1966-05-27

INQUIRIES ACT


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-188, to amend the Inquiries Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to correct some of the deficiencies in the Inquiries Act. The bill provides that inquiries or royal commissions, as they are sometimes called, may continue to secure evidence from any available source in order to get at the truth of any matters into which they are inquiring, but it provides that material introduced at the inquiry, if it is defamatory of individuals, must not be published unless first of all-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: -unless it is relevant to the
inquiry and would be admissible in a court of law. Recent episodes and the whole history of inquiries reveal the need for this type of legislation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FARM MACHINERY


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I request permission to table order in council P.C. 1966-978 appointing Dr. Clarence L. Barber, head of the department of economics, University of Manitoba, as a commissioner under part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire into the cost of farm machinery and repair parts. The terms of reference of the commissioner are contained in the order in council.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, since delivery to him of what might be described as Stuart Keate's commentaries, he has talked with the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or any of the senior executives. Have they given any indication that they are willing to compromise on their decision of dismissal in connection with the Leiterman program, and to bring about the suggested procedures to be followed in connection with dismissal of producers and other personnel?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the report which Mr. Keate submitted to me was referred by me at once to the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and a representative of the producers' association. I hope this report will assist in the parties concerned getting together and resolving the dispute between them. I know my right hon. friend will share my expression of appreciation for what Mr. Keate was able to do to help in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I share it, and I only hope that the words ascribed to the poet John Keats: "writ on the wind", would not apply. I should like to ask the Prime Minister now to answer the question. Has he communicated with the president or any senior member of the C.B.C., and have they shown any attitude of reasonable compromise?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I communicated the report to the president, as I have already indicated. It is now for the president and the producers association to discuss the report. I hope in their discussions they will be able to resolve their difficulties.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to refer the Prime Minister to the report of Mr. Keate, and in particular to a

May 27, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry very short statement which appears at page 1, namely:
The producers association suspended their strike threat and the show went on, opening with the statement that "This hour comes to you through the courtesy of the Prime Minister of Canada".
Does he take from those words the suggestion that either he or his government have shown some direct interference in the management of the C.B.C.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is argumentative.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Does he intend to wait for the report of the parliamentary committee now studying the case of "This Hour Has Seven Days", before the producers association or management of the C.B.C. reach decisions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the consideration if any, to be given by the committee to this report is a matter, of course, for the committee itself to decide.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread concern over the proposal that the tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway be raised, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he can give the house an assurance on two counts; first that the recommendations of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority will be made public before any decision is made by the cabinet; second, that there will be an opportunity to discuss these recommendations in the House of Commons prior to any order in council being passed which would increase the tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the house has already been given an opportunity to discuss this matter. In regard to the procedure to be followed in the future, I would only assure my hon. friend that the appropriate constitutional procedure will be followed. I know this procedure will be such as will respect the rights of parliament and also the responsibilities of the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can be more specific and clarify his statement. Is the Prime Minister now telling the house that the order in council will be passed without parliament being given any opportunity to discuss the recommendations of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, though I am not sure whether this is within the authority of the government. If not, would he approach the seaway authority to see whether the authority would make public the economic studies which it commissioned and upon which it bases its proposals?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should be glad to look into that question, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
On March 7 last, almost three months ago, the Canadian Fruit and Vegetable Wholesalers Association asked the Department of Agriculture to appoint additional federal inspectors in Quebec.
Can the minister tell us today if additional fruit and vegetable inspectors will be appointed in the province of Quebec?


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


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture?
Is he in a position to tell us whether he is considering at present the possibility or advisability of appointing fruit and vegetable inspectors in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: That question has just been rejected.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not want the inspectors to be placed on the order paper but rather appointed in the province of Quebec to deal with fruits and vegetables.
May 27. 1966



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the order in council he tabled a few moments ago. May I ask him, in view of the fact that a one man commission has been set up to inquire into the prices of farm machinery and repair parts, whether this is an indication that the minister does not intend to ask that this subject matter be referred to the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development of this house, so that body can continue the work it began several years ago in this regard.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the committee of course are masters of their own procedure. They can, if they wish, continue any discussion. Having reviewed what the committee has done in these past several years, it seemed to me that a more useful result, and a more beneficial one to the farm community in the long run, could be achieved by having an all pervasive inquiry conducted by a prominent agricultural economist such as Dr. Barber. It seems to me that such an inquiry into the entire subject matter by Dr. Barber is preferable, rather than having this done through the medium of the committee. I think the committee had a very difficult time, according to my reading of the reports, in coming to a conclusion.
I hope, having heard the representations of various parties and hon. members throughout the house in this regard, this proposed measure will be a more useful one in the long run.
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfort-
Tisdale): A supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the appointment of a one man royal commission to investigate the price of farm machinery. This is something I advocated a long time ago, and I am very pleased-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Rapp:: I want to ask this question. Is the minister in a position to say why this is only a one man royal commission, and not the usual commission with two, three or more members?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this particular question,
Inquiries of the Ministry whether it should be a one, two or three man commission is not so important that it should be asked at this time.


Reynold Rapp: With respect, I think it is very important.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member could place this question on the order paper.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi (Macleod):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister of Agriculture, in connection with this commission, set any time limit within which we shall know the results of the commission hearings?


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker. I think we should give Dr. Barber every opportunity of going into this question in depth, as he sees fit. I do not wish to tie him down in any way, because I think all hon. members of the house would like to have the most comprehensive inquiry possible.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister assure the house that Dr. Barber will continue his investigation for several years; because during the course of the investigation by the House of Commons committee, which lasted for several months, the price of farm machinery never rose.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask hon. members to limit their contributions to questions at this time.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I should like to direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the United States food and drug administration has recently recognized stilbestrol as a cancer causing agent, would the minister give early consideration to the banning of its use in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is doubt in my mind whether this question is so urgent that it could not be placed on the order paper. I recommend that course to the hon. member.


Percy Verner Noble: I think this is an important issue; it affects our health and welfare, and this material is being used promiscuously in Canada now. I think the minister knows something about it.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the minister knows something about it, and trust he will be able to indicate that in a written reply.
May 27. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



QUEBEC-STOPPAGE OF WORK BY LONGSHOREMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: My question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the worsening situation in connection with the strike of longshoremen at the St. Lawrence river ports, is the minister in a position to place before the house the optimistic possibility of an early settlement of this dispute? What does the government intend to do about it, with the ships piling up and exports being held back?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I am not in a position to make a report at this time, optimistic or otherwise. The government has seen fit to appoint an experienced mediator, who enjoys the confidence of both sides in this dispute. That mediator is sitting in Montreal at the moment, and I do not think the government should be asked to state what action-one way or the other-may be required until we have had a report from him.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the minister mean by that? Does he mean the dawdling on the part of the government is to continue? Is that what he means?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There has been no dawdling.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Labour.
Has the ministerial committee looking into the conflict between the C.N.T.U. and the C.L.C. at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reached a decision, and if so, could it be known?
[English1


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I announced the other day that there would probably be an adjournment of the meeting which had been set for this morning. A new

date has been suggested for that meeting; it will probably be held on June 15 of this year. I have not yet had a chance to check with the chairman of the ad hoc committee since his return, but we are working toward that date.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Finance for giving notice in Votes and Proceedings this morning of a bill to amend the Bank of Canada Act. May I ask the leader of the house whether we can expect this bill to be placed before us for discussion next week?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): I have no way of knowing that. All the government can do is indicate the business it proposes to submit to the house. I am afraid that last night I had to indicate that we were in exactly the same place with regard to legislation as we were a week ago Thursday night.


John George Diefenbaker: For which the government is to blame.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric Alfred Winkler: If I assure the leader of the house of my co-operation can he assure me that this matter will be up for discussion next week?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, having given him notice five minutes ago. In view of the reported announcement by the Prime Minister of Great Britain that the policy of sanctions with respect to Rhodesia has failed, and in view of his reported decision to accept in effect the recommendations of the Conservative opposition to proceed to negotiate with Mr. Smith, the Prime Minister of Rhodesia, with a view to bringing about a settlement, has the minister any comment to make in connection with this important development?
May 27, 1966


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secrelary of Slate for External Affairs):: I cannot accept that the British Prime Minister has made any such announcement as is suggested in the question. I assume that my hon. friend's question is based upon a story carried by the New York Times service this morning.
The informal exploratory talks between British and Rhodesian officials, which were adjourned last week for a short period, were designed to see if a basis for negotiations exists. These talks began last month, and the British Prime Minister told the British parliament on April 27 that the British position remained that:
-none of us in the house was prepared to accept a settlement which condoned an illegal act or which failed to satisfy the principles which were laid down by my predecessor when he was prime minister and by the present government.
The sanctions program is continuing in full force. The exploratory talks in London took place without any commitment and without interference with the course of the economic pressure that is being put on the illegal regime in Rhodesia.
[Later:f


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is in connection with Rhodesia. Does the minister consider that a massive program of education for the native Africans would be helpful in order to bring them up to the educational standards required for the franchise under the present constitution?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion, and his question is of a very general nature which cannot be accepted.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question. Now that sanctions obviously have failed, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what proposals he has to help solve the problem in respect of Rhodesia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot admit that the sanctions program has failed. I hope my hon. friend will accept my view that this does not seem to be the situation. The hon. member will recall that at the conference in Lagos, attended by the Prime Minister, this was one of the proposals made to help bring about, in the long term, a solution to this problem.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister now has said that educational assistance to the native Africans in Rhodesia was one of the proposals made at the Lagos conference. Would the minister then reverse the program he undertook earlier this year of withdrawing Canadian educational authorities from Rhodesia; would he return them to this area so that they can assist in this program?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Canadian government certainly has no objection to continuing its technical assistance program for Rhodesia. There were nine Canadian advisers involved in that program. This was not entirely the result of a decision taken by the Canadian government. Rather, the security considerations involved prompted the persons concerned themselves to take the initiative.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can consideration be given by the Department of National Health and Welfare to recommending grants for the construction of social and recreational centres for senior citizens equal in amount to grants by any province under an act of the legislature for such purpose?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is difficult to interpret this question. I am not sure if the hon. member is asking for a legal opinion, but in any event the question should be put on the order paper.


James Elisha Brown: Ten o'clock.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Has the minister received a telegram from R. O. Blanchard Ltee which reads as follows:
Alarming situation as a result of the longshoremen's strike-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that under the rules he cannot read a telegram in such a way when asking a question. He can ask a question concerning a telegram, but he cannot read the message itself.
May 27. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Has the Minister of Labour received a telegram from R. O. Blanchard Ltee, of Saint-Germain, in which the company advises him that the lives of thousands of head of livestock are threatened unless that strike is settled within 24 hours?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this question is rather of local interest. I take for granted that the minister has taken note of the hon. member's representations.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I abide by the ruling you just made with regard to the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard). He is merely asking the minister whether he has received a telegram. It is not only a matter of local interest, but of general interest throughout the province of Quebec.
Will the minister say whether or not he has received telegrams from Quebec farmers' organizations concerning feed grain?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is putting forward the same argument as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. It is not a matter of general interest to inquire whether or not the minister has received a telegram.


Gilles Grégoire: I found out, in the past three years, that questions regarding western grain and amounts or subsidies paid for western grain are accepted. On the other hand, when Quebec agriculture is involved, such questions are never accepted, while those concerning western grain always are. Could you tell me why? Is agriculture in the province of Quebec not important enough?
[English1


Mr. Speaker:: I shall take the hon. member's question as notice.


Gilles Grégoire: May I bring this up at ten o'clock?


David Réal Caouette: On another point of order. You claim there is no urgency, Mr. Speaker, but on the other hand all the telegrams we are receiving state that the farmers are out of feed grain for their cattle. It seems to me this is emergency enough for the minister to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: What I suggested to the hon. member is that the minister has noted the representations. I take it for granted, once again, that all the necessary steps will be taken in view of the representations made by the hon. member.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the reported shortages of feed grain in the province of Quebec, can the minister tell us what has happened in respect of the government's feed grain supply and storage policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is of a very general nature and is one which cannot be asked at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the very serious and dangerous situation which has developed in Quebec among farmers raising cattle as a result of the shortage of feed grain, to which reference was made initially today by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), will he get in touch with the minister of agriculture of Quebec and, in co-operation, do something to meet this emergency which will have serious consequences if the strike continues, as apparently it will.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is obviously the same question asked by a number of other members although it is, of course, couched in different language. It may be that the question as now asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition conveys a greater sense of urgency. The Chair would be placed in a very difficult position if this question were allowed, in view of the fact that the other questions were ruled out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may speak to that point. In no way was I trying to ask a question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Did I hear someone say "oh"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me suggest to hon. members that this situation is serious, and that is why I directed my question to the Minister of Agriculture. The other questions all led up to this situation. There were various reasons why other questions were not allowed, but let me point out that today is
May 27. 1966	COMMONS
Friday and the situation is serious, according to the information received. I am simply asking the Minister of Agriculture whether he will do something to alleviate this emergency situation. If the government's attitude is represented by those "oh's" and "ah's", well-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Is the hon. member for Lapointe rising on the point of order?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, although we tried in the past to ask this question and although it was rejected because it was not urgent, we think that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), with his parliamentary experience, succeeded in putting it properly, and in pointing out the urgency, and we would be pleased, although you ruled out this question earlier, if you allowed it now, because we think it is urgent. We thank the right hon. Leader of the Opposition for putting it as he did, in conformity with the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: I am indebted to the hon. member for Lapointe for his generosity and I ask the Minister of Agriculture to answer his question.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I understand that action is being taken. In view of the urgency of the matter I will certainly look into it immediately after orders of the day, and do everything I can to help meet the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of information to the effect that the parties to the Air Canada dispute are prepared to meet with each other, will the minister consider offering to the parties at an early date the appointment of a top flight mediator?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am still awaiting the report of the conciliation board.
DEBATES	5605
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. Has the report of the conciliation board not been turned down, and have we not reached the stage where the next step must be anticipated?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the minister first has to get the report. I have not received it yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Page the Postmaster General.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the minister could tell us approximately when he expects to receive the Carter report and make it available to the house.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my office has been in touch with Mr. Carter, the chairman of the royal commission, within the last few days, and I understand from him that the English text of the report should be available in the latter half of June. It had been his intention that the French text would be available shortly thereafter, but unfortunately the chief translator for the commission became seriously ill and had to retire. As a result the French text will be somewhat delayed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that the English text will be made available to the members of the house as soon as it is ready rather than await the French translation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in ordinary circumstances I would have answered in the negative. However, when the report is available, the government will have to consider this question. Because of the very special circumstances surrounding this report and the great public interest in its contents, as well as the urgency in respect of making it public, we have not made up our minds as to what course to follow.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary
May 27. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry of State. I am wondering how soon the minister expects to be in a position to table the white paper on broadcasting. This is awaited with eager anticipation across the country.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: As I told the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts about a month ago, and as I anticipate since then, it will be before the committee by the end of June.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that there are anaesthetic recovery rooms in Canada, operated under the hospitalization plan, which do not have in attendance trained personnel? I should like to ask what plans the government has in view to overcome this grave and extremely urgent situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member that this question should be placed on the order paper.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: With all deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I might suggest that if you or any member of this house were in the recovery room, the urgency of this matter would become readily apparent.



MEDICARE-BASIS OF FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to readdress a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Notice of this question has been given, and it is based on the new medicare proposal made by the minister. Will the federal government be contributing on the basis of the national average cost or on the basis of the actual cost in each province?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that this question is one which should be asked at this time. It is of a very technical nature, and I suggest that the hon. member might place it on the order paper.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, last Tuesday I asked a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare on this same point I have raised today. That

question was accepted. I just wanted you to know that it was accepted and taken as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might have indicated that in the first place. It certainly would have strengthened his case.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let us have a reply.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member asked a question which was allowed at the time and which was taken as notice, I am sure the minister would wish to reply now.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend's question I should like to say that the federal government will contribute the average per capita cost calculated from the aggregate cost in the participating provinces.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order, please. This question relates generally to policy and should not be asked at this time.']
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the premature announcement made by President Johnson of the United States which enabled speculators to make a pile of money on soybeans, and since the minister is an expert in this area, can he tell us what effect this will have on the soybean situation in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you are objecting to my response to this vitally important question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the question is one which can be accepted.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prillie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and has nothing to do with his expertise in agriculture. Has the minister received a delegation of professors from the University of Ottawa who have made a request concerning the Viet Nam situation and recognition of communist China.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is out of order.
May 27, 1966


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement yesterday by the director general of Canada's foreign aid program that the most serious single problem in developing countries is population growth, will he inform the house as to the policy of the Canadian government in regard to assisting developing countries with problems of family planning and population control?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question relates generally to policy and should not be asked at this time.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-P. Racine@Beauce: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
I should like to know whether, as a result of the protest from the mayor, the district coroner and the parish priest of the municipality, published in Le Devoir this morning, censuring the utterances made in the house by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Lan-glois) concerning charges of fraud arising out of winter works, the minister has received a telegram from the municipality in question censuring the hon. member for Megantic and blaming him for besmirching the reputation of the municipality of Notre-Dame-de-la-Guadeloupe and for playing petty politics-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is along the same lines as another one raised a minute ago. It is not in order to ask whether or not a minister has received a telegram.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the future minister of manpower?
In view of the serious accusations which have been made connecting seven suicides to the winter works program, does the minister intend to order an investigation in this connection?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggested a moment ago that this question should be put on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Auguste Choquette: I am under the impression that this situation should be cleared up now. Either the member for Megantic (Mr. Lan-glois) uttered a wanton accusation, or it is a very serious accusation. I feel the minister should answer, because the population is alarmed by the statements of the member for Megantic and, in the circumstances, they would like to know whether or not the accusation is serious.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already made a ruling on this point. I must point out to hon. members that the question period has now expired.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on May 24 and, I believe, on an earlier occasion when I was not in the house, the hon. member for Villeneuve inquired about the availability of mortgage financing under the National Housing Act as administered by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in relation to the housing industry in the province of Quebec, and more particularly in western Quebec, in the Hull area.
I am pleased to advise that from January 1, to May 16, 1966 there has been a 20 per cent increase in direct and insured lending in the Hull area compared to the same period in 1965. I cannot give the assurance that the increase can be maintained at such a substantial level but, as indicated in my statement of May 3, the volume of direct lending in Hull will be as substantial in 1966 as it was in 1965.
I am also informed that in all probability this provision of funds will be sufficient to meet the basic housing requirements in the Hull area. To date only those who could not meet the basic credit requirements essential to become a home owner were refused mortgage loans.



INQUIRY AS TO FINAL DELIVERY QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr.. Speaker, I have a question I wanted to direct to the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I should like to direct it to the acting
May 27, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry minister. It is related to the important question asked by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar regarding the equalization of grain shipping quotas. Will the Minister of Transport confer with railroad officials with a view to having them place special emphasis on several seriously congested shipping points in Saskatchewan? This situation is urgent because there are only 43 more shipping days before July 31. As an example of the congested areas to which I refer let me mention Alida, Saskatchewan.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly refer this to the minister.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to preface my question to the Minister of Agriculture by saying how pleased I am to see him back. I know that he will now be in a position to make a favourable decision about the extension of grain elevator facilities in Prince Rupert, which was postponed some time ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please ask his question?


Frank Howard: I just asked the question. I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture will enlighten the house as to the government's position in respect of this matter.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, may I say that during what I hope was a very useful trip the only thing that gave me concern, spoiled my enjoyment and caused me worry was the elevator situation at Prince Rupert. This matter certainly will be given due consideration.



EXPO '67 PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION FOR VISITORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the difficulty in obtaining accommodation in Montreal hotels during the Expo season in 1967, have any plans been made to set up some bureau of accommodation to relieve the situation, not only in respect of hotel accommodation but also in respect of restaurant and service accommodations, which are already becoming very pressing?


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



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO AGENDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. On May 3 last the Prime Minister made a very welcome announcement to the effect that the main item of business on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference to be held in Victoria commencing June 16 will be the subject of federal assistance to university education. On May 9 the President of the Privy Council stated that the Prime Minister would be making a statement on this matter shortly, and I am wondering whether the Prime Minister is now in a position to tell the house what other matters will be subjects of discussion at this conference.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the exchanges with the provinces have not been completed as yet, but we expect they will be by this week end. I hope to be in a position early next week to make a statement in respect of any additional items that may be or have been suggested.



REQUEST FOR REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON ELECTION EXPENSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can tell the house how soon we may expect to receive the report of the committee on election expenditures. This is of great interest to the house and to the country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State and I have been in touch regularly with that committee with the hope that by so doing we might expedite receipt of the report. I understand the committee is meeting today to work on the final drafting of the report, and I certainly hope it will be presented to the house in the month of June. The only assurance the committee has been able to give so far is that they expect to have it completed in June.
May 27, 1966

[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)



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



INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr. Benson moved:: Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $450,944,478.01, being the aggregate of-
(a)	One-twelfth of the total of all the Items, except Transport Item 103, set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1967 laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, $408,953,242.58;
(b)	an additional eight-twelfths of the total amount of Loans, Investments and Advances Item L40 (Schedule A) of the said Main Estimates, $11,666,666.67;
(c) an additional three-twelfths of the total amount of External Affairs Item 35 (Schedule B) of the said Main Estimates, $21,025,000.00;
(d) an additional two-twelfths of the total amounts of Finance Item 15, Mines and Technical Surveys Items 80 (Schedule C) of the said Main Estimates, $4,285,833.34;
(e)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amounts of Fisheries Items 5 and 20, Forestry Item 15, Legislation Items 5 and 15, National Health and Welfare Item 25, Northern Affairs and National Resources Item 15 (Schedule D) of the said Main Estimates, $5,013,735.42,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1967.

