendments to the hon. member for Skeena. I wish to assure him that I am sufficiently humanitarian and pride myself on having enough of a conscience that I never would make the interpretation or deliver the insinuation he suggested I may have meant. Sitting over here I was under the impression, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Skeena ended up his speech talking about ships and conditions in general. I hope I am right in that. Hence, since my speech was dealing with airports I used this merely as an introduction to move from ships to planes. I can assure the hon. member and the committee that I had no intention whatsoever of giving the impression about which he commented after my address.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, in response to this, may I say that in no way did I wish to cast reflection upon the hon. gentleman, or make as he said any insinuation. I merely pointed out what others may take as an interpretation of what he said, and I did not want that interpretation to go abroad.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify this whole matter, I should say that I appreciate the comment by the hon. member for Skeena, and certainly must say in closing that I appreciate the fact that he brought this to my attention, because I certainly would not want that thought to remain on Hansard. I thank him very sincerely.

March 25, 1966
Supply-Transport


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I also wish to deal with the matter of safety, and deal with a situation which may cause tragedies even more disastrous than the ones to which my colleague for Skeena referred earlier this afternoon.
On March 4 I first raised this matter in the House of Commons in the form of a question to the Minister of Transport. I raised the matter as a result of numerous telephone conversations and correspondence from air line pilots of my acquaintance, and later from official correspondence from the Canadian Airline Pilots Association, protesting against the decision of the International Civil Aviation Organization of last January to narrow the air lanes across the North Atlantic from 120 miles to 90 miles.
At that time the minister told me he would look into the matter and answer my question later. Ten days later, on March 14, he very kindly sent me a memorandum from the department in explanation of the position of the Canadian government in this dispute between the International Civil Aviation Organization and the Canadian Airline Pilots Association and the International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations.
In this memorandum, Mr. Chairman, there is this, which I find rather difficult to understand:
At the present time those pilots of international flights operating across the North Atlantic who accepted the new international standard of 90 miles, and I can assure you that they constitute a significant majority-
The reason I later attempted to ask the minister again another question in this regard is that the next day, on March 15, I found a report in the Globe and Mail of the meeting of the International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations in Auckland, New Zealand, at which they unanimously rejected this regulation as unsafe and decided to tell the 27,000 members of the various international airline pilots associations to refuse to comply with the new measures.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it would appear to me that the Minister of Transport has been receiving some rather faulty information. I would like to know who in the Department of Transport told the Minister of Transport that a significant majority of the air line pilots were prepared to accept the 90 mile air lane in the North Atlantic, because in the correspondence I have from the Canadian Airline Pilots Association, which substantiates the

news report, it becomes perfectly plain that unanimously this has been rejected.
I think this poses a very serious problem for this parliament. In this memorandum it says that at the meeting of the international aviation organizations-
-the meeting concluded that reduction of the standard to 90 miles could be accomplished with safety and incorporated in the report of the meeting and appropriate recommendation. This recommendation, supported by Canada, was subsequently endorsed by the ICAO Air Navigation Commission and finally approved by the council of ICAO. The new standard became effective on January 13, 1966.
So, we have here the evidence that our government has agreed to this narrowing of the air lanes across the North Atlantic from 120 miles to 90 miles in complete defiance of the decision of the only people whose opinions are worth a damn, and these are the jet pilots who fly these lanes; these are the men on whom the safety of the air line passengers depends.
I can only conclude, Mr. Chairman, that the government of Canada once again is following its usual policy of pusillanimous subservience to the wishes of an important major power which lies alongside of us, and its commercial representatives, and is callously indifferent to the opinions of the men who have to carry out this injunction or lose their jobs, and risk not only the lives of their passengers but also their own lives.
I suggest it is time this government learned to have a little courage and intelligence. The Airline Pilots Association agreed that the lanes could be narrowed to a very limited extent; they agreed it might be possible to narrow them by six nautical miles. The commercial interests are determined to narrow them by 30 miles, when there is ample evidence that in the best of conditions a jet plane flying at the immensely high rates of speeds at which they fly today can, say in the course of a split second, easily move up to 30 miles off course because of temporary failure of instruments. Yet our government by its own confession is prepared to fly in the face of this recommendation, the recommendation of the only people whose opinion is worth listening to, and the only people to whom we should listen.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I would implore the Minister without Portfolio to convey to the Minister of Transport the necessity of examining this matter very much more closely than he appears to
March 25. 1966

have done to date, and to listen very carefully not only to our own Canadian Airline Pilots Association but also to the international body, although I would like to note that our air line pilots have a reputation unsurpassed in the world for safety. It may well be that the government of Canada would be well advised to listen to these men rather than to commercial interests who want to increase the possibilities of making profits on North Atlantic flights.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the business of the house, but I feel duty bound to take part in the discussion, since I have been asked to make representations in favour of Montreal harbour.
There now exists a situation which is detrimental to Montreal harbour and should be corrected, it seems to me, as soon as possible.
Arbitrary restrictions now being imposed by the Winnipeg Grain Exchange affect very unfavourably Montreal harbour's economy and thus, that of Montreal generally.
As a result of the restrictions laid down by the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, some grain elevators in Montreal remain empty for a long period at the beginning of the shipping season.
For instance, last year, because of those restrictions, elevator No. 1 was not in use for nine days, while elevator No. 3 was empty for eight days. Elevator No. 5 did not operate for nine days and elevator No. 4 for eight days.
The restrictions imposed by the Winnipeg Grain Exchange could have been explained by the situation which prevailed in past years, but since 1963, the building of an additional elevator in Montreal allows grain from foreign countries to be handled in the harbour.
I simply wish to ask briefly the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner), who is surely aware of the situation, to make the necessary representations in order to avoid any further inconvenience to Montreal harbour.
This discrimination against Montreal harbour has been going on too long to be tolerated any longer. Last year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) I believe, had given the undertaking that negotiations would be continued to correct this situation but it seems that the staff of the Montreal Harbour board has not obtained satisfaction since their grievances are being made public.
Supply-Transport
I read in the Montreal Gazette lor March 23, the following heading:
Unfair to Montreal harbour.
And the article relates the discrimination which is going on through a body completely foreign to the economic life of Montreal harbour.
With my last words I would ask the Minister without Portfolio to do everything in his power to have this situation remedied.
C English]


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few brief words about the supplementary estimates for the Department of Transport. I want to make it quite clear that I am speaking in my capacity as a private member, as a member who represents a coastal constituency with a number of shipyards and as a member from a part of Canada which pays a considerable volume of tax into the federal treasury.
We on the west coast are proud of many things, one of which is the new ferry system which the provincial government has built and has been operating since 1960 between the mainland and Vancouver Island. Many members on both sides of the house were concerned earlier this year when the announcement on shipbuilding subsidies was made. There was reference to a 25 per cent subsidy which would apply in respect of categories of ships operated by private enterprise, but government ships were specifically excluded. This change not only excluded vessels built on the federal government's account, but vessels built by provincial governments as well. Since the province of British Columbia is the only province which enters substantially into the construction and operation of ferries, this change appeared to many people to be a measure aimed specifically at British Columbia.
Let me point out another aspect of this problem. If the ferry system in the province of British Columbia was still operated by private enterprise that system would now be receiving the 25 per cent subsidy. In other words, as a result of this exclusion and because the provincial government moved into this area of activity, the people of British Columbia, who use this ferry service extensively, are being denied federal government tax support in respect of the construction of these ferries.
Over the past six years the federal government has committed more than $15 million of federal tax money to the construction of

March 25, 1966
Supply-Transport
these ferries in British Columbia. Approximately one third of their total cost has been met by the federal taxpayers. This program is nearing an end. Only one or two more ferries remain to be built and it seems to me to be a shame that the federal government has seen fit to cut off the subsidy when, for a modest additional amount of money, it could complete that program and take full credit for very substantial assistance in the creation of an important and very effective ferry system.
The number of dollars involved is large in the eyes of private individuals, but small relative to the total number of dollars being spent by the federal government in respect of similar services both within certain eastern provinces and as between various provinces on the Atlantic coast.
In this regard I need only refer to the recent report of the Auditor General in respect of intraprovincial ferry systems. At page 78 of the Auditor General's report he refers to terminal facilities which the federal government paid for at Matane and Godbout in Quebec. He states:
This acquisition has now brought to six the number of locations where the federal government has provided terminals at both ends of cross-river ferry services in the lower St. Lawrence river. The total expenditure over the years for these terminals, which in some cases form part of shipping wharves, had exceeded $7 million at March 31, 1965.
The federal government has also been providing substantial ferry services between the provinces in eastern Canada. This is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government and I certainly am not critical in that regard. Indeed I believe the federal government should assume responsibility in this regard and carry it out in an energetic way.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
But the order of magnitude of these amounts spent for ferry services is interesting. The Newfoundland ferry terminals deficit, for 1966-67 is shown in our estimates as $11.9 million as opposed to the sort of subsidy which would be required in British Columbia of the order of $2 million a year for ship construction. The Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals deficit was $4.4 million. The cost of a ferry vessel for service between North Sydney and Argentia, Newfoundland, was $2.5 million. The cost of the ferry vessel for freight service between North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Port aux Basques was $7.9 million. I could refer to numerous other

items, and still not include the more than $10 million for construction of dock and terminal facilities at places like Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, and North Sydney, Nova Scotia. These are very large amounts of money that run into tens of millions of dollars, and we are only asking for one or two million dollars a year for a couple of years in order to round out the federal subventions for transportation on the west coast.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to indicate the nature and scale of steamship subventions paid by the federal government for eastern local services. For 1966-67 they are estimated to be $8.7 million. For local services on the west coast of Canada the amount is $412,000; in other words, less than half a million dollars.
We in British Columbia pay taxes. Our costs and wages, generally speaking, are higher. We pay more taxes per capita. Most British Columbians feel they should get a fair shake in respect of the variety of services supplied by the federal government. Ferries perform a service in which we have considerable interest-an interest akin to that of people who live on our east coast. As both taxpayer and, in this instance, a member of parliament from the west coast I feel strongly that we should be treated on the same basis as those on the east coast.
I noticed with considerable interest that the Minister of Transport, when his main estimates were before this committee a few weeks ago, stated that it would not break his heart if he had to alter the regulations in so far as they apply to federal government assistance for provincially owned and constructed ferry systems. I am quite sure that if he would relent and modify these regulations he would gladden the hearts of a great many people in British Columbia. He would give the impression in British Columbia-and this feeling is quite widespread in certain circles-that British Columbia is not being discriminated against in this way.
I know that such modification of the regulations would also gladden the hearts of members on all sides of this house, regardless of party. Therefore I plead with the Minister of Transport and the Minister without Portfolio to take another hard look at the ship subventions, or ship subsidies, and permit the payment of these subsidies in respect of ferry vessels built on provincial government account.
March 25, 1966


