1967-12-04

Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like leave to table copies of the report of the International Joint Commission on the co-operative development of the Pembina river basin, dated October, 1967.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might revert to motions for a moment. I am sorry I missed your calling of that item.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be of some interest to hon. members to have a brief statement of our plans for the centennial year end program on parliament hill.
Members in all parts of the house have been very generous in their attendance at, support of and praise for centennial celebrations to date and I should like to thank them for all this. I hope there will be general agreement that we should close out the year on a high note-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My resignation does not go with it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As I say, I hope there will be general agreement that we should close out
the year on a high note, pointing clearly toward the promise of the second century which lies ahead of us.
To that end the centennial commission has arranged for two major ceremonies to be held this month on parliament hill. The first of these will take place this Friday, December 8, beginning at 3.30 p.m. Its prime purpose will be to launch a national "help a child" program to encourage young Canadians through their schools to make a special contribution to assistance programs for children in less fortunate parts of the world. I should hope the house would agree with me that it is appropriate, especially at this time of year, that we turn the accent of our centennial celebrations, which have been mainly introspective to date, to the broader world horizon and to recognition of the fortunate place we as Canadians have in that horizon.
While the ceremony on Friday will include particular reference to the "help a child" program for the national capital area, this is, I should stress, a national program, and centennial commission officials already are co-operating with the provinces in encouraging participation by schools and school children from one end of the country to the other.
While in a sense, Mr. Speaker, this is a very solemn undertaking, we have planned Friday's ceremony to take into account as well the festive season which is upon us. It will be centred about the lighting of the monster Christmas trees on parliament's lawns and will include a fireworks display, appearances by several National Hockey League stars and entertainers, and carol singing; as well, I understand, as a special visit from that elderly gentleman known as St. Nicholas.
The second ceremony, as might be expected, will be to formally close out the year on the evening of December 31. This occasion will feature an address to the nation via television by His Excellency the Governor General, as well as a religious ceremony, choral singing and a fireworks display. It also will provide a final focus on the centennial flame, which has shone so brightly as a beacon of our celebrations throughout the year.

December 4, 1967
Questions
As a final note I might add that during the period between December 15 and 30 the commission also has arranged for regular performances such as were held on the hill during the summer months, to be staged by major bands and choirs from the national capital area.
Mr. Speaker, while both the major ceremonies will be televised by the C.B.C., it certainly is our hope and desire that as many Canadians as possible will come to parliament hill to share directly in these events with us. I would then like to issue a very special invitation to all members of this chamber and the other place, all of whom will be receiving written invitations to both events, to help us celebrate the close of this most eventful year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Keays: 
Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. Yes.
2. (a) The Honourable Maurice Sauve, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.

(b) Department of Forestry and Rural Development: Andre Saumier, Paul Boisclair, Pierre Franche. Department of Fisheries: Jean Frechet; Dr. W. R. Martin; Gaston Dube; Gordon O'Brien (Fisheries Council of Canada). Department of Public Works: Gerald Millar.
3.	(a) Transportation:	Ottawa-Sept-lies,
Department of Transport; Sept-lles-Gaspe, Air Gaspe. (b) Guests aboard the plane: The Honourable Maurice Sauve, Andre Saumier, Alexandre Cyr, Albert Bechard, Gordon O'Brien, Rosaire Gendron, Guy Leblanc, Jean Frechet, Gerald Millar, Therese Millette, Dr. W. R. Martin, Paul Boisclair, Andre Ouellette, Gaston Dube, Pierre Couture, S. Gosewitz, Guy Gagnon, Gustave Blouin, Russel Deays, Egide Dandenault. (c) Twelve hours, (d) List of passengers who travelled back to Ottawa: The Honourable Maurice Sauve, Andre Saumier, Alexandre Cyr, Albert Bechard, Gordon O'Brien, Rosaire Gendron, Guy Leblanc, Jean Frechet, Gerald Millar, Therese Millette, Dr. W. R. Martin, Andre Ouellette, Pierre Couture, S. Gosewitz, Guy Gagnon, Gustave Blouin, Russel Keays.
4.	Expenses amounted to $719.20 and were covered by Department of Forestry and Rural Development.
5.	(a) No. (b) Not applicable.
6.	Yes. (a) The Department of Forestry and Rural Development at a cost of $1,465.00. (b)
75,000	copies.


OT-4 ENGINE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Douglas: 1.	How much money has the Canadian government provided for the OT-4 development program conducted by Orenda Limited of Malton, Ontario?
2.	How much money has the United States government provided for the OT-4 development program conducted by Orenda Limited of Malton, Ontario?
3.	Have any of the OT-4 engines been completed and put into use and, if so (a) how many have been completed and what use is being made of them (b) what is the record of performance of these engines in comparison with other engines of similar horsepower?
4.	Why did the Canadian government decide to discontinue financial assistance to the OT-4 program?
5.	What were the "other developments" referred to in the answers given by the Minister of Industry to questions asked in the house on October 17, 1967, as recorded on page 3167 of Hansard for that date?
6.	What specific steps are being taken to ensure that the engineering design team at Orenda Limited remain in Canada?
December 4, 1967