He said: Perhaps I should take this opportunity to give the usual assurances to hon. members of the house. The proportions requested in this resolution and the following bill are intended to provide for all necessary requirements of the public service up to June 30, 1966.
In no instance is the total amount of an item being released by this bill. The form of the bill is the usual one for interim supply bills. The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in the committees set up to deal with departmental estimates or in committee of supply, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Interim, Supply WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
["I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired."]
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 March 31, 1967 the sum of $450,944,478.01, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I regret to intrude on your busy schedule but I think at this time, when we are on interim supply, I should raise this question which is of general interest to the nation. I think the lot of the consumer should be brought to the attention of the house and the committee.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, each of us in this country is a consumer. Present day government policy and the consequent high cost of consumer goods is storming the last bastion of individual hope and the individual right to live within one's means. It is now practically impossible for the head of a family, father or mother, individual or married couple, to make their modest salaries support their families from one pay day to the next.
Prices have skyrocketed all along the line in food, rent, clothing, fuel, transportation, medical bills, insurance, taxes and capital cost of housing both new and used. In this rapid and cruel escalation of costs this government has been a steady partner. Even its policies glaringly point to that fact. It is readily apparent that its policies support the super corporations which profit from and control our buyers' and consumers' economy.
In addition, this government maintains the most unjust, unfair and discriminatory taxing budget in the history of Canada by which they will gather millions of dollars a year at the expense of the consumer in the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery. Take building materials. The 11 per cent tax on lumber at the manufacturer's value becomes a markup of over 20 per cent in the retail value in the end use of the lumber because of the fundamental fact that all business must calculate its markup on total investment. For instance, spruce lumber at $60 per thousand at a British Columbia mill, which is a low price, would yield a tax to the government of $6.60 per thousand. The markup plus the tax on the

May 27. 1966
Interim Supply
lumber sold here in the east then puts the spread to about 20 per cent before the retailer even makes any profit on his investment, plant and other operations.
Even our freight rates are unrealistic, discriminatory and unfair to the consumers of this country. I have here, Mr. Chairman, a photostatic copy of a C.N.R. freight bill for a carload of spruce lumber shipped from Burns Lake, B.C. to the R. W. Kimmerly Lumber Co. of Napanee, Ont., which is a family firm owned by two of my brothers and in which I was a partner before I was elected to parliament. It cost $1,008.06 to ship this carload of spruce lumber from Burns Lake, B.C. to Napanee, Ont. This is not even all the way across Canada, since Napanee is at least 1,000 miles from Halifax and Burns Lake is somewhere in the interior of our great west coast province.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
There were 63,400 lbs. of lumber at $1.59 per cwt. This amounted to about 30,000 board feet of lumber, which puts the cost of this material at about $33 per thousand board feet for freight alone. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will agree that this has gone beyond all reason. Here, we have the Canadian National returning huge deficits each year against the taxpayers' account and having to charge such rates as these for cross country carload freight. I wonder what rates they would have to charge to break even, let alone show a profit? Again the poor unfortunate consumer is the one who has to pay the cost.
Let me speak briefly, Mr. Chairman, for one helpless type of consumer, the old age pensioner, the one who is receiving assistance through the Old Age Assistance Act. On three occasions since February 24 of this year, I have asked the Prime Minister and his government if they would do something to assuage the plight of our elderly people, those who are caught in the cruel claws of this Liberal cost of living and who have to attempt to live on a meagre $75 per month pension. I spoke also in this regard about the inadequate pension for widows of our war veterans who are in a similar plight. The Prime Minister told me on March 15 that if I would just wait until the budget was brought down this question would be taken care of.
Nothing has been done. These consumers I have mentioned are still entangled in the web of want because they cannot possibly run their personal business within their means. The same remarks apply to our farmers who
[Mr. Alkenbrack.)
form a large section of the consuming public. They are caught between the low prices they receive for many of their farm products and the cost of production which is composed of taxes, the cost of equipment, farm machinery, animal husbandry transport and all the other factors that make up what it takes to operate a producing farm.
I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but I know there are others who wish to voice similar opinions concerning the problems of consumers. The small businessmen and retailers are in a very precarious position because of the inflationary escalation of wholesale prices as quoted by large corporations. The small town retailer, be he an independent grocer, hardware merchant, fuel, furniture, clothing or farm supply dealer, never knows from one month to another what the price will be on the next invoice for goods. He is sometimes unfairly criticized by the consumer because he happens to be the last man on the ladder.
Quite often because of commitments that he has to make with the consumer to assist his sales, he is left with a small return. He is forced to provide a lot of services at very little profit, and often loses money on transactions as a result of the inflationary tendencies this government is allowing, and even encouraging, by their policies.
I have one more point to make with regard to consumers. This relates to consumer credit. It is almost impossible for any family to operate without credit. There is a generation of citizens growing up in this country, a generation who are now fathers and mothers of millions of Canadian children, who hardly know what a chartered bank is. Because of a lack of basic credit, because of a lack of security, they have been conducting their business with the finance companies. This generation I have mentioned need to be extricated from their financial entanglement of high interest rates and seemingly never ending payment plans of these finance companies.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what chance of financial solvency does a mother or father have if they yield to the television ads with which they are nightly bombarded suggesting that they apply to their friendly finance company for a bill-payer loan at roughly up to 18 per cent interest? We have already waited a long time for the amendments to the Bank Act. These should have been a matter of first priority. We should have completed this legislation long ago. A few minutes ago I mentioned retail businesses in our typical
May 27, 1966

Interim Supply
Canadian towns and villages. The chartered banks have always been a ready and reasonable partner in the building of Canada and in the building of its communities.
We await the Bank Act amendments, and they should be such that our local branches of the chartered banks could compete with the finance companies. In this way, the banks would be permitted to serve at reasonable rates of interest those sections of our consuming community. The banks of course would have to raise their interest rates to compete and to play this lucrative outfield that for years has been the exclusive stamping ground of the finance companies. Let us put an end to the exploitation of this vast section of the consuming public by legislation that will allow the chartered bank on the downtown corner to serve all classes of consumer credit.
Let us put an end to the exploitation of these people, put an end to these 18 per cent and 20 per cent interest rates which are paid on the purchase of cars, furniture and household appliances-yes, I have even known interest rates that high on building mortgages. I know that credit is a two way street. As a Conservative, I contend that if we allow the banks to raise interest rates on moneys advanced for consumer credit, they will also be obliged to pay more on money on deposit. Let us, as soon as possible, introduce legislation that will improve the lot of consumers in Canada. The consumer is the person who keeps Canadian business prosperous.


Mr. Scott (Danforth):: I realize there is a general understanding that the interim supply bill might pass very quickly, but I want to congratulate the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox upon raising this issue this morning. I want to support him as strongly as I can and I would hope that members of the opposition in all parties would take advantage of this opportunity to redress this grievance against the Canadian public by exercising the traditional right of parliament to refuse supply to this government until we receive some substantial statement as to what the government intends to do to deal with the crushing burden of the high cost of living. Nothing, I suppose, is more important in the minds of the public than the high cost of living. I suppose there is not a member in this house who does not receive letters every day from old age pensioners, from people on low incomes, pleading that something be done, that this government give positive leadership to deal with this question.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
I do not want to take the time now to deal with the tales of fantastic hardship from which these old age pensioners suffer because of the increased cost of living. Only this morning, Mr. Chairman, the Montreal Gazette carried a story to the effect that Canada faces more serious labour disputes now than at any time in the last decade. One of the main contributing factors to unrest in the labour movement is the spiralling cost of living. Workers' wages simply cannot keep up with the increased cost of living, and consequently they are attempting to negotiate higher wages. This increase in cost of living is one of the root causes of labour unrest at the moment.
The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox discussed the various groups in our community who are adversely affected; and the other day the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway presented to the house a concrete proposal that we thought would have contributed to a solution of this basic problem. But, Mr. Chairman, one despairs at times of ever being able to move this government. One wonders what degree of eloquence or what facts and statistics are required to get through to the treasury benches of this house. We are now facing a problem, as I have said, which affects every Canadian. How does one convince the government that the Canadian public simply cannot continue in this way? They are getting desperate because of the spiralling cost of living.
This government, Mr. Chairman, seems to have cash registers for hearts. It seems to be a waste of time appealing to them to take action of a concrete and constructive nature to deal with this problem. How does one convince the government? I for one despair. I would have thought that all the debates which had taken place in the house since we reassembled after the election, and the numerous occasions upon which the opposition, and I am sure in private members of the government, have tried to emphasize the nature of the problem, would have had some effect. Instead every time the matter is raised, either on orders of the day or by motion, it is sloughed off by the government.
We have not yet received the report of the Economic Council of Canada for which we have been waiting over a year. I think it was in March 1965 that the Prime Minister, in response to my leader, said that he had referred the whole question of prices, price controls, etc., to the Economic Council for a

May 27, 1966
Interim Supply
special study to be made. In view of the urgency of the problem it seems to me fantastic, it now being the end of May 1966, that we still have not had even an elementary report from the Economic Council of Canada on the subject.
It is about time that the Canadian public began to realize that this government does not care about the high cost of living. Or if it does care, it is not prepared to do anything concrete about it. It is about time the public realized that the government of this great Liberal party is essentially reactionary and lackadaisical. I think back to the last election campaign and the promises made by Liberal candidates. Even the Liberal candidate in my own constituency, a very fine candidate and a very able person, went around telling the people about the wonderful things that his government would do if reelected, particularly in the area of the high cost of living.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Especially if they had a majority.


Reid Scott: There we go, Mr. Chairman; the old jazz all over again, that the government must have a majority. They have a de facto majority in this house and have had ever since they were elected in 1963. It is a lot of nonsense to pretend that the lack of a majority has prevented the government from governing. The only thing which has prevented them from governing is that they do not know what they want to do, and are not prepared to give any leadership to the country. That is why they cannot govern.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They cannot make up their minds.


Reid Scott: Well, Mr. Chairman, one wonders at times whether they have minds to make up. Yet there has not been a single constructive piece of legislation, let me tell the Minister of Labour, which has not met with the general approval of this house. Indeed the opposition spends most of its time urging the government on to greater activity and action, pleading with it to give some leadership.
During the last election campaign, those of us who had an opportunity to travel in Canada found ourselves being asked by the people: Where is the leadership in Ottawa? Why cannot we have leadership from the government? This is just as true today, Mr. Chairman, as it was in the election campaign.


An hon. Member:: Same old bunch.


Reid Scott: Someone to my right says "same old bunch". I do not know whether it is the same old bunch; I hear that phrase so much that I do not know what it means any more. I do not know which "old bunch" is being talked about. Because in 1962 when the Liberals were in opposition and the Conservatives were in power the same old cry went back and forth about the same old bunch. So I suppose it applies to those who occupy the treasury benches at any given moment.
However, Mr. Chairman, I have digressed a little from what I wanted to say. I suggest that one of the problems of the high cost of living is knowing what type of proposal one should make. I would suggest to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox, who I know is concerned about the problem, that he does not go far enough when he talks merely of removing the 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery and building materials. This is an important issue, one on which the opposition has carried the fight for several sessions now. However, if you really want to try to do something about the cost of living, Mr. Chairman, it seems you will have to go a lot further.
Great jurisdictional problems are involved in this problem, of course, since any effective price control system would probably require co-operation and concurrent legislation on the part of the provincial governments. There are things which the government could do but which it has steadfastly refused to do. On various occasions we have proposed that at least one step in the right direction would be the creation of a department of consumer affairs. I should like to see it broadened into a department of urban affairs, but one step in the right direction would be the creation of a single department presided over by a fulltime minister, who would devote all his energy to the whole area of consumer affairs in Canada.
After all, Mr. Chairman, $26 billion a year is spent by the consumers, so it is a matter of more importance to the general public than any other government department, whether it be health and welfare, national defence or labour. Yet we have been totally unsuccessful in trying to convince this government to take this first step. Every other pressure group in Canada has a department to speak for them. There is the Department of Labour, the Department of Industry, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. All of these departments look
May 27, 1966

after the interests of important groups, and these groups have a department to speak for them. But who speaks for the consumers? Who represents them? Who represents them not just against the business community or the economy itself but against other government departments? All you have at the moment, Mr. Chairman, is a proliferation of small branches of each department devoting some of their time and attention to consumer matters. But nobody knows what the other is doing. There is no co-ordinated policy. In fact there is no policy at all in Ottawa in this particular area.
That is the first suggestion we have made and will continue to make. We also want to ask the government to set up a prices review board. A board of this nature should have the investigatory powers to examine price increases to see whether they are legitimate. Undoubtedly some price increases are, but such a board would have the power to look into price increases to see whether they are legitimate and to publicize widely its findings. So that while the consumer is getting rooked, at least he knows the extent to which he is being taken advantage of by these people who continue to raise prices. A prices review board would be an effective weapon at the present time.
Third, we should like to see some broad explanation given of the area covered by the Combines Investigation Act. At the present moment you can drive a 10-ton truck through most of the provisions of that act. It is a totally ineffective piece of legislation which should be completely redrawn and provided with a considerable amount of teeth in order to be effective in protecting the consumers of this country.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
We could go into the whole field of consumer credit, as the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox has done, and as our select committee with the other place has been doing for two or three years. This is another area where the Canadian public is being gypped, extorted, rooked and taken advantage of. When you come to Ottawa, to the House of Commons, which is supposed to speak for the people, if you raise this problem, all you get is total inactivity and total indifference.
I hope we do not pass this supply motion right away. The high cost of living is working such hardships on the Canadian public that
Interim Supply
we must get action, we must get some statement from this government. We cannot permit this situation to continue where week after week the cost of living rises, where the public is being subjected to greater and greater exploitation, and where there is total inactivity and indifference on the part of the government.
I appeal to hon. members of the back benches. I know they are concerned about this. Many of them have expressed their concern to me. Why are they not on their feet? Why are they not raising this matter in the house? Why are they not trying to protect the population of this country? Is this the new Liberal party? Is this the shift to the left that we have heard so much about?


Mr. Nielsen:: The party that cares.


Reid Scott: The party that cares, was the slogan used. Is this the kind of activity we expect from that party?
I hope that the opposition exercises its traditional right of withholding supply, until we hear from the government as to what action it proposes to take in dealing with one of the most pressing problems that we face in Canada, namely the high cost of living, and the resultant hardships under which consumers are living.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, when the house was considering Bill No. C-178 on Wednesday it had been my intention to comment on the bill. I wanted to speak about the transfer of the Canadian Citizenship Act to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. Then when the bill, set aside for discussion yesterday, was rescheduled for Monday, that left me in the position of not being able to speak to it in the house on Monday, because of prior court commitments. Today, on interim supply, I am speaking on a subject that I intended to discuss under Bill C-178. That subject has to do with Canadian citizenship, and with the awarding of titles, and foreign decorations.
On November 3, 1964, the Toronto Globe and Mail carried this very interesting statement. The heading one column across is: "Greek Monarch Gives Lesage Phoenix Cross". I quote:
Athens (Reuters)-Premier Jean Lesage of Quebec yesterday was awarded the Grand Cross of the Royal Order of the Phoenix by King Constantine.
Mr. Lesage is on a short visit to Greece.
The cross was handed Mr. Lesage by Greek Foreign Minister Stavros Costopoulos when the Quebec Premier called on him to bid farewell. Mr. Lesage leaves Greece today for Vienna.

May 27, 1966
Interim Supply
Mr. Lesage and his wife spent the week end visiting archaeological sites at Delhi, Corinth, Mycenae, Epidavros and Sounion.
At noon yesterday Mr. Lesage was the guest at an informal luncheon organized by 500 representatives of Massey-Ferguson Ltd., a Canadian farm implement manufacturer, who are meeting in Athens . . . Mr. Lesage said: "Canadians do not customarily accept decorations. However, because this decoration has been bestowed on me by a king and not by a government, I consider it my duty to accept it."
I was quite interested in this act by the King of Greece in offering a decoration to Premier Lesage of Quebec, because a friend of mine, a Canadian of Italian descent, had been offered a similar decoration by the Republic of Italy some time prior to this. I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs if it would be in order for my very close and good friend, who has been for 45 years a naturalized Canadian, to accept a decoration from the Republic of Italy which had been offered to him.
This particular friend and I were a little concerned over this matter, because when another very good friend of mine-and when I refer to Lord Thomson of Fleet as being a good friend of mine; I am not a Johnny-come-lately in his entourage of friends, because I have known Roy Thomson for over 35 years and I have liked him every day of that long friendship-when Mr. Roy Thomson, a native born Canadian, bom in the city of Toronto, was given an honour by the Queen of Canada, he lost his Canadian citizenship.
It was of some concern to my friend of Italian descent whether he would lose his Canadian citizenship if he accepted the honour from the Italian government when, as a native born Canadian, Roy Thomson had lost his Canadian citizenship when he accepted the title of Lord Thomson of Fleet.
As a result a formal approach was made to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and under date of June 4, 1964 I received this letter:
Protocol...
Thank you for your letter on May 29, regarding the award which the Italian Government wishes to make to Mr. DeToro.
Mr. DeToro is quite right in his assumption that foreign decorations should not be accepted by Canadians without the permission of their own government and it has been Canadian policy, for many years, to refuse such permission unless the award is being offered in connection with the saving of human life.
The diplomatic missions in Ottawa have been informed of our policy in this matter and have been asked, if their governments wish to nominate Canadians for awards, to have such requests

sent through the Department of External Affairs. We would expect to have such requests forwarded to us by the embassy concerned.
Yours sincerely,
And the original copy is signed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Because of this very formal statement that it has been Canadian policy for many years to refuse such permission unless the award is being offered in connection with the saving of human life, my good friend, Mr. DeToro, advised the Italian government that he considered it in his own best interest not to accept the profferred honour.
The letter to which I referred is dated June 4, 1964, and the news item to which I referred regarding the Royal Order of the Phoenix from Greece for Premier Lesage is as of November 3, 1964, about five months after the letter. I then went to the Department of External Affairs and asked if permission had been granted to Premier Lesage to accept this foreign decoration because he had saved human life. I received no answer whatsoever.
I then found it necessary on March 7, of this year, when we were passing the estimates for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to query the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, whom I wish to praise highly because of his openness in answering, in the manner illustrated on page 2321 of Hansard of March 7. I shall read the question in part, and would read the whole thing, were there time. I quote:
Here Is the third question. A very close friend of mine who is a naturalized Canadian has been offered a senior decoration by a foreign government and hesitates to accept it because he does not wish to lose his Canadian citizenship. When we deprive a native born Canadian like my friend Roy Thomson of his citizenship because he accepts a peerage from the Queen of Canada, what hope is there of a naturalized Canadian retaining his citizenship if he accepts a foreign decoration from the head of another government? My friend is fearful on this score because he recognizes he is a naturalized Canadian whereas Roy Thomson and Premier Jean Lesage are native born. Which example would we follow, the one set in the case of Roy Thomson or the one set in the case of Jean Lesage. if my friend accepts a foreign decoration this spring?
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
The answer is to be found, in part, on page 2328. When supply is voted, the minister replies at the end of the debate. Here is the first part of the answer:
The hon. member for York-Humber asked some questions about Lord Thomson. I do not know this case personally but I am informed he voluntarily
May 27, 1966

became a British subject and this is why he lost his Canadian citizenship.
Then, on page 2336, commenting on the minister's statement, I said:
An hour or so ago I asked the minister a three part question regarding foreign decorations. I received a passable answer to the first of the three questions. I was told that Lord Thomson of Fleet, who was decorated by the Queen of Canada, had chosen to become a British subject. I also asked a question as to what happened in the case of Premier Lesage of Quebec who accepted the Order of the Phoenix from the King of Greece. Did Premier Lesage become a citizen of Greece?
To which the minister answered: "Not that I know of."
That interchange occurred on March 7. I wrote a letter to the minister under date of April 6. I will read it into the record so that the country may know the position the cabinet is taking on the question of titles and foreign decorations.
Ottawa, April 6th, 1966
Hon. Jean Marchand,
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
On Monday, March 7th, when your estimates were before the committee, I asked some questions regarding Lord Thomson of Fleet, Premier Lesage of the province of Quebec and an unnamed friend of mine. You will find comments on this on pages 2320, 2321, 2328 and 2336 of the House of Commons Hansard for March 7th. I am very appreciative of your statement on page 2336 that Premier Lesage of Quebec has not become a citizen of Greece.
As I pointed out in my questions, I am intensely interested in ascertaining how Lord Thomson of Fleet lost his Canadian citizenship. Did he write a letter to the Canadian government advising them that he was now a British subject (which I always understood a Canadian citizen to be) or did the Canadian government write Lord Thomson a letter?
It is amazing to me that you advised that Premier Lesage is not a citizen of Greece, but is still allowed to hold the Order of the Phoenix. This is the highest honour available in Greece to a civilian citizen of a foreign country.
In the case of my friend who has been asked to accept a very high decoration from the country in which he was born, I am concerned lest he lose his Canadian citizenship if he accepts the honour.
A year or two ago, Hon. Walter Gordon honoured his friend, Mr. Grittani, of Toronto by having him appointed to some Board of Directors connected with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This man is of Italian descent. During the last World War, the father, Mr. Grittani Sr., was interned by the Canadian Government along with Mr. Frances-chini. The authorities told Mr. Grittani Sr., that one of the proofs they had that he was an enemy alien was the fact that he had been decorated by II Duce, Benito Mussolini.
Since Mr. Grittani Sr., was interned on the grounds he had accepted a foreign Government's
Interim Supply
decoration, my close friend is adverse to accepting this proffered decoration until he is assured that he will not lose his Canadian citizenship now or in the future.
Would you be kind enough to advise me as to whether or not my friend, a naturalized Canadian citizen, can accept this foreign decoration without losing his Canadian citizenship in the same manner as Premier Lesage has been allowed to accept the Greek decoration and still retain his Canadian citizenship?
A prompt ruling on this matter will be much appreciated as the foreign government will make the presentation whenever they are advised that the recipient is willing to accept it.
Yours sincerely,
R. B. Cowan, M.P.
In reply I received a most interesting letter dated April 20, 1966-two weeks later. It reads as follows:
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Ottawa 2,
April 20, 1966
R. B. Cowan, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Cowan:
I have your letter of April 6th regarding Lord Thomson of Fleet and the general question of acceptance of foreign decorations by Canadians.
When I replied to your question in the house regarding Lord Thomson, I indicated that he lost his Canadian citizenship by voluntarily becoming a "British subject". I must confess I was technically incorrect because I should have used the term "a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies". The status of a British subject is enjoyed by citizens of commonwealth countries in addition to their respective citizenships. Therefore, as a Canadian, Roy Thomson was also a British subject and although under the Canadian Citizenship Act he ceased to be a Canadian by acquisition of United Kingdom citizenship, he remained a British subject under our act.
So far as I am aware, Lord Thomson never formally notified my department of his change in status. But with the announcement of his elevation to the peerage it was ascertained from the United Kingdom authorities that he had applied for and become a United Kingdom citizen on June 5, 1963, at which time he ceased to be a Canadian. This is because Section 15(1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act provides as follows:
"A Canadian citizen, who, when outside of Canada and not under a disability, by any voluntary and formal act other than marriage, acquires the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Canada, thereupon ceases to be a Canadian citizen."
The law operated automatically in this case. Lord Thomson, therefore, was not a Canadian citizen when he accepted his peerage.
Here is the heart of the letter. This is what I should like hon. members to note:
The Canadian Citizenship Act does not provide for loss of citizenship when Canadians are honoured by other countries. This explains why Premier Lesage did not cease to be a Canadian when he

At page 96 of the same Parliamentary Guide, if I am allowed to refer to a member of the other place, we have a reference to Hon. Leon Mercier Gouin:
-son of the late Sir Lomer Gouin .... Quebec Prime Minister .... Chev. de la Legion d'honneur (France).
At page 124 of the same Parliamentary Guide there is a reference to another member
of the other place, Hon. Thomas Vien-