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise briefly to support the remarks made by the hon. member tor Coast-Capilano. This is an indication of our changing society. Here is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Not now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -openly and willingly advocating the subsidization of publicly owned transportation. I think we can safely say that this means the Liberal party is now 50 per cent socialist, and I congratulate them on that account. I think the hon. member's argument was sound. It is not a question of the amount of money; I think it is the principle behind it. There is a feeling in British Columbia, regardless of party affiliation, that the provincial government should receive the same treatment as private companies building ships in this country.
I mention this, Mr. Chairman, because the government of British Columbia also builds ferries which operate in the Kootenays on the Arrow and Kootenay Lakes, and these ships would also come under subsidy if they were built in B.C. shipyards. With those few remarks I resume my seat, but I could not help congratulating the parliamentary secretary in view of the high position he holds in this land.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment briefly on some of the excellent contributions made during the discussion of these supplementary estimates, as they apply to the Department of Transport. I listened of course with great interest, as I always do, to the hon. member for Skeena. I am not going to comment on the report of the judicial inquiry into the tragedy of the Fort William except to deal with one particular aspect that was not really sub judice, but was a comment by the hon. member to the effect that the seamen involved were not allowed counsel at the inquiry.
I want to make it clear to the committee that it has been the practice at these inquiries to allow only those parties to appear who may be subject to sanctions or criticism, and since the seamen involved, and certainly their families, were in no way responsible for the tragedy that occurred, they were not intimately involved as parties to the inquiry. The owners and the officers whose certificates were subject to cancellation were involved as direct parties to the inquiry. There was no restriction, nor is there ever a restriction, on
Supp ly-Transport
seamen being represented by counsel with a watching brief. If at any time in the course of any inquiry it should appear that such seamen are likely to become blameworthy or in any way involved in a liability arising under such inquiry, then of course such counsel could at that time apply to the commissioner or the judge to have the seamen named as parties to the inquiry. Thereupon counsel have the right to participate in all the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses who appear before the inquiry.
I now leave that matter and come to the general subject of the Canada Shipping Act. I shall not go into detail in regard to that rather voluminous statute and deal with it section by section, except to say that it is under active review by the department. As far as my personal interest is concerned, having had on many, many occasions to try and interpret that statute in private practice, I could not agree more with the hon. member when he said that in several of its parts and sections it is entirely outmoded and ought to be revised. I was shocked to listen to the text of section 41 of the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, which I agree is in terms highly insulting to seamen and their families. I must confess this was the first time that section had ever been recited to me.
On the general question of marine safety on the lakes, the St. Lawrence river and the channel out to the ocean, I would say in answer to the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Timiskaming that we have now reached a stage where it is no longer a question of policy but rather one of technicality and technique in working out the best means, in co-operation with industry and the unions, to achieve by way of a reasonable set of priorities as quickly as we can a safer sea lane and river lane into the heart of this continent.
I want to say that progress cannot be made, as I am sure hon. members will realize, in all directions at once. We have therefore laid out what we think is a reasonable set of priorities, hoping to achieve as soon as we can those systems of traffic information and traffic control which we believe have the earliest chance of success. It is because we now feel that in the realm of communications and traffic information we are in the position to instal a permanent system of v.h.f. radio on the river from Les Escoumains right up to Montreal that we intend to instal such a system.

March 25. 1966
Supply-Transport
* (3:40 p.ra.)
Some members may know that on an experimental and temporary basis over the past months there has been a mobile radio communications network on the river. It has proved to be successful and we are now in the position to instal it on a permanent basis. This means that there will be available a series of concurrent, very high frequency radio communications systems up and down the river which will be available to all ships going up and down the channel. That is merely a first stage. It allows every ship to pinpoint its position as it goes up or down the channel. It enables the Department of Transport to advise every ship as to the positions of other ships either below or up river. In that sense, traffic information will be the first step toward achieving, I hope, a better safety record on the St. Lawrence river.
Now, of course, the obvious question that members of the committee would ask me, Mr. Chairman, is: If there is going to be v.h.f. radio on the shore, how will the department be able to communicate with those oceangoing vessels which are not equipped with such an installation? As mentioned by the hon. member for Timiskaming, it is compulsory for ships plying the Great Lakes and the seaway to use v.h.f. radio. This is the result of a treaty between the United States and Canada which was excepted from the provisions of the IMCO treaty already mentioned. However, the compulsory features of this agreement excepted under the United Nations agency are not applicable below Montreal, so the compulsory features with regard to v.h.f. radio stop at the seaway and at the Great Lakes.
The difficulty Canada faces is that, being a party to the IMCO agreement, we have to persuade the other maritime nations of the world to adopt the use, on a compulsory basis, of v.h.f. radio on their vessels so that we can communicate bridge to bridge and shore to ship, thus rendering effective all the precautions we are taking on the river. The suggestion the hon. member made that at the next meeting of IMCO Canada take a very strong position in this respect is, of course, already part of our own thinking. I can assure the house that the assistant deputy minister of transport, marine, will take with him to that meeting the instructions of the Canadian government to achieve if he can the

consent of the international body to the installation on a compulsory basis of v.h.f. radio on the bridges of all ships. However, this provision needs the ratification of over two thirds of the signatory nations to the treaty. I cannot, at the moment, forecast how quickly we will be able to achieve that majority.
In the meantime, the department has been experimenting with portable v.h.f. radios which can be brought on the vessels by the pilots as they enter the river. The fee for the use of the radio would, of course, be added to the pilotage fee which the owners or charterers of the vessels would have to pay. The difficulty at the moment is that the range of these portable radios is still very limited, not more than five miles, although we are hoping that a new type of instrument has been developed which will give us more range. I hope that we can foresee the day when either we will have this type of portable equipment which we can make compulsory by way of pilots taking it on board vessels, or that we can achieve the co-operation of owners of vessels that ply the St. Lawrence river into Montreal, or that eventually we can persuade the other maritime nations of the world to accept this kind of equipment on a compulsory basis.
Once we have compulsory high frequency radio installed, then not only will we have a means of ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore communication all the way up and down the river, but we will have an information centre operating on the river advising the position of every vessel thereon. We will be able to achieve then what I think is absolutely necessary in view of the tremendous increase in traffic, namely a traffic control system whereby we will be able to say to the various vessels either "Hold your position until the channel clears," or "You may now proceed". In other words, we will have a series of red and green lights by way of high frequency radio up and down the channel.
There were many representatives of maritime interests at the meeting with their own particular briefs. The two-channel concept was stressed very strongly. The Dominion Marine Association and the Seafarers International Union pressed this point. As a result of the meeting which we had in Montreal, I think all parties agree now that it would be better to widen the channel from ]VIontreal to Quebec rather than to put in a two channel system. This is true not only from a safety but from a hydraulic point of
Match 25, 196G

view. We are deeply concerned that if we double the channel in the river between Montreal and Quebec we will accelerate the flow to such an extent that the water level at the port of Montreal could not be maintained. We are looking into these factors by means of our new hydraulic model at La Salle which we hope to open next month. We will continue our studies of the water level' and the double channel problem.
Below Quebec and tie d'Orleans, there is a problem in using the south channel. We are using our engineering data now, but as soon as the ice clears up we intend to carry out a survey of current and tide and the texture of the soil to see if this idea can be implemented from an engineering point of view. I just want to say here that I take a most serious view of the situation on the St. Lawrence river. The Minister of Transport and I intend to continue our series of meetings with interested parties in the maritime business. We intend to hold another meeting at the end of April to discuss possible channel problems and we hope that by implementing these ideas, in co-operation with the industry, with the underwriters, unions and other parties involved, we will be able to improve the record of safety on the St. Lawrence.
I wanted to deal briefly with a comment made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands about the narrowing of the air lanes over the North Atlantic from 120 to 90 miles. This provision of course was implemented by the International Civil Aviation Organization with the consent, as I understand it, of all the major air nations of the world. I am advised that the reason behind the move is the tremendous increase in the volume of traffic crossing the Atlantic and the limited space available. Some changes had to be made if traffic were to continue to move. I am advised that all the evidence points this amendment as safe.
In any event, I am personally going to look into the brief of the pilots association which was referred to by the hon. member, to see what merit there is in it. I am advised that the majority of international pilots have not objected to this particular measure.
In answer to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot-

I may say that on April 4, a delegation from Montreal will come here to the capital city to meet with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Supply-Transport
Pickersgill), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) and myself to discuss, before the official opening of navigation, the system of priorities used at present for Canadian grain.
[English1
I want to say that I have spent a good deal of my time in the last few weeks looking into this problem of the relative priorities of export grain from the port of Montreal. At the moment, absolute priority is given by regulation of the Board of Grain Commissioners for the export of Canadian grain prior to the opening of the season at the Lakehead. There is a strong argument to be made, and it has been made on behalf of the port of Montreal, that with the capacity of the elevators there and the fact that private elevators at other ports along the river now are not subject to the same absolute prohibition but are allowed to take in grain on a 60-40 ratio, Canadian-United States, this regulation should be annulled. However, I am not in a position to say more.
[DOT] (3:50 p.ra.)


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the comments of the Minister of Transport.
Oh, I am sorry; I listened with such interest that I assumed that he was the Minister of Transport, so I will not apologize for my incorrect description of the Minister without Portfolio.
However, I would ask him to consider one further matter with regard to any formal investigations conducted under the Canada Shipping Act, with specific reference to the Fort William to which he has just referred. I am talking about something more than inquiries; I am talking about formal investigations which the act refers to as being conducted as a court. The act refers to a commissioner who shall, for the purposes of the act, be a court and who has the right to impose penalties, sanctions and the like on individuals who may be found culpable.
I submit there is an analogy to be drawn between this sort of court and a court which delves into matters between a prosecution and a defence, although it is true that this court is more of an investigation and is not exactly on all fours with a court dealing with litigation. However, the commissioner is given the powers of a court and he can impose certain penalties against individuals.
In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I think that people appearing as witnesses before

March 25, 1966
Supply-Transport
such a court should be in the same class as those appearing as witnesses in cases falling within the normal operations of our courts, such as witnesses for the prosecution or witnesses for the defence. These people are witnesses who express themselves either on one side of a case or the other and are thereby entitled to the protection that a lawyer can afford them. They are also open, of course, to the approach of the attorney for the prosecution or the defence who endeavours to break down the evidence they give, if the attorney so desires.
I think a comparable situation exists here. Individuals called as witnesses, even though, under the act as it now stands, they do not have the protection of a lawyer, should be entitled to protection, and the act should be altered to enable a person called as a witness before a formal investigation of this sort to have available to him the right to choose a lawyer to protect his rights, thus ensuring that his rights are not encroached upon.
I just press that on the minister for his consideration. Perhaps while he is making this detailed study of the Canada Shipping Act, which I am sure will be concluded during the next few months, he will include a provision along this line which will then bring the act up to date.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to rise briefly to support the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. He represents, as I do, an important shipbuilding riding in western Canada. There is no doubt that the people of British Columbia feel discriminated against in the exclusion of their ferry system, a very popular and good ferry system, from the benefits of the government's subsidy program announced in the house last January. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, the lack of a subsidy, if it persists, will result in higher costs for travelling on our ferry system.
I think I should point out to the committee and the minister that transportation is the essence of life in British Columbia. One has only to look at our mountains and islands to see we have a special problem and to realize that it means more to us probably than to any other province.
Other provinces benefit from the terms of union, Mr. Chairman, and I sometimes wish that when British Columbia entered confederation we had had a more far-seeing team 
negotiating on our behalf, in which case perhaps we too would have federally subsidized ferry operations, as do other provinces. I do not think we object to what other provinces are receiving, but we do think we should be allowed to have a fair share of federal money for this purpose.
I know that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano has asked the Minister of Transport and the Minister without Portfolio to take another look at the government's shipbuilding policy, but I would stress the urgency of taking a look now. With the completion of the ships already contracted for by the British Columbia ferry system, there is now a lack of work in our shipbuilding yards. If any future construction is held up, as I understand it will be, because of the lack of a government subsidy, then now is the time to grant a subsidy and get more ships built.
In my riding, where the yard which has just finished building the largest ferry for the B.C. ferry service is situated, some 350 men are at this moment being displaced from their work. Therefore I ask the Minister without Portfolio, if he does take another look at the policy, as I feel sure he will, to please urge his colleagues to look hard and to look now.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Halifax.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind being referred to as the hon. member for Halifax because it so happens that I am going to say a few words of interest both to Halifax and to Saint John. We have heard a great deal this afternoon from members who have been speaking on behalf of Montreal and Vancouver. Lest my silence here on this peaceful Friday afternoon be taken to mean that am in agreement with everything they said, I want to point out that we have two national ports, Halifax and Saint John, which are just as important to this nation as Montreal and Vancouver.
The Minister without portfolio gave us a rundown on the navigational problems in the St. Lawrence waterway system, but let me tell him that one of the easiest ways he can solve those problems of navigation is to use the ports of Halifax and Saint John a little more. We have the seamen who can keep accidents to the minimum. We also have the facilities, though they may need a little attention, and we are looking for business. In this way we would avoid a lot of this discussion this afternoon and, more particularly, the spectacle af senior government members and
March 25, 1966