Auguste Choquette: A former member for
Lotbiniere.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: -who is described as:
Knight of the Legion of Hon. (France). Knight Commander of Royal Orders of: Phoenix (Greece) -
Notice that, of Greece, and also:
-Knight Commander of Royal Order of Orange Nassau (Netherlands); Leopold II (Belgium).
I am not decrying these men accepting these titles, but I would like to know why they are allowed to take titles from Greece, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and now Italy, because it is apparent from the letter received from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) that my Italian Canadian friend can accept the rank of Cavalier of the Order of Merit of Italy, but when the Queen of Canada wants to confer a title on a native bom Canadian, not domiciled ordinarily in Canada, that a Canadian cannot get it on the recommendation of the Canadian government, and in order that the Queen may confer it upon him he has to apply for citizenship of the United Kingdom and become a citizen of the United Kingdom and the Colonies. In the case to which I make reference the Queen then confers on him the title of Lord Thomson of Fleet.
An interesting corollary to that is that Roy Thomson had three Canadian born children. We all regret the death of one of his two daughters last month, whose burial and funeral service took place in Toronto. His children are all native born Canadians and they have the right since their father is Lord Thomson, of using the title Honourable. We have Hon. Kenneth Thomson, his son, the president of a large Canadian corporation and director and officer of many other corporations controlled by Thomson money. We have the two daughters both given the courtesy title of Honourable, yet their father is not a Canadian citizen.
The interesting thing about Lord Thomson of Fleet is that if he comes back to Canada and stays here for one year he can vote in
Interim Supply
our federal elections. He can vote to elect a federal member of parliament, and in that way help to elect the Prime Minister of Canada; but he is not a Canadian citizen. He will only be a British subject one year resident in Canada. But after he has been in Canada for one year and is willing to swear that he is going to make his permanent domicile in Canada, he can apply for Canadian citizenship under the Canadian Citizenship Act.
The thing gets more and more ridiculous if you consider that a native born Canadian is not allowed to accept a title from the Queen of Canada as a Canadian citizen, but other Canadians, native born, as in the case of Jean Lesage-


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


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Certainly.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I just wonder if the hon. member consulted the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) on these interesting questions that he has raised?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have correspondence here from so many departments of the cabinet that it would take half an hour to read. I do not think there is any agency of the government that I have not consulted in the past 12 months while I have been digging up facts and figures on this matter. I have envelopes here from the Department of the Secretary of State, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of External Affairs. I think I have correspondence from every department of the government that might be connected with the matter. I received nothing but the utmost co-operation from all of the civil service staff in my researches on this matter, and I can assure you of that, sir.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Certainly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member is giving us a most philosophical address with respect to titles and we are all expecting the Secretary of State to reply. But I have recently been informed, in fact recently I have seen the picture showing where our Speaker has been created a Knight of the Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem in Canada, and I understand this is conferred by letters patent of a Canadian

May 27, 1966
Interim Supply
institution. In accepting the title of this order is he entitled to be called Sir?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, sir, I am sorry I cannot make any comment on that matter. I am not aware of the situation. It is rather interesting though, that the Order of the Phoenix which so many Canadians now hold, refers to some bird, or something, that arose from dead ashes. Now the hon. member talks about the Order of Saint Lazarus. He also arose from the dead. It looks like titles are arising in Canada again, but they are not British titles. They can be Belgian titles, Netherlands titles, Greek titles or Italian titles, but not British. I thank the hon. member for the contribution he has made to my argument, but regret I cannot give any information on the question he raised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While the hon. member is having his question period may I ask him one too?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I notice that the hon. member has referred a number of times to Lord Thomson's having been created a lord by the Queen of Canada. Would it not be more appropriate in this connection to refer to this action as having been effected by the Queen of the United Kingdom? Granted, it is the same person-the Queen of the United Kingdom and the Queen of Canada-but is it not incorrect to suggest that the Queen of Canada has appointed someone to the House of Lords of the United Kingdom?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for his comments on that score. 1 am very happy he made this distinction between the Queen of the United Kingdom and the Queen of Canada. I know that that distinction exists although the person is one, and we can use it as a precedent when we are told in the future that we cannot criticize Mr. Justice Spence because he is a judge of the Supreme Court, when all we want to do is criticize him as a commissioner. I am glad to note that the Queen is two or three persons in one body and that we can make comments on her activities in one particular field.
Quite clearly Roy Thomson was created Lord Thomson of Fleet by the Queen of the United Kingdom and the Colonies, but the point I want to raise is that Lord Thomson is a celebrated Canadian. I do not know any more hardworking individual than Lord Thomson. He has been a credit to himself, he

has been a credit to his family, and he has been a credit to the city of Toronto where he was born. He is the publisher of a large number of Canadian daily and weekly newspapers, and is the owner of radio and television stations in Canada, and of many other businesses.
Why should Canada deprive him of his Canadian citizenship? It will be said that it was done voluntarily, that he himself became a citizen of the United Kingdom. He did become a citizen of the United Kingdom, but he did not lose his status as a British subject, because all Canadians are British subjects.
It seems rather odd that Lord Thomson should have to give up his Canadian citizenship, after being a native born Canadian, in order to accept a title from the Queen, and it is even more odd when you realize that by returning to Canada, residing here for 12 months and filing a declaration that he will make his permanent domicile in Canada thereafter, he can regain his Canadian citizenship.
I have here application forms for Canadian citizenship that I have received from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I have the form that Mr. Thomson filled out to become a citizen of the United Kingdom, and nowhere does it denounce Canada on any point or in any particular.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
He is a loyal British subject; he is a loyal native born Canadian. Lord Beaverbrook dead was considered a Canadian:	Lord
Thomson alive is a blighter. In the case of Lord Beaverbrook, I must point out that he carried a permanent Canadian passport and never gave up his Canadian citizenship. The only reason Lord Thomson had to give it up was because in the 1940's the Canadian government brought in the Canadian Citizenship Act. Under this act, Lord Thomson could not accept the title without losing his citizenship. Lord Beaverbrook had been created a lord long before this act was brought in. I should like to thank Hon. Jean Marchand for clarifying the situation, by pointing out that the premier of Quebec is not a Greek, and by pointing out that my friend can accept a title from a foreign country without jeopardizing his citizenship, or can accept a decoration from another country. It is nice to have this situation finally clarified. But why not let the wheel go full cycle and make it possible for Canadians to accept honours from the Queen, since Canadians now can accept honours from the King of Greece, the Republic of Italy, the
May 27, 1986



Queen of the Netherlands and from Belgium, as is shown by the Parliamentary Guide and, as I understand from the hon. member for Kootenay West, can even accept a title from Saint Lazarus. But I do not know anything about that last one.
I should like to ask the cabinet to consider the restoration of Canadian citizenship to Lord Thomson, a man who has brought honour and credit to his native land.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the hon. member. May I ask it in French? I know the hon. member is a perfect bilingualist and does not need the help of the translation system. This is my question.

Is the hon. member aware of the fact that, in order to become right honourable, that is more honourable, it is necessary to become a member of the privy council of England? Does he not think that this is a bondage, since one must become a member of the privy council of a different government in order to become right honourable? Would he deem it advisable to change such a situation, since the Queen of England is also the Queen of Canada? We could become right honourable by becoming members of the privy council of Canada.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, in replying to the very penetrating question of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I should like to emphasize that personally I am opposed to the granting of titles and honours of any kind, either domestic, foreign or British; but when I find that the Nickle resolution of 1919, which I endorse 100 per cent, is being circumvented by the Canadian cabinet, I feel that if they are going to circumvent the Nickle resolution they should circumvent it 100 per cent. They should either restore its effect or throw it out the window. It is being eased out the window at the present time. I agree 100 per cent with the intent and purpose of the question by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief comments. I was quite impressed by the speech made by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox and by the hon. member for Danforth. In this land of affluence, I think far too often we forget the people who are living marginally. I think also we forget the intrusions the government has made in respect of the taxpayers' money. Within the
Interim Supply
last year municipal taxes have gone up, provincial taxes have gone up; federal income taxes have gone up and, along with that, the government is causing a further drain because of the Canada Pension Plan, since this not only means a further cost to the individuals, but also, because the employer has to pay his share, the taxpayer has less to take home. This is illustrated very dramatically by the savings of the people today being down and by the increased demand for credit. There has been a great increase across Canada in credit buying. The reason is that these people simply do not have sufficient money to make both ends meet. The 11 per cent sales tax adds to this, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox. This increases the cost about 20 per cent at the retail level.
The consuming public pays and must pay these costs. These people are harassed. Not only that, it is making the cost of business higher and higher. Over and above that, you have the people who are working as employees needing and demanding more money because they cannot make ends meet. This means that in labour you have people who threaten strike action in an effort to obtain more money than they need but I wish to speak particularly about those people who are on fixed incomes, the pensioners. I do not believe this government is taking cognizance of what they are doing to the person who is on a fixed pension. When you consider that the dollar of 1950 now is worth about 60 cents and when year after year we have eroded the money-and I say "we", because we are the parliament-and when you consider that in the last year alone the price of food has increased 10 per cent-and we must remember that food is a staple article, the most necessary thing in the world-how do we think the fellow who is on a fixed pension is going to meet his needs. He is pinched, unless he happens to have a very considerable pension.
I should like to go a little further and ask what we are doing to the old age pensioner; what are we doing to the person 70 years of age or over. Maybe there are not sufficient in this group, among the voting public, to alarm the government, but I should like to say this, that mercy and justice to all should be the dominant consideration in any government. These people are just about forgotten. When the government says "oh well, a lot of them have other income", let me say that 70 per cent of all the women 70 years and over

May 27. 1966
Interim Supply
across this land will have no income whatsoever, except their old age pension. This should be striking evidence of the position in which we are placing these people. Just the other night I went down to the House of Commons post office, and while I was getting my mail I looked at the bulletin board and saw a notice advertising a bed-sitting room for $90 a month.
In this affluent Canada of ours where we have the second highest standard of living in the world, we are giving these people, this 70 per cent of all the women across the land, $75 a month. Mr. Chairman, I wish to appeal to every member of parliament here. Is this justice; is this justice to the people who have helped to make this country? I should like to go a little further and say that 60 per cent of the men, aged 70 and over, will have no income other than their old age pension.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
These pensioners are in desperate need. If a pensioner lives alone in the city of Toronto he finds that he requires $120 per month as a minimum in order to survive. In spite of these facts we expect these people to live on $75 per month. We on this side of the house have asked over and over again that the old age pension be increased to $100 per month, but nothing has been done in this regard. We are being completely unjust to the elderly people who built this country.
Let me go a little further and suggest that these elderly people are the people who have more sickness than others, because as they grow older they develop diseases and require more care, drugs and better foods containing more protein. The very things of which they require more have increased in price by at least 10 per cent in the food line in the past year, yet what are we doing about this situation? We are still imposing the iniquitous 11 per cent tax on drugs, which means a 20 per cent increase in cost at the retail level on the people least able to afford it.
I close my remarks with an appeal on behalf of these forgotten people-and they have been forgotten or something would have been done for them long ago.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? I am sure he is aware of the fact that the government has indicated it will take action on any recommendation by the drug committee, which will be holding meetings very soon, to the effect that the tax should be removed as a step toward reducing the cost of drugs.


Philip Bernard Rynard: All I have to say in answer to that remark is that as far as the people across

Canada are concerned, this is an iniquitous tax and has increased the cost of drugs used by those people who are the least able to afford them. Surely it does not take any recommendation of a committee to make us realize that this tax should be removed.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, would the
Minister of National Revenue indicate the recommendation which was followed when the 11 per cent tax was imposed?


Edgar John Benson: The 11 per cent sales tax on drugs is not a recently imposed tax, but one that has been in existence for many years. Perhaps I should also point out that it was not removed by the previous government during its term in office.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to remind the minister that I advocated the removal of this tax when this party was in power.


Mr. Racine:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss a piece of legislation which is of great interest to me as mayor and reeve of the county of Beauce. It deals with the winter works program and is administered by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
You will recall that when this legislation came into force, 50 per cent of the payments were made by the federal government, whereas the contribution of the various provinces amounted to 40 per cent. At that time, our municipalities had to absorb the difference, that is 10 per cent.
A little later the province of Quebec agreed to contribute 50 per cent, so that today the winter works carried out in our municipalities are paid in full by the two governments.
However, thanks to the experience gained in the last few years, I feel that this legislation should be amended to allow the municipalities to benefit from part of the grants and use them for the cost of materials.
We know how winter works are carried out in our various municipalities. Sewer systems are installed, ditches are dug with pick and shovel when it would be easy and much cheaper to use bulldozers.
While expressing this wish, I also feel that if the various governments granted a percentage on materials, we would see in each of our municipalities new buildings which would be very useful to the people and would, at the same time, help to pay the same salaries during the winter off-season.
May 27, 1966

Each year, at the end of the season, the cost of the winter works carried out in our municipalities is checked by experienced auditors, at least in the province of Quebec.
Well, yesterday in this house it was suggested that from now on the R.C.M.P. should make those investigations in our municipalities. This implies that the auditors in the province of Quebec are not competent to make those examinations. I strongly object to that because my municipality and surrounding ones saw, in some cases and on account of unintentional irregularities, the various government grants decrease following audits made by the provincial government authorities.
I wonder if the member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois), when he made that suggestion, did not merely want to return to Ottawa what we now have in the province of Quebec.
I therefore hope that the Quebec provincial authorities will continue to administer the winter works program and that, as in the past, the municipalities will also endeavour to make those works as profitable as possible. I also hope that the government will consider my request for the provision of a grant for materials since that would be quite an asset not only for the municipalities but also for the province and the entire country.
Now, I do not want to repeat what has been said. I would like, however, to refer to page 5516 of Hansard for May 25, where the member for Megantic stated, with regard to the Notre-Dame-de-la-Guadeloupe parish, and I quote:
Let me tell hon. members something about this municipality which might open their eyes. Within a year and a half there have been seven suicidal hangings.
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the local newspapers at Notre-Dame-de-la-Guadeloupe, and those of the province of Quebec and even Ontario published reports on this matter.
For instance, Le Droit published the following headline:
Seven suicides linked with the program-
That was in the May 26 issue of Le Droit.
The Toronto Star said:
Link winter works, suicides.
The Telegram said:
Village under reign of terror-
And so publicity went, not only throughout the province but across the country.
Interim Supply
According to the Le Devoir of May 27, the mayor of the municipality absolutely denied those suicides, which rumour was detrimental to the good reputation of one of our neighbouring villages. And I quote:
The district coroner. Dr. Laurent Roy, physician at La Guadeloupe, has, however, denied that information. He stated explicitly that he had registered only one suicide at La Guadeloupe in his six years as a coroner, and this suicide dates back to 1962.
The parish priest also stated that, to his knowledge, there had been no suicide since the one in 1962.
And he added:
I do not know who claimed that there was such a wave of suicides in the parish, said he, but that person is talking through his hat.
Of course, he was speaking of the hon. member for Megantic:
As for the coroner and the provincial police, they confirmed the murder.
I am somewhat concerned by that statement, because it certainly causes some pain to the families concerned. If sickness affects families, not only should we refrain from ridiculing the fact and trying to take political advantage thereof, but we should especially, I think, sympathize with these families. And I repeat that there has been only one suicide in La Guadeloupe; the other cases were distressing murder cases. As the relatives of these persons still live in La Guadeloupe, I am sure they did not appreciate or admire the behaviour of the member for Megantic.
As can be seen in Le Devoir, the member for Megantic states among other things:
Nothing has been done, claimed Mr. Langlois. The municipality is still without appropriate sewers.
Now, a newspaperman from the Globe and Mail went yesterday to La Guadeloupe to question the alleged informant of the member for Megantic. Here is what he said:

Mr. Beaudoin said yesterday: "I had nothing to do with that story about the suicides."
However, he admitted that he and a few others had gathered information for Mr. Langlois. He said he had done it to block the waterworks project.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)

This means that, if there are no sewers or watermains in La Guadeloupe, it is simply because the taxpayers of that locality are entitled to their opinion, as to whether or not they choose to build waterworks. I do not think it behooves the hon. member for

May 27. 1966
Interim Supply
Megantic to interfere with the municipal affairs of a community.
Mr. Chairman, I believe in parliamentary immunity, but I believe also that any abuse of that immunity is wrong. The rights of parliament are often referred to in the house. You know, Mr. Chairman, the rights of parliament.
The dismissal of a single civil servant is enough to launch an investigation; however, in the case of honest citizens' families, I object to and dispute the validity of the statement made Wednesday in the house by the hon. member for Megantic. I wonder whether this is what he means by respect for the human being, which he has advocated in his riding for many years.
I shall not labour the point any further but I hope that the hon. member for Megantic will have enough intestinal fortitude to withdraw his remarks, but in any case he should apologize to the village and to the honest and industrious people of our area; he should apologize also to the families who are really hurt by the statement he made in the house, which statement is inaccurate and quite unworthy of a member of parliament.
[English1


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this debate is taking place today and I hope that something will come of it. I am aware of the fact that there is reluctance on the part of many members to get involved in this particular discussion because of the limitation which is put upon us by our rule relating to the 30 day limit. However, I think the subject which has been raised by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox is an exceptionally important one. If this parliament were to concentrate only on that particular subject and was able to do something about it, then they would probably win the eternal gratitude of many of the people of this country.
I think this matter has been raised by a number of persons who have strong personal feelings about the increase in the cost of living which has a detrimental effect on a very large segment of our Canadian population. It is interesting to look at the person who raised this subject. He is a member who comes from an area where the average income is not very high. His knowledge of the farming problem in his area is considerable, and he knows that as the cost of every commodity rises his people suffer from it

more and more and are helpless to do anything about it.
The same is true with regard to the member for Danforth, who supported the proposal made by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox. He used to provide voluntary legal counsel in his riding in Toronto to a large segment of the population who were not able to afford this type of service. I am sure that he is aware also of the thousands and thousands of people who are in serious difficulties owing to the disparity between their income and their need to maintain a decent standard of living. I believe his feelings for those people are deep.
I think the other member who spoke on this subject comes from Simcoe, a small riding in the central part of southern Ontario. He is a doctor who has for many years been connected with people of modest means. His profession makes him well aware of the great number of Canadians who are in desperate need of medical attention but cannot receive it. I myself know of people who have been able to go to a doctor because of the present medical insurance plans, have been given a prescription and then could not afford to buy the drugs.
Anyone here who has had a cold is well aware of the fact that when one goes to a drugstore to fill a prescription to fight off the effects of flu which has been prevalent in Ottawa, the bill for the 12 pills prescribed by the doctor will be anywhere from $6 to $12. This is away beyond the reach of many of those who are similarly afflicted and cannot afford drugs.
I am sure the Minister of Finance is interested in this problem. I am quite prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt-and it is doubtful at present, because we are not familiar with what he is really doing in this matter. I really think he is not the finance minister of this country at all. I do not think we have had a true finance minister for years. It is the establishment which runs the Department of Finance in Ottawa. This is a fact. I think it is also true of the other departments concerned with consumer affairs. I am positive that the minister has been advised that the interest rate on bank loans should be increased, and I am sure that this advice was given to him by the establishment. I am also aware of the fact that his caucus told him that if he did this, he would have to look for another job.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He used to be part of the establishment.
May 27. 196S


William Arnold Peters: He is in a better position to know this than I. I know he was not included among those 12 whom Maclean's magazine thought constituted the establishment. I am thinking of the gentleman formerly in his department who is now one of the establishment. I cannot remember his name, but I think it is Isbister. I am speaking of those gentlemen who always dine at the Rideau Club and make the decisions for Canada. They have no knowledge of, no interest in, and they are in no position to decide what are the needs of the Canadian public. I think that we as politicians who every day receive dozens of letters from people of poor means are better able to evaluate the problem. One hears of many people who cannot send their children to school, often because they have not been able to receive proper medical attention. They cannot provide them with eye glasses, and in many cases are living on welfare because the bread winner of the family has died. Anyone receiving these letters is well aware of the fact that the Department of Finance has based the economy of Canada on the $75 allowance and that everything is going to be kept in relation to that $75.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
I am saying to the minister that I do not think it would have mattered if he had raised this to $100. A long time ago, in negotiating contracts for labour unions I found out that we based our requests on the needs of the workers. We found that in most cases the wage increases we were seeking for the employees of a particular company were always trailing far behind the increases in the cost of living and the standard of living that should have been maintained. I think the minister made a major mistake in his budget when he tried to maintain this $75 basic pension. There is a large proportion of our population dependant on that basic pension. I agree entirely with the three members who preceded me that this is the major problem in Canada today. We should be providing a pension which would allow these people a decent standard of living. If we are not capable of doing that, then all the riches that go to the people at the top level are not going to be of much value. Certainly, we are not going to improve the image of parliament.
The Minister of Finance has stated he expects a 3.5 per cent increase in the cost of living this year. This will not necessarily mean 3.5 per cent across the board, and it will not be 3.5 per cent for those who are on
Interim Supply
the $75 pension. It will probably be 10 per cent or 20 per cent so far as that class of citizen is concerned. The previous speaker indicated that this 3.5 per cent increase would really mean an increase of 10 per cent in the cost of food. I think we will be lucky if we find food prices have increased by only 10 per cent at the end of the year. Once again those on disability pensions, old age pensions and other retirement pensions will find that the basic food commodities they have to buy will have increased in price by more than 10 per cent. The increase will have no relationship to the 3.5 per cent which the Minister of Finance indicates he expects the Canadian economy to rise.
The people in this category are not the ones who will be making purchases in the automobile field or for basic steel. Their purchases are in the field of houses, clothing and food. These are the only things old age pensioners and those living on fixed incomes are going to be interested in purchasing. I do not expect a representative of the government to stand up and say what they are going to do about protection for consumers. I realize that this problem is developing in other countries as well. I believe the Minister of Finance is perhaps more responsible for this situation than any other minister. I am well aware of the fact that other ministers are finding responsibilities in other fields such as the supply of labour, keeping our people at work, retraining a portion of our population to meet the needs of a changing society, housing, and so on. I know there is going to be another debate on this subject, so I do not intend to pursue it.
However, I believe the Minister of Finance will have to give very serious consideration to this particular matter because he made the decision. I do not believe the cabinet made it. I am sure the Liberal party did not make it, because I listened to the speeches of the candidates during the election campaign and they professed to be interested in the little people, the people who are not able to be retrained to change jobs, and who are in a position where they have to depend on a fixed income. When the minister set a basic pension of $75, then in my opinion he had an obligation to maintain the cost of living at a level which would permit the $75 to meet the reasonable requirements of these people.
I do not know how the government is going to face the establishment. I do not know if they are ever going to do so. I am quite surprised that this government does not seem

May 27. 1966
Interim Supply
to be concerned about that. I was always quite pleased when I heard the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, when he was a minister, stand up and say the establishment in his department was an almost insurmountable barrier to his doing anything in his department. I believe that if other ministers in the government had been consulted there would have been others who would have agreed that the establishment represented a large, blank wall which they could not penetrate.
In my opinion, the present government is not trying to penetrate it because they believe this is the way government should operate. I feel the public should know this soon, or they will fail to realize why members of parliament are not able to do the things members are expected to do. The public have a preconceived idea of what members of parliament should be accomplishing. Under the system we have, members are not going to be able to accomplish these things. This raises the whole problem of how we are going to supervise the establishment when it is insulated in the cabinet and inside parliament itself-as it obviously should not be, because the minister will be protecting people and philosophies over which he has no control. Many members do not even realize this situation exists.
I should like to change the subject for a moment to refer to a situation about which hon. members may be unaware. Several months ago a number of meetings were held with members of the Internal Economy Commission. It was decided that some change would have to be made in the method of obtaining typewriters for this establishment. Most members of parliament could not care less about typewriters in any office. I sympathize with them because that is about the way I feel. I use the Biblical method of typing: Seek and ye shall find.
Hon. members may not know, but a few years ago it was decided the House of Commons would use typewriters to be supplied and serviced by the printing bureau. These typewriters were to be replaced every year. They were to be moved from this section of government into other branches of government. Of course this method broke down. The House of Commons found itself in a position of having to replace the typewriters at the end of their contract. It was decided, too, that members would be able to apply for electric typewriters.

[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
After the price range for typewriters was decided, a demonstration of a number of typewriters was arranged. In my opinion, one of the companies abused the confidence of the house. The I.B.M. Company demonstrated two typewriters, one of which was a 15 inch model, similar to the typewriters now in use. The other typewriter companies demonstrated this type of machine and the secretaries went to look at these typewriters. They decided what type they wanted. It was agreed that the companies would not pressure individual members or their staff in the offices to take a particular type of typewriter over some other make. This agreement was broken by the representatives of I.B.M. That company had as many as a dozen salesmen going from office to office putting pressure on the members. I do not think this should have been done.
Difficulty arose when orders were given to the various companies. The I.B.M. Company decided that they could not supply a 15-inch model in the particular price range, but only their 11-inch model. The 11-inch model is a little bigger than a Hansard envelope, though the Hansard envelopes are not first class envelopes and vary in size. Some of them fit, some of them do not.
I suggest that this company came before members of parliament and their staff and demonstrated a 15-inch machine of one particular type. Then when orders were submitted the company said that only an 11-inch machine was satisfactory, a machine which no one was shown and which was not demonstrated. In my opinion they misrepresented the situation very greatly.
I suggest to hon. members that they should inform their staffs to cancel these orders. I am sure that the Internal Economy Commissioners of the house would be willing to cancel the orders for these typewriters because they will be unsatisfactory for the jobs the secretaries of members are being asked to perform. In one or two cases members have agreed to do this, but I suggest that every member should so inform his staff if this typewriter, which they have not seen, is unsatisfactory.
There is a model in the stenographic pool. If they are not satisfied with the other machine, they should so instruct the Director of Administration and cancel their orders for the machines they are going to purchase. If this company is dishonest with members of
May 27, 1966

Interim Supply
parliament I suggest that it is perhaps dishonest with all government departments. We are not paying patronage here and are not going to be pressured or subjected to misrepresentation without making some complaint.
I should like to use this illustration as an example. If you go into an automobile showroom and look at a Chevrolet Impala, you may decide you want to buy that Chevrolet Impala, which is being demonstrated in the showroom. You fill out a form with several details on it, such as model number and so on. Then having been shown that particular Impala model, if the salesman delivers a Chevy II from the back door, I am sure you will all agree with me that gross misrepresentation has taken place. The car that you were shown is not the car which is delivered. The car which you were delivered, could not be substituted, so far as specifications are concerned, and do the same kind of job as the car demonstrated.
I think the I.B.M. Company has taken advantage of members of parliament. It is time that more members of parliament paid attention to some of the things which happen and did something about them. That is why I raise this matter as a point of information. There are about 102 members of parliament who have indicated that they wish to buy this particular type of I.B.M. machine, which is not the machine which was demonstrated. Therefore I suggest they take a look at the situation, because they may find themselves with an unsatisfactory machine, one which was not demonstrated, but which members can do nothing about.
I raise this matter only because I expect we will be using these machines for the next ten years. Therefore it is important to us and those who follow us that we pay close attention to this very valuable piece of equipment that we are purchasing.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I will merely take three minutes to set the record straight.
First of all, I shall say that I was very surprised to hear the hon. member for Tim-iskaming (Mr. Peters) whose reputation is that of an intelligent man, a genuine parliamentarian, speak for half an hour in the house about typewriters. It seems to me that the member should have chosen a more important topic particularly when he is an outstanding man for whom I have much esteem.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I suggest that the Chair has been given a very serious affront. We are all aware that there is a time limit to this debate. If you allow me to take as long as I have on this particular subject, after having already spoken for a considerable time, the affront would be to you, not to me.


Auguste Choquette: I shall deal with the subject immediately and briefly.
A few minutes ago, in a short and very forceful speech, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) told us of somemost unfortunate statements made in the house by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois). The newspapers made a great to-do over the serious and unfortunate charges made by the hon. member.
Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time that serious charges without solid proof are wildly thrown in the house. This is not the first time we hear violent attacks against persons who are not in the house.
I remember the accusations made last year by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) against the R.C.M.P. They were referred to the committee on privileges and elections. My friend the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) knows what I say is true. The committee on privileges and elections inquired into the charges made by the hon. member against the R.C.M.P., and its report clearly established that they were false.
The house will remember that the hon. member had protested that he had been molested by the R.C.M.P., which had abused his rights and even damaged some personal belongings. The report of the committee was clear and definite: the accusations were false.
Now, the member for Megantic, in an uncontrolled outburst, attacked the municipal authorities of Notre-Dame-de-la-Guadeloupe, Frontenac county, province of Quebec. He even said that several suicides had been committed in connection with the mismanagement of the federal-provincial program of winter works. What a joke, what a great big joke. How can a responsible man say such wild, extravagant and foolish things?
Go down in the street and ask the young people what they think about members of parliament. They are rather puzzled^ fairly

May 27, 1966
Interim Supply
sceptical as to the qualifications, the earnestness and the capacities of parliamentarians, and for the very reason that members of parliament take advantage of the immunity from arrest to bring any accusation against persons outside the house.
We are here to illustrate democracy, whereas statements like the one made by the member for Megantic do nothing else than ridicule and downgrade democracy. This is really unfortunate, Mr. Chairman.
When the member for Megantic attacks municipal authorities, quoting embezzlements and frauds, does he fully realize the seriousness and the significance of such accusations? Is he fully aware of the fact that he is tarnishing the good name of reputable people and that, being himself protected by his immunity from arrest, nobody can take legal action against him?
I say to the member for Megantic that he is the House of Commons' own Yves Gabias, and since he is the Gabias of the Commons, we should take action against him. In the circumstances, the only action that can be taken is to have his case referred to the committee on privileges and elections, and to bring before it the statements and the accusations made by the member for Megantic and have the committee report to the house on the conduct of the member.
I claim, Mr. Chairman, what we are going to have a second Yves Gabias case, at the federal level instead of the provincial.
So, I deplore the charges made by the member for Megantic, I deplore his excessive language and I say that if the prestige of parliament is to be maintained, we should take action against those who are not conscious of their own utterances and who lack a sense of responsibility.
We know that the parish priest, the mayor and the coroner of Notre-Dame-de-la-Guadeloupe formally denied the utterances of the member. There must be something to such a denial. We must clear up the whole matter. I repeat that, in order to maintain the luster and the prestige of parliament, we should take whatever means required to prevent members from making such wild statements which cannot fail to tarnish our reputation. So, let there be light, and let the commons' own Yves Gabias be called before the committee on privileges and elections.
[Mr. Choquette.l
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.) lEnglishl


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak very briefly on the subject that has been dealt with by several hon. members in the course of this debate. A supporter of the government, when that government was charged with failing to meet the challenge of the increasing cost of living, excused the government because it is in a minority position.
Several months ago the government went to the people with a clear call for a majority, which was rejected by the electors of Canada. It was rejected, I suggest, because the people of Canada did not have sufficient confidence in the Liberal party to give that party a majority, believing that it was necessary to have others in the house, presenting other points of view, and calling the government to account for matters in which it was delinquent.
I do not believe that the failure by this government to meet the challenge inherent in the increasing cost of living can be excused because the government has no majority. We in this party suggest that when the government is prepared to bring in legislation to assist in reversing the cost of living trend in this country, it will not have to be concerned about its lack of majority, because that majority will be assured inasmuch as members of parliament would like to assist the government in reversing such a trend.
Across the country there is a general concern about the continuing upward spiral in the cost of living. This topic of conversation is ever present when one speaks to ordinary persons from day to day, either on the street or in the stores. Housewives who go to shopping centres, taking carts around the aisles, trying to fill their weekly grocery lists constantly object to the ever decreasing purchasing power of their dollar. Communications coming to the desks of all members of parliament call attention to this serious situation pleading that something be done to check the cost of living increase. That increase is continually reducing the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar.
When we pick up our newspapers and magazines we constantly see articles referring to this situation. The writers wonder just how far it is going to go, and why something is not being done to correct it. I believe it is the responsibility not only of the present administration but of any administration in a
May 27. 1966

similar position, to carefully consider this problem, to weigh it in all its ramifications, and then to set out on a deliberate course to reverse the present trend, guaranteeing to the Canadian people that in the days to come they will not be victimized as they now are victimized.
Reference has been made to the fact that the cost of living will continue to increase. This accentuates the need for something definite and concrete to be done in order to meet the situation. It has been pointed out in the debate that persons in certain categories are seriously affected by the continuing trend in the cost of living. I suggest that those on fixed incomes are in serious difficulty. They are facing insurmountable obstacles in their endeavours to make their small incomes provide the necessities of life. Yet it seems as if those in authority are little concerned about this matter, and that they use various excuses to justify their inaction. There has been correspondence with various departments and various ministers about individuals who are finding it absolutely impossible, because of the cost of living, to meet their obligations. Such persons are on old age pensions, veterans pensions, civil service pensions, and other types of fixed income. Concerted attention does not seem to have been given to the needs of such people. The present government stands condemned because it has failed to give adequate consideration to this problem.
In addition to individuals in the categories I have referred to, who are affected by high prices, I submit that consumers in general are becoming perturbed about the trend in the cost of living index. We must recognize that the taxpayers of this country have to pay the shot for government expenditures. They have to assist in meeting the costs of services given to the people; they have to make contributions so that those unable to provide for themselves are provided for. Yet the taxpayer's income is reduced by the increased cost of living, as well as by government policy in this regard.
The time will come when the taxpayers will not be able to meet what is needed of them, when they will not be able to provide for themselves, let alone for the services of others. Not only are the pensioners of this country facing problems, but so also are the taxpayers and the consumers. I am therefore in sympathy with the hon. member for Prince 23033-357
Interim. Supply
Edward-Lennox and with other hon. members who have raised this question. I sympathize with all those caught in the squeeze of rising prices. The time has come when something must be done about that.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
The suggestion has been made that there should be a department of consumer affairs. One hon. member pointed out this morning that there is a complete absence of co-ordination of endeavour to meet this problem of the increasing cost of living. Various departments may have some concern about it, the minister may be doing a little, but there is no co-ordination of these efforts.
An illustration was placed before us recently of what can be done in such a situation. Time and time again it has been pointed out that the various aspects of education with which the federal government is concerned are spread out among a number of departments. Now we find there is a group of individuals upon whom has been placed responsibility for co-ordinating activities and responsibilities in the field of education. We welcome this step. If this can be done in one area of our national life, why should it not be done in others?
I do not know whether I would go to the length of supporting the establishment of a full department of consumer affairs but I do believe there should be some agency of government charged with responsibility for paying attention to the many and varied problems facing the consumer today, specifically those presented by the cost of living.
For all these reasons I join in raising a protest against the present situation. I join in asking the government to take positive action to ensure that something is done to prevent this cost of living spiral from continuing, and further depreciating the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar. I do so in order that our people may be able to provide for their own needs and make their contribution to the national economy.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, because I understand that the house in anxious to pass those estimates. However, I would like to make a few remarks which might seem a little disconnected.
First of all I wish to support what the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) said about winter works. That legislation certainly needs to be amended, at least as far as the province

May 27, 1966
Interim Supply
of Quebec is concerned. I will not say more, I just want to support what he said.
A little earlier I listened to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) and, as I see that he is now listening to me, I will tell him that he reminds me of St. Michael the Archangel who went around in a suit of armor to fight an evil dragon. I had the pleasure of reading a biography of his grandfather, the late hon. P. A. Choquette, entitled: "Fifty years in politics." In my opinion, there is no doubt that the present member for Lotbiniere is, as the Americans say: "A chip off the old block."


Stanley Howard Knowles: In French, please.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I cannot find words to say that in French.
But, Mr. Chairman, I did not like it so much when the hon. member for Lotbiniere mentioned several times in a libellous tone the name of the provincial member for Trois-Rivieres, Mr. Yves Gabias. I am not involved in any way in the present provincial election and I am very happy, as a citizen of Trois-Rivieres, to say that we have two very good candidates, namely the hon. Leon Balcer, who sat in this house for a long time, and Yves Gabias who has been for two terms a member of the Quebec legislature. I have so little to do with it that I have decided to remain in Ottawa until voting day, precisely not be become involved. On the other hand, as a citizen of Trois-Rivieres, if I let pass unnoticed facts or allusions, not to say the running down of Mr. Gabias, even if they come from my very good friend the hon. member for Lotbiniere-


Auguste Choquette: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Certainly.


Auguste Choquette: Is the hon. member aware of the fact that the committee on privileges and elections of the Quebec legislature applied strict penalties against Mr. Yves Gabias? Is the hon. member also aware that it has taken very serious sanctions against Mr. Yves Gabias who made completely unfounded charges against Judge Rene Hamel? Does the hon. member know that?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lotbiniere knows very well that I am perfectly aware of what he has just said. With his intelligence and background, he knows very well that I am not trying to overlook a mistake which the provincial

member for Trois-Rivieres might have made. I remember that it is said in the Gospel: He that is without sin among you, let him cast a stone.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the member for Trois-Rivieres, but I think that he is discussing a matter which is not relevant to the issue now under consideration, namely Mr. Gabias who has been mentioned by the member for Lotbiniere.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your advice. You have noted just the same, that it was my colleague for Lotbiniere who asked me a question and I thought that it was only proper to answer. He was the one who brought up the Gabias case. I ask the House of Commons not to become involved in provincial elections. I do not interfere myself. We have two excellent candidates and I do not want them to be slandered here.
I shall now pursue my remarks; anyhow, my intention was not to talk about that. What I wanted to say when the hon. member for Lotbiniere gave one of our colleagues a verbal thrashing, is that I am not holding it against him. To my mind, we should avoid such excesses of language which are heard by the people and only discredit their authors.
I should like to stress another case which was mentioned yesterday and against which the house should protest. It happens too frequently. I was given a copy of a newspaper from which I quote:
The present electoral system is under the control of the enemies of the peoples:	free-masonry,
financiers and communists. In order to be elected to parliaments, one must be previously bound to the powers which are active behind the scenes. None of those who claim to enact the laws and apply them, members and ministers, are really responsible for nor in a position to change their ways.
The article bears the signature of that vestal virgin of moral equality, Gilberte Cote-Mercier. I, for one, rise against such an irresponsible statement. I think parliament is not any closer to perfection than the "Berets blancs," but a large majority of members of this parliament, if not all, fulfil their duties with all the professional conscience they are capable of and they do not deserve such remarks. I shall not dwell on that, except to say that, to my mind, it is a case of contempt of parliament, if there is any law in that connection.
I come now to the cost of living, which is deemed out of control and which was mentioned by my colleagues. I think they are
May 27. 19G6

right. I will not look at it in the same manner; I want to mention it from another point of view.
It is true that the people are currently alarmed due to the increased cost of living. It is an international phenomenon; it is not limited to Canada and goes beyond our government's capacity. Nevertheless, it is a challenge to the present government and it must be met, as far as Canada is concerned, by extraordinary measures.
I should simply like to mention two consequences which will occur unless the government intervenes with global and spectacular measures.
In my province, Mr. Chairman, there are people who support the separatist movement. Their best argument when they preach their gospel of division is precisely the fact that the cost of living is increasing. They travel about the province telling the farmers; We will separate and settle all that. They tell the workers: You are on strike because your are not paid enough. They go through the entire catalogue of human miseries which are all a result of uncontrolled cost of living, to incite people to vote in support of the separatist ideas. It is a special challenge.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
There is another challenge which I may bring up as an independent member. As all members of the house are aware, Canadians of all classes and levels of society are disappointed and disillusioned with their government. The men in public life who are most affected are the members of the two old parties who in turn head the government. The population expects of them a basic program capable of checking the rising cost of living. Governments change but no radical legislation is introduced, or at least that is the impression the people have. Both old parties seem to have about the same economic philosophy. It seems to change with circumstances. I am not saying that governments have done nothing. I admit the Liberal government has passed numerous and very generous pieces of social legislation, but frequently it was done by rule of thumb and without solving the fundamental problem. My colleague from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) spoke of the establishment and said that financial influence was paralysing both parties.
If this goes on too long, if the government does not take drastic steps to remedy the situation, splinter parties will take the lead and we will wake up with a minority government which will be forced to form a coalition. Will that be good or bad? I do not want to
Interim Supply
prejudge. Still, I challenge the present government to roll up its sleeves and face the situation.
The backbenchers were mentioned. Several of them are intelligent, on the move and want to accomplish something. If the backbenchers want to help their party, let them spur it on. I say this constructively. I am not speaking of revolt but I am thinking of the young Turks who wanted at least a moral revolt. So, let them spur their party on and wake them up to the fact that this is 1966, that everything has changed, that the Canadian people are more exacting than ever, that they expect fundamental, drastic steps; otherwise, splinter parties will gain ascendancy over the people and will have to be reckoned with. That would, of course, create problems for the party in power, whether Conservative or Liberal.
I close on those words, pointing out again that the government faces two challenges: that of separatism, of those young people who use the rising cost of living as an argument, and that of the growing splinter parties who offer an alternative-whether good or bad is not for me to judge-to the Canadian electorate.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I want to say just a few words to inform the house about an alarming situation that prevails at present in the province of Quebec, more particularly in the field of agriculture.
It has to do with the state of urgency created by the strike of the longshoremen in our national harbours. This morning I tried to point out this situation to the house. To my great astonishment, I heard many objections from Quebec members and yet they should have supported me instead of trying to get me into trouble. For all practical purposes, I could not express my views at that time.
At this stage, I should like to read the telegram I got from a person interested in animal breeding and who foresees the future with pessimism unless action is taken at once. Mr. Chairman, I received the following message from R. O. Blanchard Ltee of Saint-Germain:
Situation alarming re longshoremen strike stop. Thousands of animals in danger of death if strike not settled within 24 hours.
Also, another message from the secretary of Bon Matin Farm Inc. complaining about the danger of this strike if it is not settled or if a solution is not found forthwith.

May 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
Many meat cattle breeders as well as farmers interested in poultry breeding can foresee the day, in the near future, when they will have to sell their livestock and poultry because they will be out of feed grain. This is an emergency, and I think the government should do everything it can to settle this situation.
If that happened, the rural and farming economy of the province of Quebec more particularly would suffer considerably. Finally, the consumer again would have to pay.
Therefore, I would ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) to make every effort to settle as soon as possible the labour conflict now paralysing our harbours. I know that the Minister of Labour is deeply concerned about the present situation, more especially as it could entail all kinds of conflicts. Violence is sometimes involved.
We have every reason to deplore such a strike. I ask the Minister of Labour and all the other ministers of the cabinet to make superhuman efforts to settle the matter in the shortest possible time, in order that it does not develop into an urgent national situation which would have disastrous effects.

Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Sharp thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-189, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1967.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates; the expenses of the International Labour Conferences and the promotion of labour-management co-operation, $14,569,100.
IMr. Ricard.l
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before the minister begins, may I raise a point of procedure. This is a matter which was discussed at a meeting of the house leaders; namely the question of any discussion we might have on the subject of housing, which comes under the minister but not in his capacity as Minister of Labour. I think it is fair to say there was a consensus among the house leaders that when item 1 is before us we should deal only with matters relating to the Department of Labour at that time, but that when discussion on item 1 is concluded the item might be allowed to stand and then later we would go back to the item to discuss the matter of housing. Could this be understood?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I think the suggestion made by the hon. member is a good one. I believe it is well known that the estimates in respect of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation come before this committee only once a year, and that is during the discussion of the final supplementaries. Under the circumstances, and since under item 1 it would be possible to discuss housing and building, as part of the works of the Department of Labour, particularly the matter concerning employment of tradesmen and others during the winter months. I believe this could be dealt with in the way suggested by my hon. friend.