parliamentary secretaries trying to talk out their own supplementary estimates.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one question of the minister. I too listened very attentively to his remarks and I appreciate the attitude he has taken, but is it his intention when the Canada Shipping Act is rewritten to consider the establishment of a special committee of the house for this purpose? This would enable the whole act to be studied, particularly as it affects safety. Witnesses and other interested parties could be brought before the committee, with the end result of having a broad discussion of the problems facing the industry. This would enable any changes made to be complete and long lasting.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few minutes of the committee's time to express the appreciation of the Social Credit party here for the very kind words said about the Social Credit government of British Columbia and its vigorous policy of ferry construction. We did not see this as being particularly socialistic, but rather as a step that was necessary for the completion of our highways system. Perhaps if Vancouver Island had not joined with British Columbia to make one great province-and we are celebrating this as a centenary this year-but had remained isolated, there might have been a federal approach to build a causeway to link the island with the mainland. The funds for that construction have not been forthcoming. With the very vigorous highway development program the government was undertaking, it became essential for it to go into the ferry business also, to link the island with the mainland.
We have been very pleased this afternoon to hear the presentations made from the government side of the house, because those of us in this section of the house have made these presentations earlier, and we hope that we now have made some headway on this subject. Certainly, the reply of the Minister of Transport, that it would not break his heart to take a second look at ferry subsidies, is not good enough. That ought not to be allowed to stand as the last word of the government on this question. We are looking forward very eagerly to a more definite word that there will be federal participation in the subsidizing of ferry construction in British Columbia. Too much of the co-operation with the provinces in this country has tended to be
Supply-Finance
a sort of salvage operation to improve a bad situation.
I think it is time the federal government was concerned also with improving situations in provinces that are going ahead.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
107e. Payment to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, upon application, approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the Authority to the Minister of Finance, to reimburse the authority in respect of the Welland Canal deficit incurred by the Authority during the calendar year 1965. $8,250,000.
Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the
minister a question. Under the St. Lawrence Authority, does the minister happen to know if there is any federal authority now to begin these extra expenditures in connection with the Welland canal, or will further legislation be necessary? A large amount has been allocated for extra work in the Welland canal. Is there any authority under the act or under any legislation by which this can begin, or does this have to be referred to parliament?


John Napier Turner: I will answer that question later. Perhaps I could take it as notice, and get in touch with the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: The estimates for the Department of Transport are completed. We shall now proceed with the Department of Finance.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Administration-
2e. Departmental administration and grants as detailed in the estimates, $123,900.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a brief remark to the acting minister, in the minister's absence, with respect to grants which are made through his department.
We are all looking forward to the celebration of the centenary next year. A great many grants have been made through the Department of Finance to other departments, commissions and committees, which are all very commendable. I am sure that these will help to improve the centennial celebrations.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the acting minister forward to the Minister of Finance this suggestion, that the minister should consult with his colleagues in the cabinet and with representatives of the government of Ontario, with a view to recommending that a

March 25, 1966
Supply-Finance
grant be made to the city of Ottawa, so that for the centennial year when people come to visit our national capital they avoid the danger of breaking the axles of their cars when they drive down the streets in centre town. I know that this is a sensitive subject for some aldermen of the city of Ottawa. I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Skeena, in the remarks he has made on a number of occasions, to the effect that something ought to be done.
Seriously, Mr. Chairman, the streets of our national capital are a national disgrace. There are a great number of holes, both potholes and mudholes, in the streets of downtown Ottawa. We all know that the city is under a considerable handicap. It does not have industries from which it can derive taxes. We know that the government gives a grant in lieu of taxes with respect to government property. But I would ask whether, for the sake of the many thousands of people expected to come to Ottawa to celebrate the centenary, something could not be done to repair the streets in the centre of the city. It would not cost that much money; and I think nobody in Canada would disagree with me, and particularly those visiting Ottawa, who would probably appreciate this, when I say that the streets ought to be repaired.
There is another matter which is to be considered, and I do not know whether it should come under the National Research Council, or some other body of that nature. The minister could decide the details of this with his appropriate colleagues. Perhaps it could be taken up with the provincial governments of Quebec or Ontario. What I refer to, Mr. Chairman, is this: Some means should be found of removing from the air of this fair capital of ours the sort of pollution that does exist. At one time I thought it was caused by one of the large manufacturing plants in the area, The E. B. Eddy Company. I am told that one or two other companies may be involved.
I think any hon. member of this house, and indeed anybody who has ever visited Ottawa has been greeted on awakening in the morning by the sulphurous fumes that so often pollute the city. That is a national disgrace in the capital of a land that has gone to great expense advertising itself as a land of fresh air, lakes, waters, and woods. It is a disgrace that such a state of affairs should be permitted in the capital. There is no reason why this cannot be cured, and if some moneys are allocated to help alleviate some of these

problems and get rid of these noxious fumes, that will be of assistance, may I put it this way, toward the celebration of our centennial year.


Mr. Sherman:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this particular juncture to make a special eleventh hour appeal to the Minister of Finance to review in his conscience once again, on this eleventh hour week end, the financial straits of hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
I submit this is the proper place for such an appeal to be made, because we are considering supplementary estimates, and because the Minister of Finance is scheduled to bring down his 1966-67 budget in this house just four days from now.
Because the new budget is so near at hand, this current week end is indeed the eleventh hour for those many thousands of Canadian families and households that are casualties of a taxation and food price juggernaut in this country that has been running wild for the past three years.
These Canadians, many of them lonely pensioners, many of them widows, many of them youthful breadwinners and housewives struggling to feed and clothe young families, have high and trusting hopes for Tuesday night. They are looking to the minister's budget that night to introduce a ray of blessed relief into their troubled economic situations.
They are looking for help to get out from under the crushing burden of prices and taxes that today saps them of their dreams, their energies and their peace of mind, and bows them under a weight as oppressive as that described by the poet's classic man with a hoe.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that for all our material affluence in Canada today, for all the sheen to our society, for all the triumphs in the realm of gross national product, there are tens of thousands of Canadian homes in 1966 in which economic survival is a continuing struggle and a continuing worry. The tightrope walk from pay day to pay day has become a way of life in Canada-the way of life, I submit, for far too many Canadian households. The Canadian householder, in far too great numbers, needs help. He needs the help of the Canadian government, and he needs the help of every man and woman in this chamber. Caught in an economic crossfire of costs and taxes, he is starting to get hit. If he is mortally wounded in that crossfire-if he
March 25, 196G

should stumble and go down-where then is the great Canadian experiment that plunges ahead today at such perilous speed? What price the glories of legislative programs which go too far, too fast? What the average Canadian is most concerned about today is the surge in the prices he meets on every hand together with the increasing bite in taxes that anywhere from two to four levels of government take out of every dollar he earns.
For my part, although I do not minimize or disparage the importance of responsible programs of social welfare, I do not believe that a country can go on ad infinitum slapping a heavier and heavier burden on the backs of its responsible, industrious citizens. They are the ones who carry the load, to be sure. They will always carry the load and, up to a reasonable point, they will do so cheerfully. But in this exercise as in many others, there comes a breaking point, and I suggest the time has come when it would be judicious and expedient for legislators in Canada to ask themselves whether they perhaps are straining the average Canadian wage earner very severely.
One cannot go on forever shifting initiative, and expect one's people, young or old, to shoot for the stars. One cannot go on forever penalizing excellence, and expect one's people, young and old, to develop Canada the way all of us wish to see her develop.
We can talk all we like about our mineral wealth and our forests and all our other fabulous natural resources. But our mightiest resources, by far outshining all others, like the north outshines the tepid tropics, are our human resources-our men and women. These are the resources we must mine. These are the crops we must harvest. We do the Canadian nation a vast and potentially fatal disservice if we blunt the ambitions of our citizens and crush their spirits, by making daily life so expensive-by making taxes so oppressive that they can never get out from under their current financial burdens, can never know freedom from worry and thus can never truly enjoy our Canadian heritage or devote their energies to participating in it creatively.
Thus I urge the minister, if he has not already done so, to provide in his budget for four measures at least: first, repeal the 11 per cent building sales tax; second, make realty taxes deductible for income tax purposes in owner-occupied homes; third, raise the basic income tax exemption level, especially for
Supp ly-Finance
widows with children to support; and, fourth, increase the old age pension along the lines this party has been asking.
Nor, I suggest, is this latter proposal necessarily inconsistent with what I have said already about the need for fitting a clamp on our soaring tax rates. I submit that no increase in taxes is necessary to support the increase we have been asking in the old age pension. The last Auditor General's report provides examples of ample sources of revenue. The annual report of the Auditor General for the year now ending, March 31, 1966, cites no less than 450 specific findings of the Glassco royal commission on government operations which were designed to eliminate wasteful practices and result in substantial savings of public funds.
In that respect I should like to quote from the following editorial in the February 10, 1966, edition of the Winnipeg Free Press. The editorial was headed "A Matter of Responsibility". With reference to these 450 recommendations, it says:
Each of these findings was followed through by the staff of the audit office to determine what action had been taken since the royal commission reported. It was found that no less than 73 per cent had not been acted upon. The most important recommendations, those which would result in the greatest savings to the treasury, remained unimplemented because of the failure of senior government officials to make the necessary decisions: "We found no lack of awareness at the various departmental levels of the need to deal with the situations. It was explained to us, however, that few changes could be made without instructions from top management."
By top management, of course, Mr. Henderson can only mean cabinet ministers, deputy ministers and heads of crown corporations who, through inertia, ignorance or sheer disinterest, have failed to take the necessary steps to implement the Glassco recommendations. The cost of their procrastination is illustrated by the fact that when the commission made its report three years ago the administrative overhead of government departments and agencies was approximately $1 billion. Today it is $1.2 billion, an increase of 20 per cent despite the implementation of about one quarter of the Glassco suggestions.
I ask: Are these not adequate and reasonable sources of revenue from which to supply the funds needed in the interests of old age pensioners to supply them with the increases which this party has been seeking. In my view the picture is clear, and the government's responsibility is clear: It is the responsibility to cope, this coming Tuesday, with the situation I have described-with the economic plight of many thousands of hard-working, constructive, valuable Canadians. Hence, my appeal at this juncture. The eleventh hour is

March 25, 1966
Supply-Finance
at hand. If the minister has not already provided for these hard pressed households in his budget to be presented on Tuesday night, I submit with all humility and respect that he still has his week end in which to do so. And I urge him with the same humility to search his heart on this point. Households all across the land are watching this situation with hope. So are hon. members on this side of the house.


William Arnold Peters: I would be prepared to make my pre-budget speech, too, if I had one. But I expect to be here for the budget, so I shall wait for it.
I would ask the Minister of National Revenue to give his consideration to a matter which has been raised in letters and submissions from my own area in recent weeks. It relates to the fact that Canada intends to strike a gold coin to mark the centenary in 1967. The Minister of Finance has indicated that these coins will be included in a mint set. The request coming from many of the gold mining communities is that a single coin, the gold coin itself, be separated from the mint set so that it can be used for purposes connected with the centennial. The township of Teck in particular is interested in having a number of these coins for presentation to children in the schools, and for making other presentations. It is felt it is not too much to ask that some of these municipalities, particularly when they are so closely related to gold production, should have an opportunity of acquiring single coins for this purpose.


Edgar John Benson: I can only say that I will bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance for his consideration. It would simply mean turning out more gold coins which would not be included in the sets.


William Arnold Peters: I might add that some of the mining companies in my area did supply the gold used for the minting of sovereigns in 1912 and 1913. It is possible that they will be doing so again.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
lie. To deem former members of the Senate who are in receipt of an annuity pursuant to Part III of an act to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate and dependents of such members to be, for purposes of Finance Vote 20b of the Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964 and the regulations made thereunder, former members of the Senate who are in receipt of an annual allowance pursuant to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act or dependants of such members, as the case may be, $1.
Thomas Miller Bell: This is one of some 13 one dollar items which are included in these estimates. It was my intention to make a major presentation on these dollar estimates and, in particular, to launch an attack on those which are legislative in character. I will, however, bear in mind that the committee is somewhat pressed for time.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw to the attention of the minister and to the attention of the distinguished secretary of the treasury board the speech made in the other place by Hon. M. Wallace McCutcheon, which I endorse fully. I should say to the Minister of National Revenue that I hope in the future he will give consideration to those $1 items which are legislative in character, and introduce a statute law amendment which would be carried at the same time and which would be an amendment to the various statutes which are legislative in character. Had we not been crowded for time I would have made a rather considerable presentation on this subject.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to point out that in considering the estimates this year, while I was vice chairman of Treasury Board, we indeed took out many $1 items which appeared to be legislative in nature with the feeling that it would be better to introduce bills. I am generally in agreement with the supplementary estimates as submitted. Many of the items are not legislative and are merely a transfer of amounts in particular votes, and the ones which are legislative are of an emergency nature.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, would the minister now explain.


Edgar John Benson: This particular item simply is to allow senators who are retired to carry on with their health insurance. If this were not passed it would mean they would lose their coverage, and as the hon. gentleman knows, in respect of anyone at age 70 or 75 who loses it is very difficult for him to get it again.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government Administration-
Vote 15e-Contingencies-Subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, (a) to supplement the paylist provisions of other votes; (b) for miscellaneous minor of unforeseen expenses; and (c) for awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act; including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, $5,000,000.
March 25. 1966
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, in respect of this item are there some negotiations or discussions under way now for the adjustment of salaries that would be retroactive to 1965-66, or why do we need this $5 million for a period which is going to end within a few days.


Edgar John Benson: As you know, there were group B revisions which were approved during the past year and these have to be finished up. There also are some other areas under negotiation which may come due, although mainly this is to complete payments in respect of groups B and D which have been negotiated and settled.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If that is true, why is it under contingencies?


Edgar John Benson: The reason for doing this is that generally salary revisions of the civil service are handled through one vote rather than changing all the estimates of all the departments. This particular vote is in the Department of Finance. It always has been the practice that the departments generally make provision for salaries, but if there is a salary change in the year you do not go back and attempt to change the estimates of all the departments. The salary revisions are charged to this particular vote in the Department of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vote 16e-To authorize the Treasury Board to delete from the accounts certain debts due. and claims by. Her Majesty, each of which is in excess of $1,000, amounting in the aggregate to $1,084,-556.60-$1.
Thomas Miller Bell: I believe the practice in the past has been that a list of the claims being written off is provided in detail to the opposition. It may be that the Minister of National Revenue has provided this to the hon. member for Perth; if not, would he undertake to provide to the opposition the full list. I can recall that being the practice in the past, because very often when I was in the minister's position I have done so.


Edgar John Benson: If this has been the practice, and has not been done, I would be pleased to do it, and also I would be pleased to show the list to other members. Hon. members will note that the largest amount being written off is in my department. I can assure you that every effort was made to collect this amount. The people in my department I find are very efficient in attempting to collect the money before these write-offs occur, or in making
Supply-Finance
sure that the statutory limitation has expired before the write-off actually takes place.


John Angus MacLean: Would the minister give us an explanation in a general way of what we are doing here.


Edgar John Benson: As you will notice, the major item here is in my department, in the amount of some $868,000. In my department this would arise through an income tax assessment, for example, where the person died and his estate was not sufficient to cover his indebtedness to the crown. It also would occur where there are claims against limited liability companies and they go into bankruptcy so that we cannot collect the money due.
In the Department of Veterans Affairs there are veterans loans outstanding, and the veterans die, thus ultimately the amount has to be written off because the estate is not sufficient to cover it. This generally is the sort of thing which is involved.


Mr. Baldwin:: Could the minister indicate whether this particular item in respect of his department would include cases where settlements on occasion have been made.


Edgar John Benson: No; this would not be the case. Where settlement is made there is a reassessment issued.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, are any of
these items the kind where the name is supposed to be listed in the public accounts? I am thinking of the kind of item which is provided for in one of the sections in the Financial Administration Act.


Edgar John Benson: I am not certain of the particular section of the Financial Administration Act. I know I have lists here. The requirement by statute is that every write-off in excess of $1,000 be approved by parliament, and these items here are debts in excess of $1,000 which are being written off. If they do have to appear in the public accounts, I can assure my hon. friend they will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the section I had in mind is one in the Financial Administration Act which requires the publication of the name where there is forgiveness of an amount over $1,000. The minister may remember that this issue arose in connection with the export-import matter a few years ago.

March 25, 1966
Supply-Finance


Edgar John Benson: These are not debts which are being relieved under section 22 of the Financial Administration Act, which is the remission section open to Treasury Board.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can we assume that all these are debts which are written off as a result of the departments in question practising sound business principles? Would any ordinary businessman write them off under similar circumstances?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, I think I can give the hon. member that assurance. As a matter of fact in ordinary business you would have written them off probably sooner than you do in the federal government, because in the federal government you wait for the expiry of the statutory period under which the debt is outlawed.


John Angus MacLean: Would the minister indicate what the debt is which is mentioned under the Department of Agriculture. This seems to be the largest of the lot, at least on the average. It is $15,000 only, but it seems to be quite a large amount for the government to allow to become a bad debt.


Edgar John Benson: This debt, which in this particular case was a single debt, arose as a result of the manipulation of payrolls which was undetected until a successor was appointed following the employee's death. I gather this was a civil servant who had manipulated payrolls, and this was not discovered until a new employee took his place. The employee had died and his estate was insufficient to cover the debt owed to the Crown.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
LlOle. Advances in respect of a toll bridge across the harbour of Saint John, N.B. in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with terms and conditions set out in an agreement relating to the financing, construction and operation of the toll bridge to be entered into between Canada, New Brunswick, the city of Saint John and the bridge authority, with the approval of the governor in council, (a) to the Saint John harbour bridge authority established by c. 150 of the statutes of New Brunswick, 1961-62; or (b) to a trustee for the holders of securities issued by the authority; the total amount of advances in each such fiscal year to be based on the difference for the year between the operating and financing costs of the toll bridge and the actual revenue of the bridge authority, as determined pursuant to the agreement, repayable when the actual revenue of the bridge authority for a fiscal year exceeds the amount of the operating and financing costs for such year, $10,000,000.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, hon. members will understand my interest in this advance in respect of the toll

bridge across the harbour at Saint John, New Brunswick. Having made critical remarks of the government a few minutes ago, and knowing there will be more critical remarks made this afternoon, I want to take this opportunity to compliment the government on their perseverance in going ahead with this item, which will make it possible to have a bridge across the harbour at Saint John. We have been talking about such a project for many years. I am not suggesting that the generosity of the government is very great in this regard; I am simply giving them full credit for persevering, particularly on the part of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance who have continued their interest in this project.
We know the government finally will not be involved at all financially and that the bridge will be a success, but I felt that everyone would want me to say that we appreciate the interest that has been taken in this project. We hope this interest will be continued in respect of the many other problems we have in our community.


Edgar John Benson: We are always interested in the problems of Saint John.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: We have now completed the supplementary estimates of the Department of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
Ie. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $44,500.
Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to participate in the discussion of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Public Works and return to a subject that I am almost convinced there is no use talking about because of the attitude of the government towards this question. I have been speaking in this house in bits and drabs, because that is the only way made available to me, about the illegal filling taking place on the north side of lake Ontario opposite the shoreline of lake Ontario as it abuts the riding of York-Humber and the riding of York West.
Before somebody starts to say that this is a local politician rising on a local question regarding an area that is only four miles long, along the waterfront, I should like to emphasize that, while I speak because of the interest of the property owners along that shoreline and because of my constituents and
March 25, 1966



the voters of West York, I am speaking primarily because of the fact that a precedent will be established here if this practice is not stopped. I have almost abandoned hope that it will be stopped, in view of the history of my representations in the matter.
Lake Ontario is "a navigable water". There have been many, many court cases that have established the fact that the St. Lawrence river and the Great Lakes system are ''navigable waters", and come under the International Boundary Waters Treaty and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Under those headings they come within the purview of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Public Works comes into the act by virtue of Part I of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, Revised Statutes of Canada 1952, revised in 1953, 1954 and 1956.
I first spoke on this question of illegal land filling by asking a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on March 23, 1965. At that time I asked if we could get an interpretation from the Supreme Court of Canada with regard to some of the terms used in the International Boundary Waters Treaty and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I informed the house about three weeks ago that 11 months had gone by and I still had not received a reply from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, although the question was asked publicly in this house and recorded in Hansard. Hon. members will be interested to know that I have now received a reply from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. You will realize how hard he has studied the question, because it took him 11 months to get the reply for me.
On March 4, 1965, I asked the Minister of Justice to make a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada with regard to a word used in the International Boundary Waters Treaty which states that you cannot erect any works in international streams that would "materially" affect the level of the water on either side-that is, on the United States or Canadian side. This question was put down for discussion at ten o'clock in the evening of May 4. At that time I brought out the question regarding patented waterlots. I pointed out at that time that in the afternoon I had asked whether the government would make a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada in order to obtain a definition of the word "materially", and how this might affect 23033-203
Supply-Public Works the waters of the Great Lakes or other boundary waters.
In the evening during the ten o'clock show on May 4, 1965, as recorded at page 937 of Hansard, I added:
While I am pressing upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) the necessity of having a definite reference to the Supreme Court for an interpretation of the word "materially", might I suggest that he also seek an interpretation of the phrase "patented waterlot"?
The phrase "patented waterlot" is a bone of contention along this four mile stretch of lake Ontario, and it will continue to bother this government until there is a definite legal interpretation of that phrase. I say it will bother the government, because we have over
4,000	miles of water along the shores of the St. Lawrence river on the Canadian side and on the Great Lakes right up to Pigeon river in this Great Lakes system. If there can be patented waterlots on the four mile stretch between the Humber river and Etobicoke creek, there can be many more waterlots throughout the entire system.
Members of parliament who are taking an intelligent interest in this matter have advised me about what they call patented waterlots on lake St. Clair, on the Detroit river and on the St. Mary river at Sault Ste. Marie. I would point out that between the Humber river and Etobicoke creek there are approximately 150 of these so-called patented water-lots lying underneath the water in that four mile stretch.
At this point I should like to pay tribute and express my appreciation to Hon. Kelso Roberts, the Minister of Lands and Forests in the provincial government Hon. John Robarts, for the several hours of time that he has given me on this subject, and for the very careful surveys that the Ontario surveyor general has prepared with regard to the waterlots in that area. I did not ask to see the patented waterlots in other areas, but in that section there are approximately 150. Hon. Kelso Roberts provided me with a detailed map showing the names of the owners and detailed histories of the lots.
This question of patented waterlots comes up in this way. Since this Liberal government came into power in April of 1963 we have had three ministers of public works, the first of which was Hon. Mr. Deschatelets, for whom I have the highest regard. Under the