Maurice Rinfret: Is there concurrence in the house in the proposal made by the member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, in the past when estimates of a department of government were presented to this committee for consideration, certainly during my first two years in this house, it was customary for the minister concerned to make at least a short introductory statement in which he outlined the work of the department and its program for the year. As a relatively new minister in the Department of Labour, I gave consideration to what should be done at this particular time and I could not resist the opportunity to say how much I have been impressed by the accomplishments of the Department of Labour and in particular the dedication of its officers. However, in view of a combination of circumstances I will endeavour to be as brief as possible in my introductory statement.
I think that it is safe to say that the Department of Labour under the leadership of my illustrious predecessors-and here I use
May 27, 1966

Supply-Labour
the plural word advisedly-has made significant advances with the introduction of programs of lasting value, especially during recent years. I refer for instance to the winter works program which provides essential employment in a country such as Canada during the difficult winter months. This program was introduced not by my predecessor but by his immediate predecessor. I also wish to refer to the comprehensive Labour (Standards) Code, the establishment of the manpower consultative service, and the introduction of the winter house building incentive program, just to mention a few programs in which the Department of Labour has been interested over the past decade.
Partly as a result of the services which the department was able to develop, these services now have been divided between two departments. Since the first of January this year the National Employment Service, the Technical Vocational Branch, along with the manpower functions of the Department of Labour have been transferred to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, soon, I hope, to be a part of the new department of manpower. I say this because it affects the estimates which are to be discussed by the committee this afternoon. In the light of these changes, my officers have been giving consideration to the organization which we believe the department should have in order to carry out its direct responsibilities in the field of industrial relations.
In the field of labour management relations, I include labour standards and safety, research, information services, and also international labour affairs. In connection with my references to international labour affairs I think the house should know that the Minister of Labour had hoped to leave for Geneva tonight along with other members of the house to participate in the annual meeting of the International Labour Organization. This meeting opens on the evening of Tuesday next, and I am pleased to say that a strong delegation including members from all parts of this house is due to leave for Geneva over the week end. It appears to be extremely doubtful whether the minister will be there, at least for the first week of this very important international conference. I will go if I can, but the chances of my getting away for the next four or five days are extremely doubtful, because of a combination of circumstances to some of which I will refer in a moment.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The bulk of the work of the department as presently constituted-that is since January 1-aside from administrative services has been divided into three main sectors, and I think an examination of the estimates that we will be considering this afternoon will show this very clearly. Each of these main sectors will be headed by an officer with the necessary high qualifications and the rank needed to supervise and take responsibility in these fields.
The three sectors are: labour management relations, labour standards and benefits, and research and development. I will try to answer any questions that may be asked in connection with these three sectors of the department.
Before discussing even briefly the activities of the Department of Labour, having in mind the field of responsibilities that remain with it since January 1, I think it might be well if I made a very short statement about the general economic situation we have in Canada today, and more particularly about those aspects of this general economic situation which are of special interest to Canadian workers and employers.
I would not be frank if I did not say to this committee that I, as minister, and my department, have been plagued with a flood of disastrous strikes over the past few weeks. These strikes all seriously threaten the Canadian economy, and I urge all members of this house, regardless of party, to apply their minds to this serious situation which threatens our basic economy. We should be applying our minds in an attempt to find some corrective formula or solution which will prevent matters from getting completely out of hand.
In my own province of British Columbia we have a particularly serious situation which, at the present time, is not the direct responsibility of the federal Minister of Labour, but a responsibility that none of us can ignore as Canadians. We have the threat of a massive strike which will affect the economy of the province, and its forest industry. Nearly 50 cents of every dollar earned in the province comes from the forest industry. The situation is very serious.
We are faced with the situations that have been referred to in the last week, namely the dock strike in Montreal, the threatened strike in Air Canada, the railway problems and others which are particularly serious. I really think that we should apply our minds in an

May 27, 1986
Supply-Labour
attempt to find some solution to this extremely grave situation.
I have not been in this office long enough to be able to say whether the solution lies in the establishment of arbitration or of labour courts, such as those that have been set up in Australia and other countries of the world. The answer may lie in that kind of action because, while they have had divided success, on the whole they have been successful. I throw that idea out as something that merits the serious consideration of all members of this house and of all Canadians.
It is quite obvious that part of the difficulties in which we find ourselves today results from our prosperity. We are enjoying a period of unprecedented prosperity in Canada. During 1965 total employment increased in Canada by over 250,000 people-one quarter of a million. This is the first time this has happened since long before the outbreak of the second world war. I think it is worthy of note that the increase in employment of young people under the age of 25 has increased. This is most gratifying, especially in view of the number of young people who will be coming forward to enter the labour force in the next few years.
Employment is well over seven million in Canada today. Not only has employment increased but, happily, unemployment continues to decline, in spite of the problems to which I have referred. The unemployment rate has, as recent figures show, declined to just slightly above 3 per cent of the labour force, which is the figure that the Economic Council of Canada proposed as the annual target for Canada on a seasonally adjusted basis.
There is another very significant matter, and this is a sign of our prosperity. The average weekly wages and salaries of Canadians between 1964 and 1965 increased by 7 per cent. As the consumer price index rose by only 2.4 per cent there certainly has been a substantial increase in the real, the genuine, purchasing power of Canadians. Working conditions in Canada have also continued to improve. A survey of my department covering over two million workers in non-agricultural industries indicated that the members of the Canadian work force generally now have a five-day, 40-hour week. In addition to this they enjoy a two-week paid vacation, with a third and sometimes a fourth week for workers with longer periods of service. They also have six or more paid 
holidays a year, and under the Labour (Standards) Code they have eight paid holidays. In addition, many of them enjoy pensions and other welfare benefits.
I would be the first to concede, of course, that these are average figures and that not all workers enjoy these benefits. Unfortunately some enjoy less than the average, but I can say with ample justification that the Labour (Standards) Code, which was passed by this house and by parliament last year, is having a very important and significant effect in this respect.
One other rather significant fact comes to my mind. A study of collective bargaining made by my department showed that of the 240 major collective agreements that were signed in 1965, and that is a very significant number, almost one half were for periods of three years or more, rather than the usual one or two year maximum periods. It is interesting to note that this study revealed that clauses on technological change have become more common in 1965. These clauses generally have taken the form of requiring an employer to give a union advanced notice of technological change, and to set up labour-management committees to deal with all the problems that are associated with these changes.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Over the past two and a half weeks many questions have been asked in this house concerning the dock strike in Montreal. It is a very serious situation. Of the incidents to which I have referred earlier, it is perhaps the most serious problem confronting us in the economic field in Canada today. We have to find a solution, have to bring about a settlement of this strike in Montreal, and we have to find it in the shortest possible time because there are huge quantities of wheat to be shipped from Canada. There are also essential food products wnich must be moved from western Canada to Quebec to supply feed for the chickens, pigs and other animals that need food in that particular province. They have to rely on us westerners for some help in the matter of food supplies.
All these are serious problems. We also have problems to solve in connection with Expo '67 and the goods that are needed to meet their target date of early next year. We have to find a solution to this problem. If we could have found a solution to it a week or two ago, we would all have been very happy. However, I doubt if 10 per cent of the members of this house know that this prob-
May 27, 1966

lem arises largely from technological change. How many people realize the difficulties that are involved? We have about 4,500 workers involved, stevedores or longshoremen, in the three ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec. As a result of new changes in the handling of cargoes that are to be loaded and unloaded, you can get along today with modern equipment with a cut of a minimum of 10 per cent in the work force. This is the same kind of technological change that concerned us all when we were considering the Freedman report. Herein lies the basic difficulty-the difficulty that lies in finding a solution to this very serious problem in the ports of the province of Quebec.
We have been fortunate in the dock strike in having one of our most experienced, patient and respected men-I do not know how to describe him because he was not acting as a jurist but as a mediator-in the person of Judge Lippe to act in this dispute.
During the short period that 1 was away from the house between the question period this morning and this afternoon, I have received another interim report, perhaps I should say the fourth interim report but the second of two extended reports, from Judge Lippe. The negotiations seem to have reached a stalemate, which arises out of nothing more than technological change. The longshoremen naturally are concerned with the possible loss of jobs. The shipping federation are naturally concerned with competitive costs when they are faced with possible competitive shipments from Portland, Boston, New York, St. John's Halifax or other ports. They have to consider their position in this highly competitive age. If the longshoremen crews, which have for some years numbered 18, have to be reduced to 15 or 16 as a result of technological change, in my view, the ship operators are not to be blamed for trying to reach that objective. On the other hand it is not surprising that the longshoremen are concerned with their future and their families. Naturally they want to see a study made and a solution found which will not work too great a hardship on the workmen.
At the suggestion of the mediator, I am meeting this afternoon at five o'clock here in Ottawa with the bargaining representatives of both the shipping federation and the longshoremen. I hope that out of this meeting a recommendation or an agreement on a course of action will be arrived at which will enable us to find a peaceful settlement of this dispute. You will appreciate how very serious is
Supply-Labour
the situation when you have to consider 4,500 longshoremen. As you know, in general there is a surplus of longshoremen because of the short season that prevails in the ports of Montreal and Quebec. It appears that there is always a reserve of longshoremen. You might think that over the life of a two-year contract, two extra longshoremen per gang could be absorbed. However, it is not as simple as that. If you have a crew of 18 longshoremen out of 4,500 and you want to reduce the number to 16, it means a reduction of, say approximately 450 persons. However, if you have a reserve crew of 900, then because of the peculiar situation of the St. Lawrence which only moves wheat seven or eight months a year, you are not just dealing with 450 men through attrition or otherwise, because you have to take into consideration the 900 people who are kept in reserve.
I only hope that over the week end we will be able to find a practical solution because it means so much not only to the people of Quebec, to the farmers of Quebec, to Expo '67, but also our prairie farmers, particularly the farmers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, who have to move their wheat during the open season of navigation on the St. Lawrence.
Technological change is one of the most serious problems with which we will have to cope in Canada in the months directly ahead. I say also that one of the most important documents-I say this advisedly-which we have had to consider as members of parliament in the past several years, certainly in the relatively short time that I have been here, is the Freedman report. Mr. Justice Freedman undertook to serve as chairman of an industrial inquiry commission on the run-throughs on the railways. The proposals which he made following his penetrating and comprehensive analysis are now the subject of a very widespread discussion not only in this house but by industry, particularly the railways, the unions and government circles on all levels. This report is a most significant document. While you may question some of the philosophical observations made by this learned jurist-and he does embark on some philosophy he deserves the very sincere thanks of the Canadian people for an excellent job well done.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It may not be necessary for parliament to deal with that report. I hope it

May 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
will not be necessary because he has made a recommendation that the railway and the unions concerned try to find an agreeable formula to be incorporated in a collective agreement. I have been assured by the railway brotherhood and by both railways that they are working toward this objective. If that is not possible, the government and parliament may have to take greater responsibility, but I hope that may not be necessary. I believe encouraging progress is being made along the lines first recommended by the commissioner, Mr. Justice Freedman, in his report.
I referred a few minutes ago to the Canadian Labour (Standards) Code. I think the introduction of this code during the past year has given rise to intense activity in the Department of Labour. It certainly has made the Minister of Labour work a few hours longer than he normally would daily, certainly longer than when I was minister of forestry. This new code has created a large number of difficulties. Extensive use has been made of provisions by which submissions can be made for deferment under Part I, that is the hours of work, and to a considerably less extent submissions have been made for deferment under section 11, minimum wages.
I can assure hon. members that the question of deferment with regard to wages does not present too great a problem. With regard to deferment of hours, each particular industry and in some cases each particular industrial operation, has to be studied and a decision made on its merits. They are all being dealt with as rap'dly as possible. In dealing with these deferments, we have urged the parties concerned to work out a satisfactory basis for adjusting the hours of work over a reasonable period of time, that is where the hours of work are in excess of the period fixed by the new code. I know a number of questions that were put to me seemed to be critical, and some of them sought information, about why the Ministers of Labour did not intervene sooner in the Ontario truckers strike.
The answer to that is simple. It was not uncommon for truckers in most parts of Canada, more particularly in central Canada, to work 70 hours a week and in some cases 80 hours a week or even more. Then as a result of the passage of the national code they will be forced to drop down to a 40-hour week, more than a 100 per cent curtailment within a matter of months in some cases. I am happy that my view proved to be the correct one,

that if we could get the operators of the trucks and the employees to find a formula themselves that would reduce the hours of work to a 40 hour week within a reasonable period of time, it was far better than having the Minister of Labour use a big club.
As a result of difficult negotiations led by competent officials of the Ontario Department of Labour, and my department, we were able to bring about a very desirable conclusion. We have now got a work week that will, quite shortly, come within the letter of the Labour (Standards) Code although it is now within the spirit of it. The parties have found, I may say, that by averaging out over the 52 weeks every year, and using the other flexible features of the code, the results have not been quite as bad as they thought they were going to be when they were making their representations to members of this house about a year ago.
I can say this, that the code has already had a very important effect in eliminating pockets of substandard wages as well as excessive hours and unfair treatment of labour in many parts of Canada.
I should like to refer also to an increased activity in the women's bureau of the Department of Labour. This provides a continuing focus in our department on policies and programs relating to the standards and conditions of work of women. The bureau aims at bringing about a wider understanding of the role of women in the labour force, and to promote working conditions in every industry throughout Canada that are conducive to the well-being of the women, and efficient production. The role of this women's bureau is becoming increasingly important as more women, both married and single, enter the labour force.
There are other aspects of the work of the department to which, if time permitted, I might refer. I think perhaps I should refer briefly to the legislation that has to do with safety in employment. You will recall that, in the speech from the throne this year, as well as last year, reference was made to a new code dealing with safety in the fields in which the federal government has responsibility. Such a bill, as you all know, I am sure, is now in the other place. Its purpose is to ensure the safety and well-being of persons employed in industry within the federal field of jurisdiction. We have had several discussions, I might say, with provincial officials to develop a co-ordinated safety service in Canada. They have been very satisfactory,
May 27, 1966

Supply-Labour
and I have been greatly encouraged by the support and encouragement we have received from all ten of the Canadian provinces.
The departmental program of studies of collective bargaining is also making progress. I hope we will make a great deal more progress because of the situation existing in Montreal, Vancouver and in other parts of Canada.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Dube):: Order. I regret having to interrupt the minister but it is my duty to inform the committee that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Thank you, I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. Included in this program is a study of the impact of economic and technical change on collective bargaining. I have already made some reference to an examination of the structure of collective bargaining and a study of the extent and nature of pattern bargaining. Now, studies of wages, costs of production, prices and the relationship between wage behaviour in Canada and her international competitive position were also expanded. Perhaps a classic example of this is the situation involved in the dock strike in Montreal. What effect will it have on our competitive position, the competitive position of Canadian ports, if we do not take advantage of technical change when technical change has been introduced in the ports directly to the south of us, and ports on the west coast.
At the same time, we do have to take into consideration the rights of the employees who are affected. Surely over a period of a year to two years, if necessary, provision could be made to take care of such a situation. There is one other point to which I would like to direct the attention of hon. members, Mr. Chairman, and which I am sure will be of interest to them. The International Labour Organization, which meets in Geneva on Wednesday next, will hold its eighth annual regional conference in the Americas in Ottawa next September. The opening meeting, we hope, will be in this chamber. This will be the first such meeting outside Latin America that has ever been held. It is an important event in Canada's international relations for the year 1966.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
There is another matter to which reference should be made because it has come up on more than one occasion in this session. I refer to the vigorous program of information and publicity that has been undertaken by the Department of Labour, particularly the new, livelier format adopted by the Labour Gazette. This is the first change in the format of that paper in its 66-year history. I hope you like it; I certainly do. It is much more attractive and it seems to interest people much more than it did in its earlier form.
I might say that it is my hope that by the end of this summer the long-standing objective of simultaneous publication of the Labour Gazette's editions in both English and French should be achieved. We have made good progress over the last year and I hope that not later than the coming September this objective of simultaneous publication will be achieved. This is made possible through the strengthening of the department's French editorial staff and the co-operation of the Queen's Printer.
Now as to the specific votes before us, Mr. Chairman. The committee is being asked to approve $10,513,400 in the main estimates, of which $3,127,000 are statutory items. Page 200 of the blue book shows this amount of $10,513,400 as being a decrease of $23,556,700; so it should not take very much time to get the estimates through, because they are being reduced by $23,556,700. However, I must again be frank-and I think frankness in this house commends itself at all times-and say that the 1965-66 figures in the blue book included $19 million for the winter housebuilding incentive program, which may or may not be proceeded with, having regard to what the conditions may be this fall.
It will also be noted that there is a substantial reduction of $3.5 million in the vote for payments of transitional benefits for workers in the automotive manufacturing and parts industries. There is every indication that the larger amount that was needed to take care of this situation in the first year of operation of the agreement can be safely reduced ,oy $3.5 million in the second year of operation.
These two items, Mr. Chairman-the winter housebuilding incentive program and the technical assistance program-account for the apparent seemingly large reduction over the past year. With the new developments which are taking place and with the continuation of

May 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
its present functions, I am firmly convinced that in the fields that continue as its responsibility the Department of Labour can be counted on to make a greater contribution to the economic and social development of this country.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask one question. What effect does the longshoremen's strike have on the loading of the grain? I understand that as far as loading of grain is concerned all that has to be done is to stick a spout in the boat, pull a string and down it goes. However, will the longshoremen's strike affect the export of our grain?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That is not an easy question to answer, Mr. Chairman. The strike has occurred during the early part of the shipping season. I would be hopeful, if we can get this very disastrous strike behind us, that we may be able to make up the 19 days during which shipping activities have been interfered with. But any long protraction of the strike certainly will have very serious adverse effects on the movement of grain.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question while his mind is still on the point. Has consideration been given by his department to the use of compulsory arbitration as a means of settling disputes, rather than resorting to strike action, as has been the case for many years?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am going to suggest that I take note of questions and deal with them perhaps at the end of the period. However, I think this particular question merits a special answer and I would be glad to give one.
Very serious consideration has been given to this matter by the department and by experienced departmental officials over a period of several years. As a member of cabinet I know something of the difficulties that we have had in trying to work out and find an acceptable formula. If you really believe, as I happen to, in the importance and the significance of collective bargaining, which enables management and labour to sit down on opposite sides of the table and unburden their hearts and take strong positions if necessary, it is difficult to say in all cases compulsory arbitration would be necessary, or advisable.
On the other hand, I think-and I am speaking only for myself, certainly not for the government, nor do I even express the consensus of my department

there are many

cases where the national interest is at stake. I can think of safety and security in the air line industry, for instance, where weather services have to be maintained. Then there is the movement of passengers and freight in many cases on our railroads. It is just as important perhaps, in my view, to have compulsory arbitration in these fields as in certain aspects of civil service activities, as proposed in the legislation that is now before this house.
I cannot give the hon. member a definite answer, but I can assure him-and this is why I made the appeal earlier today-that any constructive suggestions, which any member of this house or any other person may have to make as to how we might solve this extremely difficult question, when our national interests and economy are at stake, would be very welcome.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you making your main speech?


David Réal Caouette: I was recognized by the Chair and I should be given the opportunity to say what I have to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think thus far you have recognized a couple of members who have just asked questions. If we are now to have the round of main speakers, do we not follow the usual routine and hear from the Conservatives first?


David Réal Caouette: I have been recognized.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: I have
recognized the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have raised this matter on several occasions and I will continue to raise it. The Conservative opposition of this house constitutes 96 members. We are entitled to recognition in greater numbers than the members of a small group of eight or nine. I think in a case like this, when the minister has made a statement on his estimates, the first person to make a reply should be a member of the major party in opposition in this house, and others should take their turn.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say what I have to say in English so that my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre can understand, because if I speak in French he will not understand.
May 27. 1966


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have a translation system.


David Réal Caouette: When he refers to small groups of eight or nine people, may I remind him that there is more intelligence among the members of our group than there is among the 96 members of his group who up to date have been recognized. I think I have the right to be heard as well as the member for Winnipeg South Centre, without any discrimination or reference to his strong 96 members in the House of Commons. I have been elected, as well as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and perhaps with a stronger majority than he; so I have the right to be listened to in the House of Commons.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We all know how smart you are; you do not have to keep telling us every day.


David Réal Caouette: I hope in the future you will remember.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Order, please.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order. It has not been ruled on. When a minister of the crown makes a statement in this house the opportunity of reply should go first to the opposition and not to somebody in the far corner, no matter how excellent he is in his own opinion. I do not share his opinion of his excellence by any means.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I believe that the hon. member for Villeneuve has as much right as anyone to speak in this house. Nevertheless we must bear in mind that, the minister having just completed his opening statement, the first questions directed to him should come from the Conservative party, a member of which should have been given the first opportunity to speak. That, I think, is the established practice. The Chairman, of course, may not have seen a Conservative member rise immediately following the minister's statement. I am sure that this whole thing has been unintentional. However, I think the practice that has been established for the past several years ought to be maintained.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Order, please. I appreciate what has been said. The first hon. member recognized by the Chair was
23033-358 i
Supply-Labour
from the official opposition, but then the hon. member for Villeneuve rose and the Chair recognized him. As soon as he has finished the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is discrimination, Mr. Chairman.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, my comments on the explanations given a few minutes ago by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) will be brief. His explanations boil down to this; his department is becoming less important, even though the labour question is gaining importance and ground throughout Canada. As for the minister, he is losing ground. That is precisely what he just told us. His department, which spent $34,070,100 last year for labour organization, sees, this year, its estimates cut down by $23,556,700. And the Minister of Labour tells us that this is due to a large extent to the estimates which the officials of his department were unable to study concerning house building in the country or in any province.
In fact, for 1966-67, the expenditures of the department amount to $10,513,400 compared to $34,070,100.
I put a question last week to which the minister answered at noon today, saying that the amounts granted as loans for house building remained the same.
Last night in the town of Gatineau I met housing contractors who said bluntly: "We cannot obtain anything from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This puts us in a difficult situation".

Mr. Churchill I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


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


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Was the hon. member not in the house when it was announced that housing would not be discussed when we dealt with the main estimates, but at a later time, partly because there are no estimates respecting Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation before the house?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. He was not here.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I did agree, since the subject of housing affects employment and labour, that housing might be discussed after

May 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
the labour estimates had been dealt with. I Mr. Nicholson: Did the hon. member not was sure that that was the agreement hear the assurance I gave the house earlier reached by all parties in the house.	this afternoon-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it was not only agreed to by the minister but it was made an order of the house.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. If the member for Villeneuve allows me, the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggests that we study housing problems after the estimates of the Department of Labour.
At the present time, we should neither discuss housing nor speak of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but we should deal with the problems relating to the Department of Labour.


David Réal Caouette: Very well, Mr. Chairman. I was not here when this agreement was reached between the various parties in the house. I will relate my remarks to the subject matter, that is the estimates of the Department of Labour, without speaking of housing or the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Naturally, we will come back to this when the minister is ready to discuss it.
However, we are going to talk about labour matters and management-labour relations, and particularly, as far as the Department of Labour is concerned, about dock employees on the St. Lawrence, at Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres.
Mr. Chairman, I tried to put a question this morning in connection with the farmers who are now making representations to the federal parliament.
I received at noon a telegram from Quebec from Mr. Georges-Henri Blouin, manager of the agricultural co-operative of the Orleans island. This telegram read as follows:
We have no more feed grain for our livestock. They are starving to death. Stop. Asking for immediate government action in this national harbours conflict referred to as very serious by our farmers. (Signed) Georges-H. Blouin.
This morning, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) put a question along the same lines.
tEnglish1


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


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He was not here.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: -that at the request of the mediator, Judge Lippe, I am meeting with representatives of the Longshoremen's Association and the Shipping Federation at five o'clock this afternoon in Ottawa to discuss among other matters this very problem?


David Réal Caouette: I will take the minister's word for that. But will the minister tell me that the matter has been solved so that the farmers can get their grain moved from the ports of Montreal and Three Rivers? Can the minister not inform me as to what is taking place now?


An hon. Member:: It is Trois-Rivieres.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He does not understand what has been said. Would the hon. member use the translation system.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I was asked a question by the hon. member. I cannot tell him that the very point dealt with in the telegram has been the subject of discussion this morning. However, at the request of the chairman, representatives of the two parties are coming to Ottawa to discuss this problem further this afternoon. I cannot say that a solution will be found. I can assure the hon. member that the government will do its best to find a solution and to find it within the shortest possible time.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Because the hon. member for Cochrane is applauding does not mean that an answer has been given. The minister says that discussions will take place. We all know that discussions have been taking place in the House of Commons for the past four years without coming to any solution. The farmers of Quebec are now asking for a solution to this problem. They are fed up with discussions in the House of Commons. They want a response in their province. This is what I want the Minister of Labour to understand. I know that people from Montreal and Quebec are coming to Ottawa to meet with officials of the Department of Labour. Where is the consolation? In the meantime the farmers are asking for action; they are not asking for discussion.
May 27, 1966


Hogs and cattle in the province of Quebec are not waiting for government discussions, but rather for grain so as to be properly fed.
Mr. Chairman, there is always a limit to having wool pulled over our eyes and being told tall tales by cabinet members. We have enough of this.
That is why I say that according to the estimates we are being asked to vote, the Department of Labour is becoming a helpless department, no longer able to assume any responsibilities. The department is granted estimates to settle labour disputes in Canada, but afterwards, they are reduced and the department is told: it is no longer your business. Let us bring people from Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver to discuss matters in Ottawa and, during that time, people in need are awaiting results from the government. The department is aware of this.
But nothing is done about it. We are told: people are coming to Ottawa to study matters. We have been told for four years that people are coming to Ottawa to study and the minister knows exactly what I mean. He is also aware that I am speaking the truth. He said so himself earlier when he stated: my department is becoming less important; we get $23 million less this year to run the Department of Labour.
Mr. Chairman, labour and management relations in Canada or in the province of Quebec are more important than the estimates now under consideration. And when the minister tells us: such and such labour organization-the C.L.C. or the C.N.T.U. or any other-is talking of meeting with the employers to look into the situation, then the Minister of Labour himself or one of his officials should intervene directly in those disputes without delay, instead of waiting until it is too late and the damage is done. He should delegate some departmental official, not to make matters worse between employers and workers but to act as a mediator, as a man talking to other men and getting them to agree among themselves, in the best interests of Canada and its people.
This is what is lacking within the Department of Labour as in most departments. But since we are dealing with the Department of Labour-and I am sure the minister understands the situation-I suggest that mediators be sent to settle disputes between management and labour, so as to promote conciliation instead of adding fuel to the fire and stirring up hatred, as is too often seen
Supply-Labour
between certain labour leaders and some employers in industry, trade or any other segment of the economy.
Mr. Chairman, I, for one, am not afraid to talk to a labour leader. Whether they are called Jodoin or anything else, I am not afraid to tell them what I think of them; but, at the same time, I am not afraid to tell employers what their duties are toward their employees.
Only, the employer is not the one who is going to settle the labour problem; it is the federal or provincial legislation in the province which will help to solve the labour problem, so as to avoid, in the years to come, those costly conflicts, those useless conflicts, those strikes which are breeding hate instead of understanding.
It is the first responsibility of the hon. Minister of Labour to see that such an agreement exists between management and labour. That is why I would ask him to spend the small amount he has left, namely $10,513,000, provided it does not disappear within six months, not on useless inquiries, but with a view to creating a climate of agreement, understanding and co-operation between the various sectors in this country, in order to increase our national productivity and keep on ensuring for our labour force, our labourers, security as well as freedom.
Then, the federal Minister of Labour will have done his duty; he will not have encroached upon the rights of anybody, but he will have contributed to respect for the rights of everyone in Canada.
These, Mr. Chairman, were my comments and remarks concerning the estimates of the Department of Labour.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member permit me to ask him a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: He has to catch a train.