March 25, 1966
Supply-Public Works Navigable Waters Protection Act it is stated specifically that:
No work shall be built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless
(a)	the site and plans thereof have been approved by the minister; and
(b)	the work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with the plans and the regulations.
I am not a lawyer so the words appear to be perfectly plain to me. If one is a lawyer he becomes filled up with the belief that everything is indistinct, hazy and fuzzy, and that one cannot assume a word means what it is supposed to mean. Otherwise lawyers would not get their fees, if they did not get into court and fight with one another about the interpretation of words.
On May 4, 1965 when I asked the then minister of justice about the word "materially", and the phrase "patented waterlot" the then parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, Mr. Donald Macdonald, the hon. member for Rosedale came to the late show and read this statement:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recognize at once that this is an important and very serious question in respect of which the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) and the hon. member for York West (Mr. Kelly) have been very active. X think it is very clear from the presentation this evening by the hon. member for York-Humber that both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law this is an exceedingly complicated question. It is a very difficult situation which involves an interpretation of a federal statute, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, as well as an interpretation of the Boundary Waters Treaty. This will involve very difficult questions of law. The Department of Justice will want to give serious consideration to both the suggestions of the hon. member, that binding interpretations of the relevant provisions be sought from the appropriate authorities.
That was May 4, 1965, approximately 11 months ago. I would ask why it is such a difficult matter for this government to interpret the Navigable Waters Protection Act when everybody else seems able to understand the works without all this fuss and bother of interpretation. Hon. Mr. Des-chatelets was Minister of Public Works in 1963 when I was fortunate enough to be asked to sit on a small committee. At that time he was disturbed about an application from some real estate developers in the city of Montreal who were anxious to build a bridge from the north side of the St. Lawrence to the Island of Ste Therese, which is in the riding of Mercier represented by my good friend Prosper Boulanger. Mr. Deschatelets, then the Minister of Public Works,

realized that "no work shall be built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless the site and plans thereof have been approved by the Minister; and the work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with the plans and the regulations."
Mr. Deschatelets spent a great deal of time worrying about this application because I believe he thought that, being a member with a Montreal seat, if he granted permission somebody would say he was showing favouritism to the municipality from which he came. But we on the committee said to him, "This is a matter that can be decided, as to whether or not this is interfering with navigation and whether or not the plans have been filed in advance with you and approved by the engineers of the department." After some weeks of discussion, during which time people came up from Montreal and objected to the bridge being built on the ground that it world interfere with their activity in sailing dinghies around the island, it was decided that because the number of people interested in establishing homes on the island of Ste. Therese was greater than those who might be inconvenienced in their sailing activities, and since it did not interfere with navigation as generally understood, permission should be granted.
Mr. Deschatelets granted a permit for the construction of this bridge over the St. Lawrence between the north shore and the Island of Ste Therese. Interestingly enough, while the permit has been granted, no bridge has been built as yet. But I will come back to that.
I hold in my hand the plans that were submitted by the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission to the Department of Public Works. Surely to heavens they are a big enough outfit to know what they are doing. I am an Ontario resident and taxpayer, and I know how many lawyers the Ontario Hydro have in their employ. It was their desire in 1958 to erect a coal unloading dock in lake Ontario at Lakeview, Ontario, just about half a mile west of Etobicoke creek in the riding of Peel. This coal unloading dock is a vast structure extending out into the lake some distance so that coal boats can come in and unload on to the mechanical conveyors of the great plant at Lakeview owned by the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission. This coal is used to build up steam so that the plant is able to function 24 hours a day.
March 25, 1966

If this is such a great question of law and everybody on earth has to ask, "What does it mean?", why did the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission ask the Department of Public Works for permission to erect the wharf? The application was made in May, 1958 and was accompanied, as the law requires, by detailed plans and blueprints. I have here the approval of the application granted on August 20, 1958, and signed by H. A. Young, deputy minister of public works. There is nothing in here about this being a great, hazy question. Everybody knew exactly what they were doing and they did it properly. As a result we have a fine generating plant in Lakeview.
I hold in my hand an application by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. This application was filed on August 16, 1963, and is addressed to the chief of legal services, Department of Public Works, Ottawa, Ontario. The application had plans attached to it. It was to build a bridge from Olympic Island to Centre Island in Toronto harbour. This bridge is a small archway with about 16 feet clearance from the water. When this application came forward Hon. Mr. Des-chatelets was again quite disturbed because he was concerned over the words of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
The committee met with him in his office on more than one occasion. People came down from Toronto who operated small pleasure boats, and they maintained that they put their boats at anchor every night between Olympic Island and Centre Island and felt that the bridge should not be erected. But after full and due consideration Mr. Des-chatelets, as Minister of Public Works, granted the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto the right to build this bridge from Olympic Island to Centre Island with a clearance of 16 feet above the normal water line. The application was dated August 16, 1963, and the permit was granted on August 17, 1964.
In connection with this application nobody said they did not know what the law was, or what it should be, or how it should be done, or asked whether they were going to consult the privy council in Great Britain or the high court of France. They just followed the law as it is set out in the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
I also have in my hand a letter from the Toronto Harbour Commissioners. They are a smart organization of able men. The general manager is a lawyer, but in addition they have legal counsel. They wanted to build what you or I might call a spit of land or a 23033-2031
Supply-Public Works spit of rock to the east of Toronto Island, down near Cherry street, so that they could extend the size and scope of Toronto harbour. They knew about the Navigable Waters Protection Act which says that "no work shall be built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless the site and plans thereof have been approved by the minister". So the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, understanding English when they see it and not realizing what a terrifically difficult problem this was, filed an application with the Department of Public Works for a filling operation and the construction of two headlands on the shoreline of Lake Ontario between Cherry and Leslie streets, Toronto, province of Ontario.
The application came in on December 29,
1964,	and was granted under date June 8,
1965,	after five months consideration. The Toronto Harbour Commissioners are not the type of people who will proceed unless the law is clear. If they do not know what the law is, they do not proceed. I have given the examples of the real estate developers in Montreal, the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, all of whom followed the letter of the law, submitted plans in advance, had them approved and then went ahead and lived up to the plans as submitted and approved.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
What have we got in the ridings of West York and York-Humber? We have people there dumping thousands of tons of fill along the shoreline of Lake Ontario in order to extend the length of their property out into the lake, without submitting any proper plans to the Department of Public Works, without asking for consent, and simply getting it ready for real estate development. In the township of Etobicoke, in that portion of it which is in my riding, private developers have gone to a point where over the years they have thrown thousands of tons of fill into lake Ontario. Now, they have gone before the Ontario Municipal Board and have had the area zoned for apartment house buildings, for motels and for restaurants. This is made land that has never been approved by the federal Department of Public Works.
When I have spoken in the past about Millgate Park development off Long Branch, people seemed to rush to the conclusion that there was only one case in point. I have said before, and I can only repeat, that I am using

March 25, 1966
Supply-Public Works Millgate as an example. I could give you another 20 cases by measurement and location if you wanted. I give you Millgate because it is the clearest example at the moment. There are about 20 similar cases in that four-mile stretch. Millgate have a lawyer, Mr. James F. McCallum, whose clients simply went to work and threw in earth obtained from the building of the subway in the city of Toronto to build up this piece of property. The property now extends 450 feet into the lake, is 330 feet in width and stands eight to ten feet above the water level of Lake Ontario.
The Millgate people have based their action in dropping this fill into Lake Ontario without the prior consent of the Department of Public Works on the ground that they own the waterlots. They are, therefore, they claim able to fill them in, as they very much wish to do as owners. As I have said in this house before, and as I repeat, we in the area have communicated with the ablest lawyers in the country. One of them in particular, in whom I have 100 per cent unbounded confidence, has told us that waterlots should not be filled, that this is an interference with navigation. He points out that the bed of the lake belongs to the province of Ontario and they can sell it to whom they wish. Once you have acquired a waterlot, you are the owner but you are only allowed to build on it such appurtenances as are required for the handling of ships which you may wish to tie up for the night.
The waterlot idea developed 100 years ago when people had boats and when, instead of beaching them each night, because of the weight which would require great strength or some mechanical means to pull them in, people began to buy waterlots to tie up these boats. Having informed the government that they wished to anchor a boat, they were not allowed to obstruct other boats crossing the waterlots.
Now, when I raise the point that this Millgate land development is being filled in, and filled in without any prior consent from the Department of Public Works, I have to emphasize that I am talking about private property. These public bodies such as the Toronto Harbour Commission, the Ontario Hydro Commission and the municipality of metropolitan Toronto are public bodies and the federal government grants them the permission they seek because it is in the public good. Why are the private owners of water-lots allowed to get away with a false claim

that they own the waterlots and therefore can fill them in, whether or not they constitute a detriment to navigation.
I have raised this question of the Navigable Waters Protection Act many times in connection with this Millgate development. I have raised it times without number in the moment or two you are allowed for a question, or during the seven minutes you are allowed on the late show. Hon. members may say that I spoke on this matter during the interim supply debate on February 10, which is not too long ago. I want to say to you that I spoke at length at that time. If you want a perfect example of how much attention this cabinet pays to a private member who raises a matter, then I refer you to a letter sent to the Millgate development people and dated March 3.
I have mentioned this matter time after time. On February 10 I spoke at some length and asked the Department of Public Works not to grant approval of the application for a retaining wall around this illegal fill because I maintain, and I think quite properly, that this illegal addition should be nationalized by the crown. It could be turned into a public park for the people of the area. This would also kill a precedent that is now being built up to the effect that if you have a waterlot you can do what you like with it.
I spoke on February 10, 1966 and I just want hon. members to know the attention the cabinet pays to anybody objecting to private desires-or perhaps they are only subject to the blandishments of friends other than me. Under date of March 3, the department wrote as follows:
Re: Application for approval of a proposed retaining wall (around fill) (In Lake Ontario in front of Lot 9, broken front con., Township of Etobicoke, County of York), Province of Ontario.
Dear Sir:
I acknowledge receipt of proof of publication of the necessary advertising relating to the above application.
Approval of this application Is being delayed pending full investigation and report of complaints received against approval of the sea wall.
Yours very truly,
Peter Sorokan,
Chief of Legal Services.
Now, this letter must have filled Millgate Park investment people with a great deal of pleasure because it says that "approval" of this application is being delayed. They could not use a phrase such as, "Consideration will be given to this application during the next few weeks". No, these private developers,
March 25, 1966

evidently with an approach to the government not generally known to the public, are told, despite all the times we have drawn attention to it, that "approval of this application" is being delayed pending full investigation and report of complaints received against approval of the sea wall.
Under date of October 22, 1965, the Department of Public Works wrote to Millgate Park Investments Limited, 2788 Bathurst Street, as follows:
Dear Sir:
Our engineers now report that the plans and description which accompanied your application are considered satisfactory. It will be in order for you, therefore, to proceed with publication of the necessary advertising in the Canada Gazette and two local newspapers, and submit proof thereof upon completion on the form attached hereto.
This was two or three weeks before the general election on November 8, and there was no publicity given to that letter in the riding of West York or in the riding of York-Humber, I can assure you. This letter is signed, Peter Sorokan, Chief of Legal Services. The point I am desirous of making is this: Why is it that public bodies fill in applications in advance, accompanied by the necessary plans and the necessary advertising, but private developers are allowed to get away with whatever they want to do. They can throw tons and tons of fill into the lake. Is it because of the lawyers they hire? Is it because of the people they know, or what? Why are private developers allowed to fill in Lake Ontario? I don't get the idea. You can still buy lots from the government I believe. There were 150 private, patented waterlots along that shore.
It is the Ontario government that has sold the private waterlots. Who is to stop the Ontario government from selling more of these lots. Once they have sold the lots, is a precedent now being established that private developers can fill in the waterlots and get a screwball answer from the Department of Public Works that there is no substantia] interference with commercial navigation. The law does not read that way, it says "interfere with navigation". The present Minister of Justice who was formerly Minister of Public Works, made the announcement that Millgate Park did not interfere with navigation at all. This was quite an answer, and was given to us on February 1, 1966.
Of course, there is no obstruction to navigation created by this 450 foot spit of land on which they are hoping to build two 18 storey apartment houses. Anybody can understand
Supply-Public Works
that when you have a piece of land projecting 450 feet into Lake Ontario, with water on three sides of it and two 18 storey apartments going to be erected on it, this constitutes no obstruction to navigation. I never heard of such an answer.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I do not believe the government even knew about the plans. The Navigable Waters Protection Act says you cannot interfere with navigation. It does not refer to commercial navigation, which was another answer we got on June 1, 1965. The Department of Public Works announced that this was no interference with commercial navigation. But the act says "with navigation" and does not have the adjective "commercial" in the text.
I do not know what action we can take to nationalize this land. I have asked the government time and again on different occasions, and I ask them once more, whether they will make a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to ascertain what are the legal rights of owners of patented waterlots. These patented water lots do not give the owner the right to fill them in with earth without the prior consent of the Department of Public Works; and I doubt whether the Department of Public Works would approve the application of a private individual made on behalf of a private citizen.
I would ask the government once more whether they will make a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to clarify this matter, and whether they will delay the approval they seem determined to give to this applicant until such time as a decision has been handed down in the matter by the Supreme Court of Canada.


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


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being five o'clock, and in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private members' business, shall I rise, report certain resolutions, and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be?
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
March 25, 1966

British North America Act


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


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house might not be inclined to revert to committee of supply for a few minutes in the hope of cleaning up the final supplementary estimates. Of course, if there are a great many more members who wish to speak I would not ask that this be done.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would be inclined to comply with the request of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) that we proceed with the study of supplementary estimates. However, since Liberal members are the ones who are delaying the passage of those estimates, and also since Bill C-10 is to be considered at five o'clock

I shall not be here next week-I feel we should follow the orders of the day and proceed with public bills.
1English]



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


David Réal Caouette: the second reading of Bill No. C-10, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to representation of the provinces in the Senate and qualifications of Senators.
He said:

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-10 is to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to representation of the provinces in the Senate and qualifications of senators.
This bill mainly suggests amendments to sections 22 and 23, as well as the repeal of sections 26, 27 and 28 of the present act.
Mr. Speaker, section 23 reads as follows:
The qualification of a senator shall be as follows:
(1)	He shall be of the full age of thirty years;
(2)	He shall be either a natural-born subject of the queen, or a subject of the queen naturalized by an act of the parliament of Great Britain, or of the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the legislature of one of the provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, before the Union, or of the parliament of Canada, after the Union;
[The Chairman.]
The purpose of Bill C-10 is simply to give a more Canadian character to those sections of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, to repeal section 23 and substitute the following therefor:
The qualification of a senator shall be as follows:
(1)	He shall be of the full age of thirty years:
(2)	He shall be a Canadian citizen:
(3)	He shall be resident In the province for which he is appointed.
Now, if we consider section 22 of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, we find that paragraph (6) section 23, the repeal of which is also being proposed, was inserted in our constitutional act at the time of confederation to protect the English speaking Protestant minority, mainly grouped in the eastern townships of Quebec at the time. Of course, no such provision was made to protect the French speaking Catholic minorities in the other provinces.
It seems to me that, at this time, when bilingualism and respect for the founding races, not only of one province but of Canada as a whole, are in the fore it is time the provisions of the British North America Acts (1867 to 1965) be amended and adapted to 1966, to the time in which we are living.
Mr. Speaker, if we look at the representation of every province, in the Senate, we find that Ontario, which is entitled to 24 senators, has only two French speaking members. For the province of Quebec, four Senators are English speaking, compared with 20 French speaking for a total of 24.
For Nova Scotia, not one French speaking senator among the ten.
For New Brunswick, three out of ten senators are French speaking; for Prince Edward Island, none out of four; for British Columbia, none out of six; for Manitoba, one out of six, for Saskatchewan, one out of six; for Alberta, none out of six, and for Newfoundland, none out of six.
Mr. Speaker, a senator for Alberta died recently, Senator Aristide Blais.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Then, pressure was brought to bear by various Alberta associations.
I have here a letter from the president of the French Canadian Association of Alberta, which says:
Dear Sir:
You will readily appreciate how disappointed the Franco-Albertans were when they learned that hon. Senator Aristide Blais' successor was not a French Canadian. We find it difficult to understand this decision taken by the Prime Minister of Canada
March 25, 1966

and we hope that he will correct this omission at the earliest opportunity.
We presume that you share our views on this matter and that, in due course, you will make the proper representations.
You will find enclosed copy of a resolution which was passed by the members of the general council of the French Canadian Association of Alberta and which was sent to the Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson on March 7, 1966.
We expect that, in the not too distant future, a few vacancies will occur in the representation of Alberta in the Senate and we deem it most advisable to continue asking what we began to ask immediately after Senator Blais' death, in November 1964. We are counting on your support and we thank you in advance.
Mr. Speaker, this stand taken by the French Canadian Association of Alberta should surprise no one in this house.
In the province of Quebec, we have always accepted that English speaking senators be appointed to a seat in the Senate to represent the Protestant Anglo Saxon minority of our province. The province of Quebec never raised any objection whatsoever about the representation which is quite normal and respectable and which we respect.
I make it four provinces out of ten which do not have a single French speaking representative in the Canadian Senate, and that seems quite illogical to me.
We suggest that this lack of logic be remedied and that is why I introduce Bill No. C-10 which asks that senators be Canadian citizens.
I will add, in passing, that the bicultural character of our country must be taken into account, not only in one region but throughout the country, in all the provinces; what we accept in the province of Quebec should be done in the other provinces.
It was rather surprising, in the circumstances, to see appointments such as the ones which were made quite recently and for which the Prime Minister of Canada did not take that fact into account.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Prime Minister, who likes to champion the rights of the two ethnic groups which founded Canada, should take that fact into account, not only when he makes a speech in the house but when he makes appointments.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed change is motivated mainly by the fact that Canada is no longer a colony, and therefore only Canadians should be eligible for the Senate.
You know that, under the present act, a senator can be appointed from Great Britain, Australia or any commonwealth nation.
British North America Act
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, only Canadians should be eligible for the Senate because we live in a country which is now sovereign.
Let us add also that, if it is most difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, a poor man should not be prevented from entering the democratic Senate of the kingdom of Canada.
Paragraph 6 is deleted for the reasons given in the explanatory note opposite Section 1.
With regard to Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the said act, no use has ever been made of these sections since confederation, that is 1867. They are therefore antiquated, useless, and I suggest we simply delete them, so that they might not cause inconvenience to anyone at a later date, especially from 1966 on.
In Section 4, I request that this act be cited as the
British North America Act, 1966 and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 and this Act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1966.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill is prejudicial to no one. On the contrary, it confirms the fact that ours is a sovereign nation; its purpose is to establish clearly that to become a senator, one must be 30 years of age, a Canadian citizen and a resident in the province for which one is appointed.
That is the purpose of the bill and I trust that the house as well as the members are wise enough to understand the importance of proving to Canada that our country is sovereign and that we can act, in all consciousness, and freely, in favour of Canada, with Canadians.


Mr.   L.-P. Neveu@Shefford: Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I have the honour to participate in the discussion in this house, I hope my colleagues will grant me the privilege of giving my speech to the end.
I am particularly fortunate to speak on a much discussed subject of major significance. In the past, many members have seen fit to rise to move amendments concerning the honourable members of the senate.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill introduced by the hon. member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette) who thinks it is proper to suggest also changes which directly affect our colleagues of the upper house.
I am very proud to follow my hon. friend because I have high regard for his oratory,
March 25, 1966

British North America Act for his devotion to his work, for his fighting spirit and for his perseverance.
I sincerely believe that the whole of our population deserves to be well informed on the important role played by the members of the Canadian senate.
But since this is my maiden speech, I also want to say that I will respect the rule of progression, to wit that one must walk before one can run, but while making steady progress in accordance with the policies laid down by my Liberal colleagues. Philosophy states that nature does not leap. Nevertheless, I intend to follow my own course of action resulting from sustained toil.
I also wish to add, Mr. Speaker, that I intend, together with my French and English speaking colleagues in the house, to remain objective in my remarks and my discussions. I also would express the hope that we may experience Canadian unity to its full extent.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I also want to say that, if I intend to work in close co-operation with one and all, it is because this is my way of proclaiming proudly that I wish to be among those who will say, with dignity and enthusiasm, that French speaking Canadians certainly intend to co-operate, but they also want their rights to be respected. I want to be among those who will be able to say: French Canadians no longer intend to symbolize the sheep, but the Precursor.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to make a review of that place we call the upper chamber. Naturally, Massieu said: gratitude is the heart's memory. That is why, with the permission of the house, I should like to assess properly the part played by the hon. members of the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, our upper house is now made up of 102 members appointed by the governor general under the great seal of Canada.
It is in order to mention here that the act contains a special provision under which four or eight additional senators can be appointed to represent the four great regions of Canada. However, as far as I know, that provision has never been used since confederation.
Considering that, in the last several years, the number of our members has increased and that our population keeps increasing and that its needs should be better met, and that some regions are not represented, I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the provisions of the act be applied and that the Northwest Territories
[Mr. Neveu.l
for instance have a member in the upper house because all Canadians, whether English or French speaking, whether they belong to one ethnic group or other, deserve to be represented not only in this House of Commons but also in the upper house, so that all Canadians are represented.
According to constitutional tradition, the Prime Minister has the power to appoint senators by sending a recommendation to the governor general who accepts it.
I would hope however that in the future it might be possible to suggest an amendment to the effect that the Prime Minister, in agreement with the members of the Privy Council, could recommend the appointment of senators, to avoid any purely political discussion or nomination, and to enable all Canadians who built our economy in all sectors, whether they are in politics or not, to represent us permanently in the upper chamber.
As you know, Senate representation is the following in Canada: Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes each have 24 senators; Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, 10 each; Prince Edward Island, four; Newfoundland, six; and western Canada, 24, each of the four western provinces being represented by six senators.
In the case of each division of Canada, excluding the province of Quebec, senators are named without any designation of constituency, that is to say they represent the whole of the region for which they are appointed.
As far as Quebec is concerned, one senator is provided for each of the 24 electoral colleges of the territory which made up the old Lower Canada. Personally, I favour maintaining that particular system because it better identifies our province which was one of the two pioneers and, therefore, proves clearly its role as one of the founding nations.
That formula is fair and most praiseworthy because it enables our various regions to depend on one representative who keeps constantly in mind the problems which concern more particularly the constituency he represents.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to review the qualifications of a member of the upper house.
As was said earlier, one must be over 30 years old and be a British subject. On that last point, I feel that, because of the amendments which gave our country its independence, qualification should be changed from British subject to Canadian subject. That
March 25, 1966	COMMONS
provision would help to a certain extent to recognize an adult Canada, therefore more modern, considering the powers put at our disposal.
One must also own, in the province for which one is appointed, real estate of a minimum value of $4,000 over and above debts and liabilities, and real and personal property of a minimum value of $4,000 also over and above debts and liabilities. In the case of Quebec, one must reside in the province or own real estate valued at $4,000 in the riding for which one is appointed.
The Senate was never meant to compete with the House of Commons in the field of legislation. It was created as a second house and as Sir John A. Macdonald said, it can give "sober second thought" to bills introduced in the house. That has been, generally, its role.
By virtue of the constitution, financial bills, that is bills which entail any expenditure of public funds or which levy taxes, must first be introduced in the House of Commons, as is done in the United Kingdom.
In every other respect, the Senate is the equal of the House of Commons, as the two must agree in the enactment of any legislative measure.
Finally, the Senate has an absolute right of veto over all bills, a right it has exercised from time to time. It has also claimed, and in fact exercised, the right to amend money bills when such amendments decreased the amounts involved, or the taxes levied, and did not increase the burden placed upon the taxpayers.
Confederation had barely been signed when clamours for Senate reform started and continued periodically. On several occasions it was the target of severe criticism, often of a contradictory nature. It was accused of not being responsible to the people of being a possible menace to the supremacy of the House of Commons, of being a mere rubber stamp for the House of Commons, of comprising too great a number of representatives of one political party or the other, of not bearing its rightful share of the legislative burden.
Moreover, it has been said on various occasions that an age limit should be set for senators. An amendment was passed and enacted to this effect on June 2, 1965 and it now appears in Chapter 4 of the Statutes of Canada 14, Elizabeth II, under the title: An Act to make provision for the retirement of
DEBATES	3223
British North America Act members of the Senate. Under this amendment, the age of retirement of senators appointed after this date has been set at 75.
Nevertheless, many factors were against any appreciable change in the composition, the method of appointment and operation of the Senate.
First of all, there has been a tendency to expect too much of that institution. Numerous critics were based on a misconception of the proper duties of the Senate, as mentioned previously. The role of the Senate was never to compete with the house of commons nor, as Sir Robert Borden said "to make use of its powers to the limit of the law." Thus, it never opposed passage of a bill for which the government had received a mandate from the people at a general election.
Traditionally, the Senate has always been conscious of the special role it has to play in the enacting of legislation, and of the fact that it must check but not obstruct measures sent to it by the house of commons. Indeed, no attempt has been made until now to restrict its powers although, under the Imperial Parliament Act, the powers of the house of lords, the equivalent of the Senate in the United Kingdom, have been considerably curtailed.
Second, let us note that public opinion has never reached a consensus as to the means of reforming the Senate, as previously mentioned; there are many conflicting possibilities in this regard, and the views of the government, and those of the opposition differed, understandably, with regard to both the urgency of reform and the points which should be subjected to reform. These differences depended on whether or not the majority in the Senate was of the same political stripe as the government.
Third, political parties in this country seem to agree on the fact that the basic provisions of the British North America Act in regard to the composition, the method of appointment and the duties of the Senate cannot be amended, without prior consultation with the provincial governments, although, in strict accordance with the law, parliament could probably take several steps on its own under the 1949 constitutional amendment previously referred to in my remarks.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Finally, let us not forget any proposed reform requiring the intervention of the
March 25. 1966