David Réal Caouette: I will catch you before I do.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask the hon. member for Villeneuve this question. If he were Minister of Labour and the workers would not do what he told them to do, would he put them all in jail or would he line them up and shoot them?


David Réal Caouette: What does the hon. member mean-"line them up and shoot them"? I have been in Russia and in Czechoslovakia. They are shooting people there, but Social Cred-iters will never shoot anyone.

May 27, 1966
Supply-Labour


Mr. Forreslall:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to lead off at last in reply to the minister's opening statement.
We in the Conservative party along with all members of the committee, I am sure, are most hopeful that the events of the next two hours will turn out favourably. We are most hopeful that the meeting at five o'clock will be useful and serve to bring about the result which every member of the house desires to see, a settlement of the serious dispute at Montreal and other Quebec ports. We are hopeful that settlement will come out of this meeting. Most of us recognize that when it is possible for government to stay out of labour problems this is the best course to follow. However, where government is able to mediate and assist in the reaching of a settlement between management and labour, such assistance should be forthcoming. Again I express to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, good wishes for the meeting this evening.
In the stage of history we now appear to have reached it would seem that strikes and labour disputes are with us with the persistency and certainty of the seasons of the year. We have had some serious labour disputes already this year, the oil refinery strikes in the west, the pending air line strike, the Ontario truckers dispute and now the serious situation affecting seaway workers. In my own area of Halifax there is a serious situation involving workers employed by the Department of National Defence.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The remarks I wish to make this afternoon centre around the situation in Halifax, and I express the hope that in this particular labour matter the government will take every means available to it, having had the benefit of ample forewarning of the impending action threatened in Halifax, to overcome the difficulties that exist in the very critical field of national defence. The matter involves labour policy. It also involves dollars and cents. I am not going to suggest that the government should intervene in a situation that possibly should be handled internally or by the treasury board, but I suggest that the government, having been forewarned of the impending action, will be held morally responsible for what could happen in eastern Canada if a strike takes place.
I share the hope of all hon. members that the Department of Labour is not about to disappear entirely from the scene. I hope that the reduction in estimates which the minister
[Mr. Caouette.l
has outlined will not mean the complete abolition of the department. Its role and function in our society are too important for that to happen.
We share the minister's sentiments with regard to the work of Mr. Justice Freedman with respect to the railways and railway unions. I spoke of the government taking steps beforehand to overcome impending labour difficulties. This was an excellent example of how meaningful preparatory work can bring labour and management together before a strike so that Canada benefits. When that is not possible it is Canada that suffers.
In this context the same effort should be made in the Halifax area because the workers there have already engaged in a strike vote process among the several unions involved in the Halifax Dockyard Trades and Labour Council. Now is the time for the government, within its internal machinery, to move quietly to do those things which will preclude the necessity of government intervention after a strike has taken place.
I know the difficulties which the minister faces in the Montreal situation. I am one of the 10 per cent he referred to who are familiar with the technological problems. Just recently at Halifax and Saint John we went through the process of reducing the number of men in longshore gangg and the result has been effective. I am hopeful about the meeting that will take place later today with respect to the Montreal situation. We all agree that the strike must be settled because its disastrous effect on the economy is almost beyond description. It will take us years to recover the ground lost if the strike is prolonged further.
The labour safety code is now being considered in the other place. It is of great concern to us in the maritimes. We have a great shipbuilding industry, but when vessels come into our yards for overhaul, repair, modification and so forth we seem to lie in that area of shadow where there is always a question whether the provincial or federal authority has jurisdiction. We hope the safety code will provide an answer to that because people in the shipbuilding industry have for a long time been seeking meaningful guide lines on jurisdiction.
The minister has mentioned that the Canada Labour (Standards) Code has presented problems with respect to certain deferment requests concerning standards of wages and amounts paid. I am sure that when the
May 27, 1966

code is fully implemented it will have long-awaited desirable effects. I understand that Part I of the code is subject to much easier scrutiny by the department when requests for deferment are made. Only time and experience will tell whether this implies that there have been a lot of requests for deferment or that Part I of the code is not strong enough. If there is misunderstanding of the work loads that are necessary in certain sectors of our private economy, then perhaps the minister may introduce amendments to the code.
I shall conclude by again expressing the hope that the meeting at five o'clock this afternoon will result in an announcement that the serious situation at the river ports has been overcome and that the dockers will be back at work soon.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, we are in one of the most difficult years in terms of labour-management relations that we have experienced since the end of world war II. The minister has mentioned that the longshoremen in Quebec are on strike. Other strikes are likely to take place affecting our air lines, railways and flour mills, to mention just a few of the industries which come within federal jurisdiction. Tough negotiations are also in progress which may well lead to strikes in the steel, packing house and lumber industries, to mention just a few of the important, large groups of working people who are covered by provincial labour jurisdiction.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It is not surprising, Mr. Chairman, that this situation exists at the present time. It is not surprising that workers who have organized in unions have been rejecting tentative agreements which have been worked out by their union officers. Probably the best agreements ever negotiated by these officers are being rejected by the workers because they know what is happening to the cost of living. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, last year the cost of living rose by just over 4 per cent. That does not appear to be very much, but I am sure the ordinary housewife will not believe such figures are correct because when she goes to do her shopping, whether it be in my city of Winnipeg, the city of Ottawa or the city of Vancouver, she is likely to find a different situation. I should like to illustrate it by quoting from a letter I received a week or so ago from a woman in Calgary. I am sure the illustrations she gives are no different from
Supply-Labour
what they would be in any other city in Canada. She points out that in February, 1965 bacon was 59 cents a pound and a year later it was $1.19. Strawberries in February, 1965 were three packages for a dollar and in February, 1966 were 53 cents a package. In February, 1965 soap was $1.29 per box and in February, 1966 it was $1.85. In February, 1965, grade A large eggs were two dozen for 69 cents and in February, 1966 they were 61 cents a dozen.
Is it any wonder that the workers become restless and want large increases in pay? I am sure that the working people of Winnipeg whom I represent would not mind so much if they could believe the increases were due to an increase being received by the producers, because in that event at least somebody who is working would be receiving the benefit. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the bulk of the increase is going not to the producers but to the middleman, the distributor.
Working people are not concerned just with the cost of living. They can read papers like the Financial Post just the same as businessmen and members of parliament. I have a page from the May 14, 1966 issue of the Financial Post which shows the profit picture for 354 Canadian companies. I am not going to read the figures in respect of the 354 but I should like to refer to a few examples among well known companies. This may indicate the reason workers in Canadian industry who are asking for increases in pay are willing to go on strike in order to obtain these increases. Let me give a few examples. In 1964 the net profit of Imperial Oil was $79 million and in 1965 it rose to $86 million. In 1964 the net profit of International Nickel was $135 million and in 1965 it was $143 million. Canadian Westinghouse in 1964 had a net profit of $3,489,000 and in 1965 it was $4,238,000. Simpsons Limited, a very good illustration, in 1964 had a profit of $7 million and in 1965 it was $8,600,000.
If I were to take the profits of the food chains I am sure they would show even more dramatic increases. This is the reason the workers are demanding pay increases and the reason they are determined to get them regardless of the difficulty and the fact that it may mean a strike. This is the reason the Minister of Labour is probably going to have the busiest year any minister of labour has had in the last 20 years. It is not enough to wait until a strike is called. The government must take very strong and very definite action. I am not going to go into the details

May 27. 1966
Supply-Labour
because earlier today we had consideraale discussion about the increase in the cost of living.
It is not enough to have the kind of platitudes which we have been receiving from the government. The people of Canada require a prices review board to examine the large-scale price increases which are taking place even while companies are showing the largest profits they have ever had. We need a really aggressive and successful crackdown on the combines which are milking the people of this country. It is necessary that the government call on Canadian business and industry to be reasonable and not increase prices at a time when their profits are at an all-time high. If such a policy is not instituted by the government, the minister will be busy 24 hours a day.
I wish to deal specifically, Mr. Chairman, with two or three matters which come directly within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. As I listened to the minister today discuss the Freedman report and the strike of the longshoremen, it seemed to me that the minister really could not have read, or if he did read really did not understand, what Mr. Justice Freedman said. What he said in his report was that labour and management should negotiate changes in working conditions which affect workers as well as management, even when they take place during the lifetime of a contract. Surely Mr. Justice Freedman made it clear that if negotiation could not take place voluntarily, as often is the case, the government should bring in legislation to bring about that kind of negotiation.
In the speech the minister made today and in speeches he has made on other occasions, there has been nothing to indicate that the minister accepts this basic proposal made by Mr. Justice Freedman. How can you have voluntary agreement to negotiate this kind of change when industry, almost unanimously, has rejected the proposals made by Mr. Justice Freedman? In today's Globe and Mail there is a report of a conference held in Toronto. The story is written by Roger Newman and is headed "Freedman Proposal Would Impede Economic Progress, Executive Says". I should like to read a few paragraphs from this article:
The federal government will be blocking Canada's economic progress if it Implements legislation based on a recent report by Mr. Justice Samuel Freedman of Manitoba, a vice president of Canadian Westinghouse Ltd. said in Toronto yesterday.

J. W. Henley, who directs Westinghouse's personnel division, said the Freedman report-which says employers should consult employees about technological changes-would force manufacturers to defer innovations. He was speaking to a law and industrial relations conference sponsored by Osgoode Hall and the University of Toronto's centre for industrial relations.
Mr. Henley said the changes brought about by technological innovations should be handled through social legislation, not contract bargaining. He said that if the government adopts the Freedman report, it would mean that manufacturers would have to postpone technical improvements until the next time they negotiate labor contracts with their employees.
First of all, I wish to say that what Mr. Henley says is not true. What is true is that his words indicate the hostility of industry in general to the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Freedman. That being the case, it really is preaching in the wilderness for the minister to say that he hopes and trusts these things can be done voluntarily and thinks it would be much better if they were. In my opinion it would be better if these things could be done voluntarily, but because they were not in the case of the C.N.R. there was a stoppage of work when the railway attempted to implement drastic changes.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is it not a fact that Mr. Justice Freedman made this particular recommendation in his report, and is it not a fact that when I said I thought there had been encouraging developments I was referring to the negotiations between the railway unions and the railways but not in the field generally about which the hon. member is speaking?


David Orlikow: Of course Mr. Justice Freedman said that he thought they should try to negotiate these things. I agree that there may have been encouraging developments, but what did take place in that industry is only a sample of the kind of thing which other industries will have to face in the future if corrective measures are not adopted. This same kind of situation brought about the problems which have been created by the longshoremen's work stoppage.
What Mr. Justice Freedman said was that since it is not likely that voluntary agreement can be obtained through negotiation, legislation is necessary. I will quote the relevant sections of his report for the benefit of the minister if he is not as familiar with them as he ought to be.
May 27, 1966

It is not true that labour has been able to stop technological change. One of the best illustrations of this fact is the situation in the railway industry regarding the reduction in the number of employees. In 1952 the railway non-operating unions represented 152,000 workers whereas in 1966 the railways are moving more traffic than ever before with only 90,000 workers. This represent a reduction of 60 per cent. It is obvious that the railways have been able to reduce their staffs through technological change. The unions have not prevented this change, but what they have said and will continue to say with justification is that the changes must be worked out through consultation so that the workers will not have to bear the entire burden.
I should now like to quote a few lines from the official summary of Mr. Justice Freedman's report prepared by him. He said at page 3 of his findings and conclusions:
Assuming voluntary agreement between the parties is not possible for the purpose of giving effect to the commission's recommendation, legislation would be required. Either the Railway Act or the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act could be employed. If the latter were used it would be possible to provide, by an appropriate amendment, that anv technological innovation, development or change proposed by the employer which would materially and adversely affect the working conditions of the employees should either be deferred for negotiation at the next open period or be dealt with in the same way as if it were a provision falling within the scope of subsection (2) of section 22 of the act.
He goes on to spell out what this means in a technical way:
Amendment through the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act would have the advantage of closing a gap in the statute which technological advance has revealed.
It is not good enough for the minister to make nice speeches here or speeches of the kind he made on May 19 in Vancouver to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. At that time he ostensibly dealt with the Freedman report but did not once mention the fact that Mr. Justice Freedman had suggested changes in the legislation. I think this bears out the suggestion that an individual can take out of any report exactly what he wants to take out of it.
It is time for the minister and the government to face up to the implications of technological change and what this means to working people. They must also face up to the implications of the recommendations of Mr. Justice Freedman and bring in legislation
Supply-Labour
which will permit real bargaining and orderly and sensible changes in working conditions so that the whole burden does not fall upon the shoulders of the working people of Canada. That is all they want, and if the minister brings in such legislation I assure him that the members of this group will give him the majority he needs, the lack of which he was complaining about earlier. If the minister brought forward that kind of legislation he would remove one of the greatest reasons behind the strikes which are taking place today.
I want to deal with just one more matter at this time. The minister spoke with a good deal of pride about the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. If ever there was a hoax perpetrated on the people of Canada it was that perpetrated by the implementation of this code. I do not understand why the minister and the government continue to be proud of it. In answer to a question I placed on the order paper early this session we were told that the federal government spent over $185,000 in advertising the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. The provisions were explained by the use of newspapers, magazines, radio and television, and I am sure hon. members will remember the full-page advertisements which included a picture of the former minister extolling the virtues of the act. It was not actually a picture of the minister but a drawing which looked remarkably like him. What has been accomplished by this measure? Let us be realistic about it. Roughly 500,000 workers in Canada who were already receiving $1.25 per hour before the code was passed come within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The $1.25 minimum wage provision has therefore had virtually no effect. The other main provisions of the code relate to the 40-hour week and time and a half for overtime.
After a great deal of digging and study we now have a list of industries and companies which asked for deferment of the 18-month period in respect of hours and overtime. I am not going to read the entire list because it would take me all day but I will indicate the type of industries that are listed. In respect of the minimum wages provision we have listed flour and feed mills, the highway transport industry, the radio and television industry and the shipping industry. In respect of hours of work and overtime-it would take me longer to read this list-we have almost every air transport company except Air Canada, the

May 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
banks including the Royal Bank, the Bank of Montreal, the Imperial Bank and the To-ronto-Dominion Bank, and Crown companies including Atomic Energy, Polymer, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and several others. There is also listed a large number of flour and feed mills.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. member is not suggesting that because these companies applied for a deferment they received one?


David Orlikow: One could get into a fine argument on semantics in this regard, but let me state that because they did not receive a deferment in no way means that they are now living up to the provisions of the code. This simply means that the provisions of the act have not been put into effect. If I am wrong in this regard I would be glad to have the minister correct me.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Does the hon. member not realize that parliament said this was the minister's responsibility and that a limited time would be allowed in which this had to be accomplished?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


David Orlikow: Of course, Mr. Chairman, the minister is 100 per cent correct. If the government of the day had said: We are going to pass an act but we tell you right now it is going to take at least 18 months before anybody will benefit from it, I would have no objection. What I do object to is the hoax of going to the people, not with the Liberal party's money but with the money of the people of Canada, and spending $185,000 to tell them of benefits which will not be given to them for another year. I object very strenuously to that.
I would like to continue, Mr. Chairman, because I think the public should be interested in some of the other industries which have not been brought under the act yet because their applications are still being studied or have been deferred. In all cases the effect is the same; the workers are not covered. They include the C.N.R. hotels, the pipe line companies such as Interprovincial and TransNorthern, the Post Office Department's mail contractors, practically every private radio and television station, trucking firms in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and so on.
I pause in reading the list to say that I completely disagree with the course the minister took in regard to the trucking strike in

Ontario. I am satisfied that if the minister, at any time after the strike started, had made an announcement that he would implement six months hence the provision of the code regarding hours, the strike would have been settled in half the time that it took because this was one of the biggest bones of contention. However, the minister refused to take the responsibility which I suggest he had.
The telephone and telegraph companies have not yet been covered nor have the railway companies and the Canadian Trucking Association. Quebecair is also not covered. I could go on and on.
I have examples of the companies and industries which are not yet covered. To the worker involved it does not really matter whether the reason he is given is that the implementation of the provisions was deferred or that the matter is still being considered. I would like the minister to tell hon. members how many workers and how many companies are covered because I suggest that to a large extent we have been and are up against the delaying tactics of the Liberal party.
I want to deal very briefly now with one other item. It is good to know that we are finally going to get some safety legislation to cover workers who are under federal jurisdiction. I am surprised that the bill was first introduced in the other place. It is good to know we are going to get this legislation and I hope it will come here soon. However, I hope that once it is passed the government will not forget about it. What I mean is simply this. I am sure that many other members from urban constituencies have received questions and complaints from railway and other workers who are under federal jurisdiction, people who work in diesel and machine shops who have complained about the smoke hazard, the fumes, bad air and poor lighting in their working areas.
I hope that when the legislation is passed the Department of Labour will hire sufficient inspectors to see that the law is lived up to or, if it is possible, that arrangements will be made with the provincial departments of labour to ensure that the act is adhered to. I hope that care will be taken to make sure that the provincial labour departments which are given this job obtain the necessary staff because, as one who served in the provincial legislature before coming to this house, I know that in my own province-and this is true of every other province-the provincial labour departments are badly understaffed. I
May 27. 1966



hope that either the federal department or the provincial departments of labour will make sure that sufficient staff are hired so that the provisions of the new act will be adequately adhered to in order to protect the health and well-being of the workers.
There are a number of other questions which I could raise and I am sure they will be raised by other members of the committee.
I hope that with regard to the implementation of the Freedman report and the full and complete implementation of the Canadian Labour (Standards) Code we will have a good deal more action from the minister and his department in the next 12 months than we have had in the past year.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, there is just one main point I wish to make in so far as representations from this party are concerned respecting the estimates of the Department of Labour.
As has been pointed out by a number of hon. members this afternoon, 1966 appears to be a year when there has been a greater degree of labour strife than we have had in Canada for some time. If we look into the future, even at the balance of this year, it appears that it will increase. At present we have the difficulty with the longshoremen. The seaway workers appear very nearly ready to take strike action unless something happens. We have had problems with the teamsters, and some of the air-line workers are ready to take strike action unless something is done to conclude the contractual negotiations which have been taking place. The contract of the non-operating workers on the railways has not been settled yet.
The plea I wish to make to the Minister of Labour this afternoon is that the Department of Labour should be involved more closely in these matters before strikes take place. As I said, there are other sectors of the Canadian economy where contracts are due to expire later this year and something should be done to prevent the breakdown of negotiations. Strikes are called and days, weeks and sometimes months go by before the Department of Labour moves in and appoints a mediator.
This is something about which we should be extremely concerned. I believe that the minister and the Department of Labour should appoint mediators before strike action is taken so that they can familiarize themselves with both sides of the issue. It may be that we need new legislation to provide for a cooling off period such as the President of the
Supply-Labour
United States can order in some situations. There is no disputing the fact that these strikes hurt workers and industries as well as innocent persons and the whole country in general. This is well recognized and accepted by the minister as well as by everyone else in the country.
There are some people even in the labour unions who believe that strikes as a weapon are obsolete and outmoded. However, I do not believe that the workers are willing, and quite rightly so, to give up the strike weapon as a last resort unless their interests are protected in some other way.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
So, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we need new legislation in this area as well. In any event, I wanted to urge the minister to give immediate consideration to what action he can take under existing legislation to become far more actively interested in the negotiations before they reach crisis proportions. We certainly do not want a repetition of what happened, for example, last year in the grain handlers' strike or what happened recently in the teamsters' strike.
When the minister was appointed to this office the people of Canada, and I think members of this house, had a lot of confidence that he would deal with these matters fairly, knowledgeably and firmly. We wish him well. What is more, Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to support him if he will do these things in advance of a crisis so that he will be able to ascertain the arguments on both sides of the question, we will support him in that respect. However, we will not be satisfied to sit back and allow these problems to grow and grow until a strike is called.
This is the one plea I wanted to make. I think the Department of Labour should be more active in the negotiations before a strike. As I said, I am not entirely sure whether the minister has sufficient authority under present legislation to do these things. If he does not, we hope he will introduce the kind of legislation necessary to give him that power. We would be prepared to support it. In closing, Mr. Chairman-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question. I am sure we are all interested in what he is saying. Perhaps I have two questions. First, when he says it would be a good idea to find some other way than the use of the strike by labour to enforce its wishes, has he any precise suggestion to make? Second, when he advocates that the minister get into

May 27. 1966
Supply-Labour
the negotiations at an earlier stage, is there not some fear that this could be interpreted as government interference in free, collective bargaining? I use the phrase "free collective bargaining" because it is something 1 value, but I will also use a term that appeals to him and refer to interference with free private enterprise.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I quite appreciate the hon. member's position. In answer to the first question as to what could be done to protect the workers' interests if the strike weapon were not used, I suggest there is another factor, namely, the general public interest, that is becoming far more important in these labour-management disputes. I suggest it is up to the parliament of Canada and the Minister of Labour as the administrator of the policies of this parliament to protect that public interest. Even though it may not be acceptable to management in some cases or labour unions in other cases, I feel we have probably reached a stage in our economic and social development where we are going to have to accept some form of arbitration by the federal government. In the first instance, of course, it would have to be authorized by the federal parliament and its elected representatives who are the spokesmen for the public interest.
I am not suggesting that this can be done at once. I am not going to suggest that I know all the answers. However, I am going to suggest that the public interest has been hurt a sufficient number of times in the past that we should have come to the point of realizing that perhaps some form of compulsory arbitration is going to be necessary in the future.
In so far as the other question is concerned and the hon. member's point about interference in free collective bargaining, may I say I did not suggest that the minister should start directing which way the negotiations should go, but it seems to me that all too often no mediator is appointed until several weeks after the strike. I can appreciate the difficulties involved here because we would hope that management and labour unions would get together and solve their problems without having the government move in.
The point I want to make is that even after a mediator is appointed it usually takes at least a few days, and in some cases several weeks, before he can familiarize himself with the positions taken by the labour union and management. No one can deny that this is a
fMr. Knowles.]
fact. I suggest that a great deal of this lost time could be saved if the Department of Labour would take an active interest and follow the negotiations right up to the point where they break down. Then there would not have to be a waiting period while the mediator familiarizes himself with both sides of the dispute. I do not know whether that answers my hon. friend's questions satisfactorily but in any event that is my answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether it answers the hon. member's own question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think it does. In closing I simply want to say again that the public interest has been harmed by strikes so many times in the past I think we should recognize that something needs to be done. I believe the first step would be for the department or the minister to follow the negotiations more closely, having in mind some person to act as mediator immediately a strike is called. If we require new legislation to give effect to the suggestions I have made, we in this party are prepared to support the minister if he presents such legislation.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Chairman, in entering this debate for a few moments I should like to make some comments about the Atlantic economy and in particular about the degree of unemployment that exists there at the present time, has existed and will continue to exist unless the government takes some action other than that indicated to date in legislation and in the budget. It is small comfort for the people who reside in the Atlantic provinces to be told about the low level of unemployment in Canada. When there are no jobs to be had, when there are long line-ups of people looking for jobs in many areas of the Atlantic provinces, there is not much satisfaction to be gained from the fact that there is low unemployment in Ontario, British Columbia, the western provinces or wherever the minister desires to point.
This government has deserted the Atlantic provinces in so far as any proposals have been made that would be of benefit in a special way. The government has deserted the area, ignored it and endeavoured under one of its programs to move the people to other parts of Canada in the hope it will get rid of the problem.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Since it took office in 1963 it has not faced the fact that the situation in the Atlantic
May 27, 1966

provinces is different from that in the rest of Canada. It has not come forward and proposed the special kinds of programs suggested to it, the kind of programs which were adopted in the five years prior to 1963 when the Conservative administration held office. This is our great plea in endeavouring to make the government aware of the situation which exists. Apparently they are not aware of it or if they are they forget about it, ignore it and ask what difference it makes because the area is too small to worry about anyway.
I see that the Minister of Fisheries is now in the house. I often wonder what he does at cabinet meetings when proposals which have been made by various organizations in the Atlantic provinces to stimulate employment in the area are discussed. Let me take, for example, the designated area policy which excludes certain areas in the Atlantic provinces. Where was he when they were first considered in cabinet? Does he agree with the decision of the government? Does he agree with the policy that excludes Halifax, Dartmouth, Saint John and Fredericton? Does he think that leaving these areas out is good for employment in the Atlantic provinces? We never know.