British North America Act Canadian parliament must be approved by the Senate itself.
In spite of periodical reform proposals, no one should be under the impression that the Senate has nothing to do in the making of our laws. However, in the red chamber there is neither the animation of the Commons, nor the climate of political rivalry which prevails here. Debates are sober, speeches are short and concise. As an outstanding parliamentarian once said: "It is a workshop, not a theatre".
In the Senate, discussions which are purely political in character, procedural disputes and filibustering are held at a minimum. Legislation is put forward and debated usually in a calm atmosphere. During parliamentary sessions, therefore, the Senate meets less often than the house, and its sittings are shorter than those of the house where, as can be seen constantly, there is always a current, or at least a strong undercurrent of political emulation, because members must always look after their own chances of re-election and that of their party.
In fact, the Senate performs carefully and efficiently, mainly through its committees, a great deal of parliamentary work without being given much credit for it and without getting much publicity.
Sponsors of bills have to prove their case before the appropriate Senate committee, and a private bill passed by the Senate is very seldom significantly or repeatedly amended by the House of Commons. Finally, the Senate discusses and considers regularly various matters of public interest and reports to the house. In this connection, the wishes of the Senate are often reflected ultimately in government legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the distinguished members of that house are really objective; most of them have a wide experience in the judicial, political and social fields, as well as in the business world. Many of them have an extensive knowledge and have distinguished themselves in this house. They are quite familiar with our statutes and understand thoroughly the proper functioning of our society.
In the past few years, the numerous general elections have brought about radical changes in the representation within the House of Commons. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the human element has always played a major role in human relationships.

The members of the Senate are permanent members of parliament who, the year round, work in teams and study dispassionately the bills presented to them.
This parliamentary stability makes for solid friendships based on the recognition of others. These men ceaselessly learn to respect one another because they know how to respect.
Mr. Speaker, during the critical times we are living through, our distinguished members of the Senate are playing a magnificent role in enabling our two founding races, our two languages, our two cultures, to be accepted everywhere in our beautiful country.
The members of the upper house can set for the people of Canada an example that unity must necessarily be prectised through constructive dialogue so that there may be a real possibility of solving the many problems that occur in our time.
Representing all the provinces of Canada, our honourable colleagues may from the same starting point, disseminate the message of unity to which all right-minded citizens of Canada sincerely aspire.
The example of the members of the upper house must be followed and I express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that all my colleagues maintain such objectivity. Our soldiers, whether French or English speaking, laboured together for a common goal and many of them spilled their blood to preserve our freedom; they did so in order that all Canadians labour together in peace, to build a new Canada that will set forth, all sails to the wind, toward continued progress.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Senate make up a huge laboratory from which came out the experience and the means to help us strengthen the ties which will serve as an example for all Canadians. And before concluding my remarks, I would like to quote two great men. In 1959, Dr. Schweitzer said:
One must never hurl unfounded rumors against an opponent or impute motives to him because he, like anyone else, is inhabited by the spirit.
In closing, I would like to strike a note of friendly unity by quoting from Saint-Exupery's book Terre des Hommes:
To love is not to look at each other but to look together in the same direction.
[English1


Grant Deachman: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Knowles@: En francais.
March 25, 1966	COMMONS


David Réal Caouette: Tres bien, tres bien.


An hon. Member:: He would, only you would not understand him.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker-

Mr. Speaker, as requested by hon. members, I can speak a little French. You will excuse me if I continue in English, because I can express my thoughts more easily in that language.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fine.


David Réal Caouette: Very good.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, when I was asked whether I would take part in this debate I gave some period of study to this bill, and I found some things which I do not think I knew about previously concerning Canada's constitution and about the Senate. What I found, something which I thought was most interesting, is that at the time of confederation Quebec was the only province entering confederation which had a singular arrangement in respect of the appointment of senators. In that province, as has been explained well in the bill presented by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), they appointed their senators on a geographic basis, based on the irregular boundaries or counties of the old province of Lower Canada. However, my friend says this was done with a view to providing an adjustment between the English and the French population of that day, and it did indeed have a considerable amount to do with the fact that the eastern townships at that time were more heavily populated with English speaking persons than they are today.
To go to some of the texts which describe this, I think it would be of interest to hon. members if I quoted a few remarks from some authorities on this subject, to shed a little more light on why this was done and exactly how it was done. I refer to a book by Robert A. MacKay, entitled "The Unreformed Senate of Canada", in which he says:
The basis of representation in the upper house was the great compromise of the conference, just as it had been in the convention of the American States at Philadelphia. At Philadelphia the compromise was equal representation in the upper house for the states, at Quebec it was equal representation for the three sections.
DEBATES	3225
British North America Act [DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
That is to say, the country was divided into three sections; the mari times with 24 senatorial seats, Quebec or French Canada with 24 senatorial seats and Upper Canada, which at that time had not expanded westward, with 24 senatorial seats.
He then says:
It was the key to federation, 'the very essence of the compact,' said George Brown. 'Our Lower Canadian friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower House, on the express condition that they could have equality in the Upper House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step.'
That is another question which the hon. member takes up in his bill. That is, the question of property ownership as being a requisite in order to qualify for a senatorship.
Mr. MacKay then states:
This provision, which was of concern only to Canada, seems to have been worked out among members of the government representing Lower Canada. Its purpose was to assure to both the French speaking Roman Catholic majority and the English speaking Protestant minority their fair share of representation in the upper house. It applied and still applies, only to Quebec.
Let us now turn to the confederation debates, and I am sure all hon. members have a copy of them in their own libraries. We find at page 236 the words of the hon. Sir E. P. Tache who said in 1865:
Perhaps it is well that we have now responsible government, because responsible government is a cure for many evils. Well, the bill to give Protestant dissenters-
Perhaps my hon. friend will be interested in that phrase. The English were referred to as "Protestant dissenters" in Lower Canada.
Sir E. P. Tache continues:
Well, the bill to give Protestant dissenters in Lower Canada certain rights was opposed again and again in the Legislative Council of Lower Canada, and opposed by English Protestants. But this was no less a proof of the liberality of the French Canadians.
At this point in brackets are the words "hear, hear". That is one of the things we miss in our Hansard today, these little interjections which tell us when there was laughter and applause in the house.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Grant Deachman: I hope that comment has been taken down and will appear in Hansard.
Sir E. P. Tache then states:
The honourable gentleman behind me is not at all satisfied with the electoral divisions as they stand in Lower Canada. He says there is no security whatever afforded by them to the
March 25, 1966

British North America Act Protestant community. But I wish that honourable gentleman had taken the trouble to look a little into the facts upon which he had based his conclusions in regard to these very electoral divisions.
I will not continue to read his words, but he does go on to say how he had taken part in setting up this peculiar difference in the selection of senators from Quebec, on the county basis rather than on a regional basis as was the case in the rest of the country.
I am a little surprised that my hon. friend would want to give up the territorial distribution of senatorships in the province of Quebec even though, as he said, the English element has to a considerable extent now left the eastern townships. Do the geographic districts for the distribution of senatorships not protect the French speaking citizens of Quebec? If they were not there, would it not be possible, for example, for a prime minister to appoint all his senators from the area of Montreal or, indeed from the city of West-mount? Under the system as it now is the senators of Quebec, more so than in any other province or area of Canada, must indeed be appointed from a specific area and must give representation to a geographic area of that province.
While I am referring to this subject, I should like to skip a little bit in the member's bill and point out to the fact that an individual, in order to qualify for a senatorship, must also possess property. It was part of the constitution at confederation that at the same time geographic distribution of senatorships in the province of Quebec was established, the appointees had also to possess property in the districts they were to represent.
In my province of British Columbia we divide up the senatorial appointments among the island, the lower mainland or metropolitan area and the interior of the province. I do not think this is done on any constitutional basis, but simply as a long-standing practice in distributing the six senatorships to which the province of British Columbia is now entitled.
The difficulty in this regard is this. As soon as we go to the interior and appoint a senator he moves from the area into the city and we seldom see him back in the interior again. If he sells his property he disappears almost entirely from that area and cannot, therefore, give the kind of representation to the area that he might otherwise give if he were constrained to keep property in that area as the senator representing the geographic location.

Far from being a hindrance or something that a person would want to rid himself of in a bill of this kind, I would think the hon. member would want to retain this requirement in the bill in order to encourage senators not to give up their farms and move into flats here in Ottawa, seldom going back to the communities from which they had been sent as representatives in the Senate. It seems to me this would be a very desirable feature and one which we might wish had been included in the arrangements at the time of confederation for other provinces as well as Quebec.
I now want to turn for a moment to the subject of Canadian citizenship, because this is one subject about which I heard the hon. gentleman speak. I know a little bit about his views regarding Canadian citizenship and, indeed, a bit about his views regarding French and English speaking Canadians. But, of course, there has always been a great struggle in Canada in the making of appointments to the Senate, because there is always an attempt to make them not only on geographic lines, as set out for us by the constitution, but on ethnic, religious and class lines. In that regard I mean classes such as individuals who come from the country, from the city and from labouring sections of the community as well as those from managerial and professional sections. All those considerations must be looked into when the Prime Minister comes to the permutations involved in choosing Senate appointments.


Howard Earl Johnston: Why do you ignore them all?


Mr. Rapp:: What about Hazen Argue?