Mr. Hobichaud:: Go back five or six years.


Robert Carman Coates: It would be much better for the Atlantic provinces if we did. At least we would get some attention from the government.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: How blind can you be?


Robert Carman Coates: The great difficulty, Mr. Chairman, is that those from the Atlantic provinces in the Liberal cabinet all seem to be blind because they never seem to be able to convince their colleagues that anything which will specifically benefit the Atlantic provinces should be adopted by the government.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: There are none so blind as those who will not see.


Robert Carman Coates: As my colleague from Carleton says, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Certainly the Minister of Fisheries has ignored the problems facing the Atlantic provinces, and there is no place where those problems are worse than in his own constituency.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I invite the hon. member to come and see for himself.
Supply-Labour


Robert Carman Coates: I thank the minister very much but I visit his area probably as often as he does. I suggest to the minister that he had better go there more often if he thinks things are not bad in his area. I should like to know what are the unemployment statistics for Gloucester and also for Restigouche-Madawaska. They are shocking, and he knows it as well as I do; there is no doubt about it. But he would like to brush the matter off and ignore it.
I did make mention of one program, Mr. Chairman, but I should also like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether ne agrees with the action of the Minister of Finance in rescheduling, as he so calmly put it, the construction of the New Brunswick-Prince Edward Island causeway. Was the minister in the cabinet when the decision was made to set it back and perhaps forget about it?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that tenders have been called for the second phase of the Northumberland causeway?


Robert Carman Coates: I am aware that they have been called, Mr. Chairman, but I am also quite sure they can be cancelled just as easily as the project could be rescheduled. I would ask the minister whether he was in agreement with the Minister of Finance in the rescheduling and setting back of the construction of the New Brunswick-Prince Edward Island causeway. This is a pretty important project for New Brunswick, and the minister is the representative of New Brunswick in the cabinet. I should like some idea of where he stood on the question. I should like some idea of where the Atlantic provinces ministers stand on these special programs which are presented to the cabinet but ignored time and time again by the government.
I should also like to know where the ministers from the Atlantic provinces were when the budget was prepared, a budget which completely ignored the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada that special fiscal policies should be applied to the Atlantic provinces in order that tight money would not do the irreparable damage now being wrought in our area of Canada.
We cannot find out from anyone in the house what is going to be done with the coal industry of Nova Scotia. Members of our party have asked questions of everyone who could possibly be asked on the government side concerning the Donald report, but no one

May 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
in the government seems to want to take responsibility for the report or for informing the house what recommendations have been made, if they have been placed before the government.
This, Mr. Chairman, is especially irritating to me because in the election campaign of November, 1965 I listened to the programs presented over radio and television by this government which was going to do wonderful things for the people of the Atlantic provinces. I listened to the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell the people of Nova Scotia how he arranged $25 million for the coal industry. You would think it was a blank cheque that we could have filled in for any amount, $25 million, $50 million or $100 million.


John George Diefenbaker: What happened to that $25 million?


Robert Carman Coates: The cheque bounced. It was a bad cheque.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What about your Atlantic Development Board fund?


Robert Carman Coates: The Minister of Fisheries asks about the Atlantic Development Board fund. Let him tell me what happened to the $20 million designated for the use of Nova Scotia and which the government did not give Nova Scotia for two years. When we were in office we set up the Atlantic Development Board and put all of the resources of the government of Canada at the disposal of the board for projects which would be of benefit to that area.
But what has happened now, Mr. Chairman? The fund is bankrupt. The $100 million has gone. The money has either been spent or committed. The Minister of Transport said we would get more but a perusal of the order paper reveals nothing to that effect. Let the minister tell me where there is any resolution on the order paper to provide an increase in the fund. A minister from the Atlantic provinces should know this.
The agricultural industry of Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces has been waiting for a resolution on feed grains to get off the order paper but it does not seem to move. We have been waiting three years for it but nothing has happened. The farmers of the Atlantic provinces still have the same problems they had the day this government took office, and they will continue to have them just as long as this government stays in office. There is no doubt in the minds of the people

in the Atlantic provinces with regard to this fact, and they indicated their feelings in no uncertain terms in the last election campaign. If there were another one tomorrow they would indicate their feelings even more strongly than the last time.
While this government is in office we in the Atlantic provinces are in the position of having no place to go but down. The government will not do anything for us. We were kicked around by the Liberals for 22 years from 1935 to 1957. The people were given the opportunity to do something for themselves after that time. They did not have to come hat in hand to the government as was the case when Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Mackenzie King were prime ministers of the country. They came forward with proposals which were recognized, and action was taken as a result which was beneficial to the people of the Atlantic provinces. Where are we now? We are right back where we were during the 22 years when the Liberals were in office before.
Today we have some fairly aggressive premiers in the Atlantic provinces. They have banded together and are endeavouring to do as much as they can for their provinces. Anything happening today in the Atlantic provinces is a credit to the premiers in that part of Canada and is no credit to the federal government which has done nothing but damage to our economy every time it has introduced a piece of legislation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
To give hon. members an indication that I am not alone in thinking this way let me quote from an article in the Fredericton Gleaner of Wednesday, March 30, 1966: The article deals with the budget in these words:
-we have once more the frustration thrust upon us of having a "boom-busting" budget applied to our area which lags grievously behind the rest of Canada by every measure of comparison.
The gap between the average income in Atlantic Canada and that in the rest of Canada is not closing. And in this area deflationary policies must be deadly in their adverse effect.
The setting back of the Prince Edward Island causeway is a case in point. It is a cynical act which belies the federal government's pretense that the Atlantic economy is to be raised by federal policy to a fair sharing with the rest of Canada.
Mr. Sharp has shown no realization that his "brake on the boom" measures are totally unrealistic when applied to the Atlantic provinces where unemployment stands at almost 11 per cent of the working force.


An hon. Member:: Eleven per cent?
May 27, 1966


Robert Carman Coates: Eleven per cent. We hear the Minister of Labour telling us about the wonderful figures respecting unemployment. No one will say that there is an 11 per cent average unemployment rate throughout Canada, but I am saying that the unemployment rate in the Atlantic provinces is 11 per cent and a government worth its salt should do something to eliminate that.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he seriously suggesting that there is an unemployment rate of 11 per cent, or even anything like that, in the province of New Brunswick to which he specifically referred? Is he seriously suggesting that?


Robert Carman Coates: I am seriously suggesting that according to the last figures I saw the average unemployment rate in the Atlantic provinces was 10.9 per cent of the labour force.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: When was that?


Robert Carman Coates: March 11.


An hon. Member:: That was an average of 11 per cent?


Robert Carman Coates: Nearly.


An hon. Member:: What year was that?


Robert Carman Coates: In 1966. Is the minister indicating by his attitude that we have not much to complain about in the Atlantic provinces? Is the minister going to tell us that the unemployment rate is 2.4 per cent or 5 per cent? No, he is not, because he knows it is a great deal more than that. No government should accept an unemployment rate of over 5 per cent as a satisfactory state of affairs.


An hon. Member:: You accepted it in 1960 and 1961.


Robert Carman Coates: We did not accept it and we did all kinds of things about it. Unemployment in Canada is as low as it is because of actions taken when we were in office. In reading the writings of any economist or even reading the report of the Economic Council of Canada established by the Liberal government it will be seen that the present boom started in 1961. I will tell you what started the boom. It started at about the time we devalued the dollar. We were ridiculed and made fun of by the Liberal party, which today embraces that measure and says it is the most wonderful thing that ever happened. What did the former minister of finance, the present hon. member for Davenport, say
Supply-Labour
about it? He said: "It is great, wonderful". Yet he was the man who conceived the "Diefendollars". He told the people that their money was worth only 93 cents. He said: "It was the right thing to do but you did it the wrong way".
I am going to read to the Minister of Labour, since he is so concerned about the figures I am quoting, a statement from the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council report. I shall read from the April issue. I am sure the minister will not argue with the figures given here even though he seems anxious to argue with my figures. I quote from page 5:
-the regional unemployment rate in the Atlantic provinces averaged 7.5 per cent in 1965. This was more than twice the rate of 3.6 per cent for the other six provinces, and even higher than the national rate of 7 per cent during the 1960-61 recession years when the national economy was operating at 91 per cent of capacity. Last year the ratio of national output to the economy's potential was 97 per cent.
I say to the Minister of Labour and his cabinet colleagues, especially those from the Atlantic provinces, that the Atlantic provinces cannot afford to have every proposal we put forward to the federal government turned down and ignored, as has been done repeatedly since this government took office. The government must wake up and realize the special problems existing in the Atlantic provinces which it is the government's responsibility to cure. Realistic proposals have been made to the government. These should be looked into because they are of value and would benefit that part of the country.
One special project I should like to mention is the harnessing of the Bay of Fundy tides. The government has dragged its feet with respect to this proposal ever since it took office. By contrast, when I was in Tennessee last week I saw the tremendous job that the Tennessee Valley Authority had done on a project started under President Roosevelt. Harnessing the Bay of Fundy tides would provide power and do the same sort of thing for the Atlantic provinces that the United States project to which I have referred did for the state of Tennessee. If the Bay of Fundy project were endorsed and implemented with the speed one would expect from a government that should be as concerned as we are about the high unemployment rate and the lack of prosperity everywhere in evidence in the Atlantic provinces, many of our problems would be ameliorated. It is this sort of thing that the Minister of Labour will

May 27, 1966
Supply-Labour
have to take cognizance of if he is to do the job I am sure he wants to do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the Minister of Labour would prefer to wait until all the speeches are made before he answers individual questions. But I wonder if I could not persuade the committee to alter this slightly with respect to the question I put to the minister this morning on orders of the day. I should like to put that question to him again and perhaps the committee would permit him to answer it. After that perhaps I might be permitted to make the rest of my remarks, although they will be brief.
On orders of the day this morning I asked the minister whether he would consider offering to the parties in connection with the Air Canada dispute the services of a top-flight mediator. The minister replied to the effect that he had not yet received the report of the conciliation board. I confess that when he made that statement it took me somewhat aback because, like some other people, I was relying on what 1 had read in the press and I understood that the report had already been approved by management but rejected by the employees. It therefore seemed strange to hear the minister say he had not received it despite the references to it which have been made in the news in the last day or two.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
My question is one which perhaps I can repeat. In the hope that this dispute may not go right down to the wire, I wonder whether it is not possible for an early offer of a top-flight mediator to be made to the parties in order that this dispute may be settled at an early date. I would appreciate the minister answering that question. After he has done so I should then like to make a few more remarks.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In spite of the request I made to the committee earlier I would be pleased, with agreement, to deal with this particular question. It is not unusual when a board of conciliation has finished its deliberations for the representation members of the board, generally with the encouragement of the chairman, to try to work out a settlement along the lines of the report itself. Then they are able to report a settlement as a fait accompli.
I cannot say definitely in this case what the situation is. I made inquiries repeatedly yesterday in consequence of a question put to me by a member of the hon. member's own party. I made careful inquiries and found

that the report had been typed and signed by at least one of the conciliation board members. But it certainly had not reached my office when I entered this chamber today. Whether it has done so by now I do not know.
However, I can assure the hon. member that when this report comes to hand both the minister and the senior officials of the department will be very glad to consider the appointment of a mediator to tie up any loose ends and do anything constructive which may prevent such a strike, as has been suggested.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for making that reply. I am sure all of us hope that the steps which the minister is prepared to take will result in an early settlement of this dispute.
While I am on my feet may I express a few thoughts for the minister to mull over in his spare time between his handling of labour disputes, going to the I.L.O. conference in Geneva, and so on. First, I want to support the contention which has been made by others that every effort be made by the minister and his department to secure at the earliest possible date full implementation of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code as passed by parliament last session. It took us a long while to get this legislation on to our statute books. We hope it will not be too long before its provisions are fully implemented.
I would also urge the minister not to regard the implementation of the code in its present terms as the last word. He knows that when the bill was going through the house we urged that some of the minimums ought to be higher. I urge him even now to begin thinking of the desirability of raising the minimum wage rate from the $1.25 figure now in the code to a figure not less than $1.50. I remind him of the news report from Washington a few days ago that steps are to be taken by the present United States administration to raise the minimum wage in that country to $1.60 an hour. I support those who believe there should be parity of wage rates between our two countries. It seems to me that to ask for $1.50 as a minimum rate in Canada is little enough.
I would urge also that another look be taken at the length of vacations provided in the code. The minister spoke with some pride, not as a cabinet minister, I think, but as a Canadian, in the fact that we have made progress in the last few decades and that we now provide holidays for the workers of this
May 27, 1966



country to a far greater extent than we did a few decades ago. It appears to me that bearing in mind the tempo of modern living, the effects of automation and so on, we should begin to think in terms of the desirability of longer vacations than those we have yet provided by law.
It seems to me that the least the minister might do would be to steal a couple of bills which are on the order paper in my name. One asks that the minimum wage rate be raised to $1.50 and the other calls for a minimum paid holiday of three weeks after a few years of employment. This is one form of theft to which we do not object. I would even facilitate the minister taking over these bills. However, if he does not accept the offer we shall debate them one of these days during private members' hour.
I am glad to know that steps are at last being taken to deal with the proposal that Canada should have a labour safety code. It is an ironic touch, and I am not too happy about it, that a piece of labour legislation is being started in the other place. I shall not expand on that at the moment. We are just glad to get it.
There are many shops and factories in this country where because the type of employment comes under federal labour jurisdiction there is no right of the province to supervise health and safety standards. Many people suffer because of this situation. The need for supervision of health and safety standards in plants coming under federal jurisdiction is clear and I hope this legislation, when we get it, will meet the need.
Another area in which action has long been promised, certainly since the present Liberal government came to power, concerns the Unemployment Insurance Act. There are a good many spots in this legislation which need to be overhauled. We were promised a couple of years ago that this would be done soon-that is a standard phrase we get from the other side of the house. I hope the present minister, who has shown signs of wanting to get things done, will try to get some action with respect to improvements in this act.
I would remind the minister also, though perhaps he was referring to this earlier today, of his longstanding promise to do some basic research into the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I believe his predecessor promised us a couple of years ago that he would get moving on this legislation, but we have not seen any signs of this yet. I
Supply-Labour
hope the hon. gentleman will get on with it soon.
I should also like to urge that there be some concrete action with respect to the recommendations of the Freedman commission. The minister today extolled Mr. Justice Freedman on the tremendous job he did in producing this report. I share in the accolade paid to Mr. Justice Freedman but I was rather disturbed when the minister, as I thought I heard him, said we might not have to deal with that report in this house. I cannot read all of the speeches that the minister makes to various bodies around the country because he and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State are sending us their speeches all the time and we just cannot keep up with them. But it seems to me I read in a speech which the minister delivered before a labour body not many days ago a suggestion that early action in the house on the Freedman commission report might be necessary.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In my view he was perfectly right in referring to the subject matter covered by that report as an important one, a key one for our times. Let us not wait 10, 20 or 30 years to deal with the problems outlined in the Freedman report. It took us that long to get some of the things which the Liberals promised in 1919-nearly half a century in some cases. Here is something that should be dealt with now.
The only other comment I would like to make relates to the exchange between the hon. member for Medicine Hat and me, when he was speaking on the question of what labour can do to win the things it seeks on the economic front. There is no doubt in my mind that people generally hold the opinion that strikes are unfortunate. It would be desirable if we could find some other way to deal with industrial disputes when they go down to the wire rather than by having strikes. But it seems to me that those who say we must find some other weapon face the obligation to tell us what that other weapon could be.
I do not like strikes any more than anyone else does, but neither do I want workers to be put in a position where they have to take what is handed to them without any means of expressing the rights we enjoy in a free society. I thought it was interesting that the hon. member for Medicine Hat, in his honest

May 27. 1966
Supply-Labour
effort to come up with some answer, could only suggest arbitration, indeed, compulsory arbitration. When one starts to talk about that I do not see how one can get away from the fact that this is interfering with the process of collective bargaining and all the procedures of freedom generally.
I am ready to go along with those who say let us find some better way, but until people have found a better way I do not think they have the right to suggest that the strike weapon should be outlawed. We shall return to this subject when we discuss the civil service collective bargaining bill because, in presenting that legislation, the government has to some extent recognized the right to strike in an area where it has not previously been recognized, and I shall have something to say about the matter when we discuss that bill.
I merely urge that when we talk about labour relations and ways of settling disputes between labour and management it should not be idle talk. It should be the kind of discussion that results in something specific, and in the absence of some other way let us not for a moment consider departing from ways that recognize the just freedoms we enjoy in our kind of society. These freedoms are enshrined in the right to organize and in the right to free collective bargaining and nothing should be done to abolish those rights. I am not criticizing the minister. I am just dealing with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
I thank the minister for his answer on the Air Canada situation and I hope that in his free time he will think pretty seriously about some of the things I have suggested to him.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting to me to take a look at what has happened in this country over the past several years and to see the changes that have taken place with regard to the labour situation in various parts of the country. I recall the years when the leader of my party was prime minister and unemployment was a problem, and I recall some of the actions taken at that time to try to meet the challenge of that situation. I refer particularly to the vocational training and vocational school building programs and to some of the results which have flowed from them.
Because of the training that has taken place and because of the promise of the South Saskatchewan River project, the province of Saskatchewan is experiencing a definite shortage of domestic help and farm

labour. This is significant at a time when the number of farms in the province is declining at a greater rate than ever before in our history.
I have here a letter which I received from a lady the day before yesterday in which she says she has been trying for five months to get domestic help to assist with her family and home. I got in touch with the national employment office in Ottawa and asked if people were available for this type of work. Their answer was that there are 175 applications for domestic help in the city of Ottawa that cannot be filled, and I imagine that situation is common in many areas across the country.
Canadian farmers are finding it almost impossible to secure the help they require, and I take this opportunity to urge the minister to use his good offices to impress upon the government the need of bringing greater numbers of people into Canada who would undertake this type of work.
Farm operators in Saskatchewan and other areas are looking for legislation that will allow people who have unemployment insurance books to take jobs on farms and secure stamps for such employment. This is a cautious, first step that could be embarked upon without any great danger of the abuses feared by those who have considered this problem in the past.
I would also like to stress to the minister the need for providing more training for the retarded, the blind and the disabled. It is interesting to note that item No. 45 on the order paper, the Canada Assistance Plan legislation, is to provide assistance in this direction. I would like the minister to tell us whether this means that the problem of training or retraining people in these categories is now going to become a responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare rather than of the Department of Labour.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The department of manpower possibly.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Edward Nasserden: It is being introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The other problem which exists in the province of Saskatchewan, and I believe also in other provinces, is a matter which was brought to the attention of the house some time ago by the hon. member for Saskatoon. It has to do with hospital help and not only
May 27, 1966

in respect of hospitals but also homes for senior citizens. There is a real need in this regard. I believe the government knows there also is a shortage of nurses and that programs to try to meet this problem are required. With the advent of a national health program such as apparently is envisaged by the government, this need will become more acute. I believe a great deal more attention should be given to this problem than has been given to it up to the present time.
In closing I should like to impress upon the minister how urgent I think it is that something should be done to bring some of the people who are engaged in farm labour under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I know this is not one of the easiest problems in the world to solve. There may be a fear that there will be some abuse, but certainly the farm labour situation in this country today is such that it merits the government giving consideration to the extension to farm workers of the same benefits extended to those employed in any other vocation.