Grant Deachman: I am surprised at that remark.
I want to read a few items from a book entitled The Modern Senate of Canada, written by Mr. F. A. Kunz and published by the University of Toronto press. He says at page 50:
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Another group that has a well-articulated claim to representation in the Senate on the ground of their distinct identity is the English speaking Catholics in the English speaking provinces, particularly in Ontario. They try to secure a balance in Senate membership between English and French, Protestant and Catholic. The difficulty of course is that Protestants look upon a French Canadian appointee as a Catholic appointment, whilst French Canadians look upon the appointment of an English speaking Catholic as an English appointment. So between the French Canadian Catholics on the
March 25, 1966

one hand and the Protestants on the other, English speaking Catholics are ground between the upper and nether millstones.
He goes on to say at page 51:
The French Canadians of Ontario and western Canada seem to attach the same kind of political-social-psychological significance to representation in the Senate. When J. H. G. Lacasse from Ontario was summoned to the Upper House in 1928, Cas-grain made a special point during the Address debate in the House of Commons: "I am pleased to observe," he said, "that the government has fulfilled a duty: they have acknowledged the rights of the French Canadian minority in Ontario, by calling to the Upper House one of its distinguished citizens-and I think all the French Canadian people of the province of Quebec, as well as those of other parts of Canada, will give credit to the government-for such a fair and just act."
A little further on he says:
Claims of this nature are of course not restricted to the major minority groups. Indeed, there are nearly as many claims to representation in the Senate as there are minorities of whatever complexion. Thus, for example, the Hebrew Conservative Political Association, Montreal, said in its resolution, June 28, 1926, that, "Whereas from a national and political point of view the time has arrived when it would be highly desirable that the Conservative party should give due prominence and recognition to a member of the Jewish race by an appointment to the Senate of Canada ...be it resolved that we...hereby unanimously recommend the appointment of Isaac Lande to the Senate of Canada."
Then the writer of this book says:
Again, when Mr. J. Hnatyshyn was summoned to the Senate in 1959, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix commented: "The appointment of Mr. John Hnatyshyn, Q.C., as a Senator of Canada is a meritorious one and is so acclaimed in Saskatoon and beyond, and regardless of party affiliations and party considerations-the underlying importance of this appointment to the Red Chamber is in the fact that Mr. Hnatyshyn is a native of the Ukraine, and his choice-as the first of his race in Saskatchewan to go to the Senate is a recognition of the great role Canadian Ukrainians have played, and are continuing to play in this growing country."
So it is that prime ministers in the past have attempted in their choice of Senators to give recognition to walks of life in Canada and representation to the wide diversification of ethnic groups which have made up this great country. They have even gone outside the boundaries of Quebec to select senators and give representation to French Canadian minorities outside that province, just as my hon. friend has asked this house to provide by way of constitutional amendment.
In his remarks the hon. member for Vil-ieneuve said there had not been, for example, a French Canadian appointment from the province of British Columbia. I should like to remind him that the late Senator Turgeon,
British North America Act who died only a very few years ago and whose appointment has not been filled, represented the province of British Columbia for many years as a French Canadian senator. It is true that the Turgeon family moved to the west in early days and were perhaps westerners rather than easterners or members of the province of Quebec, but the great Turgeon family graced many public posts in the west during its early days and are to be numbered among our judges, chairmen of various boards, commissioners of royal commissions and senators over that period. Senator Turgeon himself I believe served in the legislature of the province of British Columbia before he was appointed to the Senate in Mackenzie King's day to represent the interior and Cariboo district of British Columbia. So it is-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Grant Deachman: Yes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is the hon. member not in error when he suggests that the late Senator Turgeon was a member of the legislature of British Columbia? My recollection is that he was a member of this house-that indeed at one time he was my member of parliament.


Grant Deachman: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. member is quite correct. In conclusion I would say about this bill that while it suggests that some changes be made in the geographic representation system which is unique to the province of Quebec, there is perhaps some reason to give pause before we leap into passing a bill which would amend the legislation.
The appointment of Senators, as has been pointed out in the quotations I have read to the house, has been carried out by every Canadian prime minister as fairly as possible on ethnic lines, whatever other considerations a prime minister may have had in making senatorial appointments. Finally I would say that in regard to the appointment of only Canadian citizens as senators-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Grant Deachman: -I think it would be very difficult indeed to find a member of the Senate today, or perhaps any senator in the past, who is or was not a Canadian citizen. Therefore I do not think we need worry about the section which the hon. member wishes to have amended. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?

March 25, 1966
Supply-Items Passed


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the acting house leader could give some indication of the business for at least the first part of next week, or can he make any statement at this time?


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, I understand we are to discuss the question of capital punishment on Monday. I do not know whether there is agreement on that, but I will bring it to the attention of the house leader in the hope that he can work out a satisfactory schedule with the leaders of the house.


John Angus MacLean: I just wanted to have confirmed that no change had been made in the understanding that the question of capital punishment would be debated on Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was a house order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think it was a house order and therefore it would only be possible to change it by another order of the house. But subject to that caveat and to any arrangements that might be made among the leaders of the parties between now and Monday, I would think the agreement would stand.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed In Committee of Supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
le. General administration. $47,500.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
15e. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, pursuant to Section 35 of the National Housing Act, 1954, for expenditures incurred during the period January 1, 1965 to December 31, 1965, for housing research and community planning as contemplated by Part V of the National Housing Act, 1954, $1,489,905.
20e. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, pursuant to Section 5(5) and Section 24(b) of the Central Mortgage and Housing Act, for net losses resulting from the sale of mortgages from its portfolio during the calendar year 1965, $685,562.
25e. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for losses sustained by it during the calendar year 1965 as a result of the operation of public housing projects undertaken under Part VI of the National Housing Act, 1954, $1,976,649.

30e. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for amounts loaned under Section 36H of the National Housing Act. 1954, to any province, municipality or municipal sewerage corporation, and forgiven by the corporation during the calendar year 1965, pursuant to Section 36G of the Act, $10,513,153.
35e. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for grants charged to the consolidated revenue fund as established by Section 23E of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of contributions made during the calendar year 1965, to any province or municipality for the preparation or implementation of an urban renewal scheme or pursuant redevelopment agreement, $4,902,418.
Loans, investments and advances-
L62e. Advances charged to the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by subsection (4) of Section 35A of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of housing and land development projects undertaken jointly with the governments of provinces during the calendar year 1965, $4,500,000.
L64e. Advances charged to the special account in the consolidated revenue fund established by subsection 2 of Section 36H of the National Housing Aet, 1954, in respect of loans to any province, municipality or municipal sewerage corporation, for construction or expansion of municipal sewage treatment projects during the calendar year 1965, $30,500,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-Marine Services-
5e. Administration, operation and maintenance,
[Stage Direction]
Railways and steamships-
15e. Payments to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the Company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made by the Company to the Minister of Finance, to be applied by the company in payment of the deficits, certified by the auditors of the Company, arising in the operations in the calendar year 1965 in respect of the following services: Newfoundland ferry and terminals:	Prince Edward
Island car ferry and terminals; Yarmouth, N.S.-Bar Harbour, Maine, TJ.S.A. ferry services, $2,000,000.
25e. Payments in respect of the Maritime Freight Rates Act and for supplemental pension allowances to railway employees in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of the estimates, $1.
27e. Canadian National Railways deficit, 1965- Amount required to provide for payment to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the Company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the Company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the Company in payment of the system deficit (certified by the auditors of the company) arising in the calendar year 1965, subject to recovery therefrom of accountable advances made to the Company from the consolidated revenue fund, $34,718,000.
March 25, 1966
[Stage Direction]
Air services-
35e. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $3,000,000.
General-
74e. Reimbursement of the Department of Transport Stores Account for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $100,000.
C-Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada- 84e. To increase from $70,000,000 to $95,000,000 the payments authorized by Vote 84d of supplementary estimates (D)	1965-66 to railway companies to
maintain the rates of freight traffic at a reduced level and to extend the purposes of the said vote to authorize payments to the said companies in respect of the calendar year 1964, $25,000,000.
D-Canadian Maritime Commission-
85e. Administration of the Commission-To extend the purposes of Transport Vote 85 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to include federal assistance towards the cost of ice-breaking in the Miramichi River, N.B., $45,500.
90e. Steamship subventions for coastal services as detailed in the estimates. $523,000.
E-National Harbours Board-
102e. To authorize, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council, special assistance to firms displaced as a result of construction of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool elevator in Vancouver Harbour, B.C., $75,000.
F-St. Lawrence Seaway Authority-
107e. Payment to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, upon application, approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the authority to the Minister of Finance, to reimburse the authority in respect of the Welland Canal deficit incurred by the authority during the calendar year 1965, $8,250,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
L82e. Advances during the 1965-66 and 1966-67 fiscal years to Canadian National Railways and to Air Canada in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve and to provide for the purchase during such fiscal years and holding by the Minister of Finance of 4% preferred stock of the Canadian National Railways and the subsequent disposal thereof, $35,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
Administrationle. Departmental administration and grants, as detailed in the estimates, $123,000.
Government administrationlie. To deem former members of the Senate who are in receipt of an annuity pursuant to Part III of An Act to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate and dependents of such members to be, for purposes of Finance Vote 20b of the Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964 and the regulations made thereunder, former members of the Senate who are in receipt of an annual allowance pursuant to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act or dependents of such members, as the case may be, $1.
Supply-Items Passed
15e. Contingencies-subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, (a) to supplement the paylist provisions of other votes; (b) for miscellaneous minor or unforeseen expenses; and (c) for awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act; including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, $5,000,000.
16e. To authorize the Treasury Board to delete from the accounts certain debts due, and claims by Her Majesty, each of which is in excess of $1,000, amounting in the aggregate to $1,084,556.60, $1.
17e. Government's contribution as an employer under the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan in respect of persons employed in the public service whose remuneration is payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, $600,000.
23e. To provide that, for the purpose of the Public Service Superannuation Act, the period of employment in the public service of Joseph Charles Yvon Charlebois that commenced on September 9, 1954 and ended on March 16, 1955 shall notwithstanding section 4(1) (c) of the Act, be deemed to be a period during which he was required by subsection (1) of section 4 to contribute to the Superannuation account, $1.
24e. To provide that where a person who (a) was employed in the public service on July 1, 1954; and (b) has not, before the coming into force of this item, made any contributions under section 42 of the Public Service Superannuation Act; made an election under section 52(1) of the act in purported compliance therewith that was invalid by reason only that the person was not, on July 1, 1954, a participant within the meaning of the act, the said election shall be deemed to have been validly made under and in accordance with section 52(1) of the act, $1.
Municipal development and loan board-
50e. To extend the purposes of Finance vote 50b, Supplementary Estimates (B), 1965-66 to authorize the Municipal Development and Loan Board in the current and subsequent fiscal years, notwithstanding sections 7 and 11 of the Municipal Development and Loan Act, in cases where a municipal project, in respect of which a loan is approved by the board under the Municipal Development and Loan Act, (a) is completed to the satisfaction of the board during the period commencing on April 1, 1966 and ending on September 30, 1966, to forgive payment of 25 per cent of the principal amount of the loan; and (b) is not completed on or before the 30th day of September, 1966, to forgive payment of 25 per cent of that portion of the principal amount of the loan that is made with respect to the cost, as determined by the board, incurred on the project during the period commencing on April 1, 1966 and ending on September 30, 1966; and to authorize the board to enter into an agreement for the purpose of implementing this provision with the government of any province with which an agreement has been entered into under section 7(2) of the act, additional amount required, $12,000,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
L99e. To authorize the operation of a working capital advance account in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with terms and conditions approved by Treasury Board for the purpose of providing data processing and related services to federal government departments and agencies, the cost of such services to be charged to the account and the amounts received in payment of such
[Stage Direction]
March 25, 1966
Supply-Items Passed
services to be credited thereto; the amount outstanding under this authority, at any time, after deducting therefrom all amounts due by federal government departments and agencies, shall not exceed $1,000,000, $1,000,000.
LlOOe. Special accountable advances during the 1965-66 and 1966-67 fiscal years to or in respect of persons employed in the public service whose remuneration is payable out of the consolidated revenue fund and who are required to make contributions under (a) the Public Service Superannuation Act or the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, and (b) the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan, in the amounts by which the combined contributions required from such persons in respect of remuneration to which an Act referred to in paragraph (a) and an Act referred to in paragraph (b) both apply exceed 6i per cent of such remuneration in the case of males and 5 per cent of such remuneration in the case of females, $4,500,000.
LlOle. Advances in respect of a toll bridge across the harbour of Saint John, N.B. in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with terms and conditions set out in an agreement relating to the financing, construction and operation of the toll bridge to be entered into between Canada, New Brunswick, the city of Saint John Snd the bridge authority, with the approval of the Governor in Council, (a) to the Saint John Harbour Bridge Authority established by c. 150 of the Statutes of New Brunswick, 1961-62; or (b) to a trustee for the holders of securities issued by the authority; the total amount of advances in each such fiscal year to be based on the difference for the year between the operating and financing costs of the toll bridge and the actual revenue of the bridge authority, as determined pursuant to the agreement, repayable when the actual revenue of the bridge authority for a fiscal year exceeds the amount of the operating and financing costs for such year. $10,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 28, 1966