Mr. Regimbal:: Mr. Chairman, in expressing our good wishes and our hopes for success in respect of the minister's meeting later this afternoon, we cannot overlook the fact that a good deal of this national grief could have been avoided had the minister undertaken two or three weeks before the fact the efforts he now is proposing to make. These situations do not develop overnight. The influence of automation on working conditions is not a surprise occurrence. Half an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and we believe that the proper dosage should have been administered a month ago. Having had 20 years experience in negotiations on behalf of management, I know that private enterprise takes a dim view of governmental intervention, but even the most dogged private enterpriser will agree that when national interests are involved the prestige which lies in the person of the Minister of Labour should be welcomed.
We regret that such preventative action was not taken and that such a sobering influence was not introduced in respect of this problem, because not only are the economic effects disastrous but once the strike has started the conditions involved in the settlement always are more onerous to both parties, and the public is called upon to suffer even longer. Therefore, we very gladly join with those who suggest that in cases which
Supply-Labour
have such national consequences the office of the Minister of Labour together with his personal services and the prestige of his office should be offered to the parties involved so that an investigation can be made, first of all, into the very nature of the difficulty and, second, into the general area of agreement and the evils involved in the problem so that proper measures can be taken before, so to speak, the pot boils over.
I was amazed to hear the minister say that we never have been so prosperous. We received the same message from the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. Canadians, apparently, never have had it so good. Canadians, however, really wonder what the ministers are talking about because practically every Canadian I know is broke, is looking for money and is having a difficult time making ends meet. Certainly the same can be said in respect of the older citizens and, in fact, about practically every class of society today. People are up against it. Any increase they may receive in hourly revenue through negotiation usually is eaten up even before the increase comes into effect.
I do not know where all the prosperity is because things are tough. In Montreal we dread the end of the Expo year and the great boost which has been given to the local economy because we have no idea what the government's intentions are in respect of the situation. Plans must be made so that the sudden surge of labour on the local market can be absorbed in a healthy manner. We see tight-money policies being exercised now just as they were in 1956. We know that among the general after-effects of such measures are such things as recession. We know that in 1957 and 1958 this was the follow-up of such policies. Naturally we fear we are going to have a repeat performance. We are very anxious to see definite measures taken now so that we will be in a position to face the music when the problem arises. Mortgage money is not available and interest rates are going to blow up any time now. If we call this prosperity, I really believe we are kidding ourselves. I think we should look very closely at the situation and set up the machinery now which will create the type of conditions that will help us face the music when the time arrives.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the
May 27, 1966
5654	COMMONS
Export Licences for Primary Products consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.


PRIMARY PRODUCTS-PROVISIONS FOR EXPORT LICENCES
Mr, Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-7, concerning the exportation of the growth and produce of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I heard someone say "carried". If I thought that were true I would refrain from giving an explanation of the bill. The purpose of the bill is very reasonable. It is to limit, licence and regulate the exportation of basic and primary resources. No licence will be granted until the authority has ascertained that the national interest of Canada now and in the foreseeable future can best be served by such export permit. No primary product can be exported until every effort is expended to ensure the growth of its secondary manufacturing potential in Canada.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
This bill is very moderate in that I am not suggesting that the exportation of our natural resources be prohibited, because that would be unrealistic, particularly in those areas where it is economically possible. It is in the interest of all Canadians to be assured that our natural resources be utilized to the greatest extent possible for the benefit of the largest number of Canadians.
Many permits and licences that have been granted in the past under some of our regulatory bodies, for instance, in respect of gas and oil, have not taken into consideration the primary interests of the Canadian public in that secondary industry could have been developed in Canada if the exportation had not been allowed. This fact was very evident in respect of a permit granted by the National Energy Board some years ago allowing the exportation of petroleum condensates. It is true that these are by-products of the petroleum industry, coming off at the heavy end of the processing, and that there was no use for these particular products here, but it is also a fact that if we had decided not to issue that permit many factories would have developed in Saskatchewan and Alberta to manufacture such products as dyes, medicine including aspirin, synthetics of all types, paints and other products which are not being manufactured in areas south of the
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]

prairie provinces, particularly in suburban areas of Chicago.
I am particularly interested in this matter because of the iron ore production in northern Ontario. For many years this area was protected by a decision of the province of Ontario to the effect that the export of pulp from Canada was prohibited in its raw state. Many people thought that this decision would result in an inability to develop the pulp and paper industry in northern Ontario. However, that has not been the case. There are many pulp and paper mills in northern Ontario and many towns have been built and maintained through this development. This would not be the case if the lumber companies had their way because this material would be exported to the United States. This development has been highly successful and brings substantial returns to the people in the areas where the resource is derived.
It is also true that we have not paid much attention to the development of perpetual yields from our forests surrounding pulp and paper mills. If we had paid enough attention we would probably have been able to extend these yields rather than curtail them in some areas. These curtailments were perhaps necessary because of the lack of sales in traditional markets and the difficulty of competing because of the necessity to use road transportation services rather than water transportation.
In northern Ontario there is developing a new industry in the mining field. Many of the communities in northern Ontario developed as a result of gold mining. It is easy to export gold as a finished product in ingot form because the process is simple, and extraction is not sufficient to warrant the shipping of concentrates. This is also true of silver mines.
When iron ore was discovered in northern Ontario a new problem developed, and it is a problem I think we must face. The companies that put money into the development of iron ore in northern Ontario now have a large operation in the Kirkland Lake area. This ore is being shipped by the subsidiary company to the parent company steel mill in Pittsburgh. Anyone who has had any experience with iron ore knows that the production of iron and steel ingots requires a large working force. However, it is a fact that a large percentage of the employees in the iron industry are not employed in the mining or pelletizing field but in secondary development, that is, in steel manufacturing mills.
May 27. 1966	COMMONS
When considering whether or not the economy of northern Ontario could maintain a steel mill I think it must be obvious to all Canadians that we have a perpetual source of iron ore. It is true that the development at Dane is not large enough to support a steel mill, but it is now supplemented by the new development under the name Sherman Mines of the Cleveland Cliff Company at Timagami.
This is backed up by a fairly limited development which will take place in the Cochrane area. Perhaps the argument can still be made that this is not a large enough development to warrant the establishment of a steel mill in northern Ontario. However, it should be borne in mind that iron ore development in northern Ontario will always be backed up by the immense resources of iron ore which are known to exist in the Belcher island and whole lower James bay areas. These deposits appear to be large enough to support an iron industry of great magnitude for a very long period of time.
I have dug up some of the decisions that have been made by the Liberal party in the past. Many of them are fluid in nature, but I should like to refer to the report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. In portraying the future exports of Canada this commission foresaw that future exportation would depend to a great extent on the export of raw material.
At page 355 of the commission's report the following is said:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
As to the structure of exports . . ., the future list will probably be dominated by a number of important staples of the present day-pulp and paper, lumber, non-ferrous metals, and asbestos. The big changes are likely to be the relative growth in exports of crude petroleum, natural gas, and iron ore, and the continued decline of the proportion due to agricultural and animal products.
A guess as to the future geographical distribution of Canada's exports is even more hazardous than one concerned with the commodity composition of the trade. It appears much more likely that the proportion flowing to the United States would increase than decrease, with that flowing to the United Kingdom and Western Europe probably decreasing.
I was interested in what the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), the former minister of finance, had to say in his new book "A Choice For Canada". I refer to page 107:
The tariff should be re-examined, not with a view to increased protection, but in order to encourage further processing of certain raw materials in Canada, in part for domestic purposes, but primarily for export. In the case of aluminum, copper, lead, and zinc, we export ingots. And with fairly
DEBATES	5655
Export Licences for Primary Products
high tariff protection, we produce semi-fabricated products for the home market. Our objective should be to become exporters not of ingots but of semimanufactured forms.
Further on he said:
As already noted, American parent corporations export far more proportionately to their subsidiaries in Canada than to subsidiaries in other countries.
He then said:
This would be directly to our disadvantage. Therefore, we should use every tool at our disposal, including a more vigorous application of customs' procedures, to counteract what has now become official American policy. In doing so, a great deal more publicity should be given to all aspects of the operations of foreign-eontrolled subsidiary companies in Canada.
I believe that if this bill is passed, the tariff board will have to make a decision every time one of our primary raw materials is exported.
I have already spoken of some of the commodities which I believe it is agreed will become our largest exports in the future. However, I think we should give some consideration to a number of other major exports which cannot be so readily assessed at the present time. We have been recently faced in northern Ontario with the thought of diverting water from the Arctic watershed through James bay and the connecting areas into southern Ontario so as to raise the water level of the great lakes and allow the expansion of industrial development in areas adjacent to the great lakes. According to what we heard in the discussion that took place yesterday, the development of secondary industries along this waterway has proved to be a disadvantage to Canada and an advantage to the United States.
I think that before we start any diversion or export of water or any extension in the sale of gas and oil, we should first consider the interests of Canada. We are immediately faced with the problem that we have already engaged in long-term projects such as the Columbia river development by which we have diverted a large amount of our water resource to the United States without retaining any control over waters which will be necessary to Canada in the future. I am well aware of the fact that we had to ensure the operation of United States companies for a period of years, but I think that our primary responsibility is not to United States industry but to the Canadian public, and we should develop secondary industries in those areas in which this resource exists. I therefore think that our exports should not be in the field of
May 27, 1966
5656	COMMONS
Export Licences for Primary Products raw materials but in the field of semi and wholly manufactured products.
I know that the government is giving consideration to these matters, as are all Canadians. I think we have gone beyond the stage of being a colony of Great Britain, not because we terminated our relationship with Great Britain voluntarily but because of the changing economy and because the economic markets of Canada no longer lie in western Europe but in the United States. I think the day has now arrived when we should assess the situation in terms of the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations to enable Canada to negotiate the trading of manufactured goods rather than raw materials. I believe that this is the responsibility of all the members of the government and that all civic-minded persons in Canada should have this uppermost in their minds every time a long-term arrangement is made resulting in a loss of our resources which could be used for the development of Canada. I believe we should no longer consider ourselves as hewers of wood and drawers of water but should consider ourselves fortunate in the possession of the resources we have and be prepared to develop them to the utmost.
As I have said, this is a very moderate bill.
I do not say we should cease to export raw materials. What I say is that the tariff board should license all exports of raw materials at the appropriate time and according to the needs of our nation.
In closing I would like to remind hon. members that members on the other side are also concerned about this matter. I was quite impressed with what was said by the member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) in the discussion that took place in the last few days. He was very concerned about the fact that copper supplies are more easily obtained by the Westinghouse Company from other countries than from Canada. They find great difficulty not only in meeting the price of copper, which is obviously an economic consideration for any secondary manufacturer, but also in obtaining supplies. They have found that it is difficult for them to obtain a reasonable supply of the copper which is being produced in Canada and exported. Of course, as the hon. member for Davenport has pointed out, this hinges on the subsidiary position of most of the companies in Canada and it applies as much to Westinghouse as to most other companies.
Let us not belittle the problem in relation to those areas where we have not exercised


in the past any restrictions on the development and exploitation of our national resources by subsidiary companies totally owned and operated by foreign countries. For example, take the case of Jones and Laugh-lin's Adams Mine in Kirkland Lake. It will be very difficult to say, now that they have built their plant and started their operation of feeding the steel mills in Pittsburgh, that we are going to take over and operate a steel mill in Canada. I agree that this would cause a considerable problem which would parallel the situation of Cuba in relation to the United States. Cuba said, "We will buy your plant and give you long-term bonds". The United States replied that they were not interested in this, that what they really wanted was to continue operating their subsidiaries in Cuba. Canada, which is much more polite and less hot-blooded than those banana republics, would approach this problem in a different manner.
I think we are going to have to face the problem with a view to the future. Sooner or later we will find ourselves in the position of supplying all our raw materials to the United States and buying them back in the form of manufactured products. If this were to happen, Mr. Speaker, it might be better for us to join the United States and undertake our own secondary development on a continental basis rather than a regional one.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will get support from the government. I know that we cannot hope for anything but having it talked out. For this reason I hope that those who participate will give sympathetic consideration to some of the problems we have tried to raise. I hope that those who are similarly inclined to the hon. member for Davenport will give consideration to these problems along the lines of his assessment of Canada's economic future.


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys);: 
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have said that a hundred times and did not get anywhere.


John (Jack) Davis: This has come about largely as a result of a permit for export granted by the previous administration.
Basically, the fault lies with the natural gas industry which views its development on this continent as continental in nature. It pays the 23033-359
DEBATES	5659
Export Licences for Primary Products competitive wellhead price. Then it charges a cost of transportation which includes what it deems to be a reasonable rate of return. The net result is that the price at the border reflects costs and costs only. It does not reflect Canada's bargaining position and I think this brings out quite vividly the difference between the national approach or the national interest and what might more generally be termed the continental approach to energy development.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Which means the United States approach.


John (Jack) Davis: I think it must be increasingly shown-and this more a matter of politics than economics, certainly the strict economics of an industry-that Canadians charge prices which essentially reflect our bargaining advantage and not merely reflect pure cost plus a minimum rate of return on the capital invested in the pipe line in question.
I think we should draw on gas reserves in western Canada, for instance, which help develop the northland. If United States consumers have to pay for a longer pipe line and therefore have to pay a somewhat higher price at the international boundary, that is too bad. That price obviously will have to be lower than the price of the competitive alternative in the United States. But I suggest that we should only shave the United States price. We should not be making gas available to people in areas like San Francisco at bargain basement prices.
I do not want to dwell too long on the question of pricing, but I should like to recall one submission which was filed by one company in the United States importing natural gas-I believe it was the first case of gas export from Canada-before the U.S. Federal Power Commission.
In those days we had no board of control or national energy board in Canada. The submission was to the effect that gas was priced as low as it conceivably could be priced at the international boundary between Alberta and Montana and that nothing was left in terms of profitability in Canada-that is, in terms of income tax yield for Ottawa-but that the total income tax yield would go to United States capital in Washington.
This was one of the substantial arguments the company used in Canada in order to obtain an import permit into the United States. This sort of thing has ceased. We no longer have extreme cases like this where there is no
May 27, 1966
5860	COMMONS
Export Licences for Primary Products profitability in the Canadian captive operation. But we do have to go further than merely recovering costs plus a "reasonable" rate of return on capital in Canada; we must have a substantial rate of return, a rate which among other things reflects our true advantage as a resource-rich country with reserves conveniently located with respect to United States markets.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I have been accused occasionally of being a continentalist in respect of matters such as water.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Ah, but you are converted now.


John (Jack) Davis: I am a nationalist first and a British Columbian second. Perhaps third or fourth I may be a continentalist in my order of priorities. However, above all, I want us to be more businesslike in these matters. We must be competitive, and we are going to be competitive, but we do not need to be much more than competitive. We do not need to settle for prices that are markedly below the best alternatives to importers of gas, power or oil, or indeed with respect to any other commodity, in the United States or in any other country. In other words, I say we should be as businesslike as we possibly can be.
Respecting water I want to refer to what I think is a classic case. It dates back to the early 1950's when aluminum and other metals were in short supply. This was during the Korean war period when the United States government was busy building stockpiles not only of scarce metals such as nickel, titanium, lead and zinc but also aluminum. The Aluminum Company of America proposed building a large refinery at Tidewater near Skagway in the Alaskan Panhandle. That company proposed taking water from the Yukon River-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. I interrupt the hon. member because the time allotted for his speech has expired.


John (Jack) Davis: I shall only be one or two more minutes.


An hon. Member:: Let him continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is that agreed to by hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Davis: The classic case involving the Aluminum Company of America was essentially an export of water from Canada, from the northern region of the Yukon river in British Columbia, involving a drop of several thousand feet to tidewater near Skagway in Alaska. The Canadian contribution toward the project would have been water. The United States contribution would have been generators, transmission lines, factories and so on. The Aluminum Company of Canada had a competitive project under way at Kitimat, British Columbia. Because Canada had been unable to obtain access to the United States stockpile, the Canadian government of that day turned a blind eye to the application of the Aluminum Company of America to export water through the Alaskan Panhandle.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That involved Hon. C. D. Howe.


John (Jack) Davis: The Alcoa project never did go ahead. It was directly competitive with the all-Canadian project at Kitimat. This is the type of situation with respect to water that we must not be caught in. We might have seen a dam and a tunnel built, and that would have been an end to it.
I have been concerned in recent days to see the amount of interest displayed in the Tiaya project. This is another Alcoa-type project. Again, the government of Alaska would like to see a big metallurgical development take place near Skagway in the Alaskan Panhandle. This would involve the co-operation not only of the government of British Columbia but also of the federal government in Canada and the federal government in the United States. I would urge that our federal government take a long, hard look at this project before it considers discussing the matter with the United States let alone granting any permits for construction. Certainly, this sort of project would have to be seen to be favourable in a much larger context, if it were ever to be beneficial to Canadians in general, and British Columbians in particular.
I think I have said enough on this subject. I hope I have underscored the fact that I am not a continentalist. I am a Canadian who would like to see his part of the country thriving, because it has lower costs and gets better prices from neighbouring markets in the United States. I should like to see the same thing hold true across the country.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis).
May 27, 1966	COMMONS
I wonder whether he would not find himself more comfortable on this side of the house in view of the sentiments he expressed.


An hon. Member:: This is his day of repentance.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was interested in what he said about the proposal made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). There was some discussion about the cost of capital.
I think that is an important factor to be considered. Questions to do with that are involved in the proposal contemplated by the government with regard to the Canada Development Corporation. May I point out that many years ago when I was first here I conceived of a similar idea and advanced it in this house and elsewhere. I did not envisage my proposal as having anything to do with such proposals as the Canada Development Corporation using funds raised in order to permit Canadians to buy up United States held equities.
My view was that the fund should be used for the development of industries in areas where, because of the incidence of risk involved, private capital would not normally go. I am thinking of areas such as my own part of the country, or even northern Ontario and northern Quebec where a northern development fund rather than a Canadian development fund might usefully be employed for the purpose of providing an adequate supply of capital at a reasonable interest rate to aid in the development and building up of secondary and tertiary industries. This would apply to areas where conditions would not normally invite private capital.
With regard to machinery and tariffs, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member. He should do a little missionary work on members of the cabinet. Certainly, the tariff on machinery coming into this country for the purposes of developing industry goes hand in hand with the United States tariff on processed goods leaving Canada and going to that country. I do not believe that enough people in Canada or the United States realize the extent to which the accelerating cost of goods is affected by taxation and more particularly by tariffs. We see lip service paid to the solution of such problems by the present government but I am convinced that nothing concrete will be done.
I agree with the principle set out in the bill evolved by the hon. member for Timiskaming. I have not looked at the bill in detail 23033-3591
DEBATES	5661
Export Licences for Primary Products and I do not know whether it will achieve what he has set out to achieve. However, I am satisfied that the principle of the bill is
correct.
Is there a sorrier sight than to see old, deserted communities dozing in the sun; communities which have seen happier days and which hope to see those days revived so that they may once again thrive? We have many of those in Canada and we shall have many more which will have served as the focal points of exploration, discovery and exploitation of natural resources or of a primary industry. Unless something is done about it I think that sort of thing will continue to take place in the future.
I should like to refer to a very interesting article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of April 19. Mr. Charles Campbell is the author. I should like to read as much of it into the record as time permits because Mr. Campbell says some interesting things.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The headline is: "Minerals-A Sacred Trust In Peril". Subheadings are: "We Plunder The Future"; "We Export Our Heritage"; "Production Is Depletion"; "Will We Reap Curses?" The article states:
According to the record, the founder of the Christian religion consigned the servant who buried his talent to "outer darkness". It was then given to the servant who knew how to use it.
Canada has a mineral "talent".
We dig it up, export it, and boast about record "production". As it was produced when the world was made, the correct word is "depletion". We must, therefore, get all possible for this ore.
Instead, we welcome all interested to come and help themselves. Our return is the minimum and it is "dissipation" that rules.
Already the clouds are gathering.
"A mine" said Mark Twain, "is a hole in the ground and its owner is a liar".
To remedy this, Great Britain and the United States, early in the century ruled that an ore reserve meant, definitely, measured ore. Possibilities for more would be reported and with further work, estimates would be revised.
The writer draws attention to the great hopes which were held out for the development of the Northwest Territories. We all know people who make trips into the north country and then talk about our glorious heritage. They fly over the area once, talk about what is happening and then tell everybody that we can look forward to great developments in the future in the north.
Only a few days ago we were discussing in this chamber the question of providing for self-government in the Yukon and in the
May 27, 1966
5662	COMMONS
Export Licences for Primary Products Northwest Territories. We discovered that the population in those areas is so small that it may be some time before this objective can be brought about, according to the minister in charge of the legislation. In another 20 years we shall be saying the same thing unless we take concrete steps to see that the exploitation of our primary resources is checked and measures are taken to introduce secondary and tertiary manufacturing and processing.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) have quite properly said there are some industries, having regard to our own foreseeable needs and the part we play in world affairs, whose products may be exported without limitation. The Conservative government arranged a national oil policy which worked reasonably well in all the circumstances. However, there has been discovered in my country the great Rainbow Lake oilfield. This has introduced a new factor which should be taken into consideration in connection with this national oil policy. Despite what the minister in charge of this program has indicated I think we need to take a serious look at the contention that we might be compelled to provide a pipe line to Montreal. The facts of economics have to be taken into consideration.
Pine Point is another matter. The former government sensibly entered into a partnership arrangement between the national railway system, private industry and government to provide for the construction of this railroad and the development of local resources under the terms of the agreement. But we should now consider whether it is enough simply to provide for the concentrates to be taken out of that community and exported to British Columbia and elsewhere in the world.
I would go further than did the hon. member for Timiskaming. If it is essential for the processing to be done elsewhere, then the industry which extracts and takes away the resource should be compelled to provide some form of compensating industry. I shall not spell this proposition out in detail. But I think it is time we stopped thinking of this country as consisting of a relatively small and thickly populated area along the St. Lawrence plus a few large cities elsewhere. When people come to the north they consider they have embarked on an economic safari; they hope to return when it is over and live out their lives in luxury in other parts of the country. Industries which develop resources


of a kind which must be taken elsewhere for processing and refining should be compelled so to conduct their affairs that some other industry is provided for the area from which the resources are taken. Thus, if the resource is a definitive one, when it is depleted something will be there in its place.
I shall not develop this argument further now. I support the principle behind the proposal in every way and hope that in due course something along these lines will be acceptable to the house. I resume my seat while there is still an opportunity for a spokesman on behalf of the government to indicate his acceptance of the principle we have been discussing.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as I read this bill and consider the remarks made by the hon. member who introduced it, I find little I can approve. I support the argument of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) when they talk about the need to expand secondary industry in Canada. There is no question about that. But that is not what the bill says. The bill asks us to impose restrictions on the export of raw materials and natural resources from Canada.


William Arnold Peters: Rightly so.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I believe it is a completely false assumption to think it is possible to promote secondary industry by restricting primary industry. The history of economic development in the United States, in Canada and in all the other industrial areas of the world has followed a consistent pattern. Primary industry is developed first and secondary industry follows. There is no argument at all about the need to promote secondary industry in Canada not only for the benefit of our domestic markets but for export as well. But I am certain this cannot be achieved by closing our doors against the export of certain raw materials. There is already severe restriction on exports in these areas.
It is not so long ago that some people were telling us that if the export of natural gas from Alberta were allowed dire consequences for Canada would inevitably follow. As events turned out the prediction could scarcely have been less correct. Not only has there been an increase in the prosperity of the whole industry but the reserves in that particular oil field have doubled, even quadrupled.
May 27. 1966	COMMONS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May we have an announcement of the business for Monday and Tuesday.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed that the business for Monday will be as follows: First, the resumption of debate on government order No. 56, the government organization bill and then, should that be concluded, three bills
DEBATES	5663
Business of the House
arising out of arrangements for collective bargaining in the public service

item No. 47 concerning staff relations, item 58, an act respecting employment in the Public Service of Canada, and item 59, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act. Should these items be disposed of before the end of the day on Monday the next to be taken would be the resolution preceding the bill to amend a number of superannuation acts consequent upon the Canada Pension Plan. That is government order No. 51.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 30, 1966