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	At the time Canadian government financial support was withdrawn, i.e., 30 September, 1967, the Canadian government had expended $10,090,000.
2.	As of 30 September, 1967, the United States had expended $5,593,000.
3.	(a) As of 30 September, 1967, 14 engines had been built and two others were in assembly stage. Of the 14 engines built, seven have been used for test-bed development at Orenda, and seven for trial installations. The seven installations are: two in United States navy minesweepers; three in United States army tracked vehicles and one, plus one spare replacement, in a commercial truck, (b) Not being a production engine it is difficult to compare OT-4 performance with other types of engines of similar horsepower. In terms of its performance objectives, however, the OT-4 had not achieved its design power output and fell short of its target on specific fuel consumption but its reliability was about normal for its development status. It was not expected, however, as a production engine, to be sufficiently competitive with the current diesel engines of comparable power in respect to specific fuel consumption and selling price per horsepower.
4.	Following appraisal of a comprehensive market study undertaken by an independent consulting organization of Orenda marketing plans, of United States military engine requirements, and of the status of the OT-4 development program, the Department of Industry concluded that: (a) The OT-4 was not expected, by 1975, to be fully competitive with diesel and other engines in terms of cost and performance; (b) While there might be, in time, an adequate overall market potential for industrial gas turbines in the OT-4 power range, the volume achievable by the OT-4 would not, in the opinion of the department, be commensurate with the development and preproduction investment involved; (c) A partnership arrangement between Orenda and a company having the necessary skills in volume production, international marketing and after sales service was considered by both Orenda and the Department of Industry to be necessary. No such arrangement appeared to be within reach; (d) An adequate industrial return to the Canadian economy on the proposed continuing Canadian government investment in the program did not appear to be achievable.
This decision of the Canadian government to discontinue financial assistance was taken
Questions
in the light of the fact that neither the United States government nor Orenda were prepared to put additional funds in the program.
5.	The OT-4 design was conceived in the early 1960's and during its development cycle many product and performance improvements were incorporated. In recent years, however, the age of the design concept placed constraints on the developer to incorporate advanced componentry and materials without major redesign. It is considered that, by 1975, the earliest time by which the OT-4 would be available in quantity for the industrial turbine commercial market, simpler and less expensive engines of comparable performance will be available based on more advanced components and materials.
6.	Efforts by my department and industry aimed at retaining the OT-4 engineering design team in Canada are continuing. To date, approximately 25 per cent of the OT-4 professional engineering personnel have been offered alternate positions within the Orenda organization and another 45-55 per cent have been or will be offered positions with a number of other Canadian companies.


C.B.C. PAYMENTS TO QUEBEC PERSONS AND GROUP REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Allmand: 1.	Has any money been paid by the C.B.C. to Pierre Bourgault; Frangois Aquin; Reggie Char-trand and Rene Levesque, for their appearances on television or radio broadcasts since January 1, 1965 and, if so, what amount in each case?
2,	Has any money been paid by the C.B.C. to
representatives of the following groups for appearances on television or radio broadcasts since January 1, 1965 (a) Rassemblement pour 1'Inde-pendance Nationale (R.I.N.)	(b) Ralliement National (R.N.)	(c) Societe St. Jean Baptiste (d)
Union Generale des Etudiants Quebecois (U.G.E.Q.) (e) Societe Fleur de Lys (f) Chevaliers pour 1'In-dependance, and, if so, what amount in each case?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. Mr. Levesque was paid in 1966 and 1967 for program participation in the professional capacity of interviewer and interviewee on subjects not specifically related to domestic politics. Mr. Bourgault was paid in 1966 for an appearance in a drama series produced a few years ago and rerun last year. Mr. Aquin and Mr. Chartrand have not been paid for their appearances. It has not been customary to require the C.B.C. to disclose fees paid to individuals.

December 4, 1967
Questions
2. The corporation has no record of payments to representatives of the organizations in question.


INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE FOR GREY AND BRUCE COUNTIES, ONTARIO
Mr. Loney: Is it the intention of the Department of Industry to provide a program of assistance to encourage industry to locate in the slow growth areas in Grey and Bruce counties?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Portions of Grey and Bruce counties are included in the Canada manpower centre areas of Owen Sound and Collingwood which have been designated since August 5, 1965, as areas eligible to receive assistance under the area development program. This program has helped to bring a number of new industries to the counties as well as a number of significant expansions to existing businesses. On October 31, 1967, the government announced that the C.M.C. areas of Owen Sound, Collingwood and Midland will be removed from the list of designated areas effective December 1, 1967, because of improved employment conditions.
The remaining portions of Grey and Bruce counties are located in the Walkerton, C.M.C. area which has not met the criteria for designation relating to conditions of high unemployment and under employment.


POST OFFICES IN HUDSON BAY COMPANY STORES
Mr. Brand: 1.	Has the government given consideration to establishing, in outlying communities, post offices in sites other than Hudson Bay Company trading posts, as exist at present?
2.	Has the Post Office Department authorized clerks in Hudson Bay Company trading posts to open mail addressed to Indians and, if so, under what authority have such authorizations been given?
3.	Has the government in any way authorized Hudson Bay Company personnel to take possession of government cheques addressed to Indians and, if so, under what authority have such authorizations been given?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1.	Yes, when the need has been established for a Post Office, serious consideration is given to any application from a resident who is prepared to accept the Postmastership and is in a position to provide the necessary accommodation to house the operation.
[Mr. Bechard.l
2.	No. In no circumstances does the Post Office Department authorize clerks in Hudson Bay Company Trading Posts to open mail addressed to Indians.
3.	No. The Post Office Department has not, in any way, authorized the Hudson Bay Company personnel to take possession of government cheques addressed to Indians.


WHEAT BOARD GRAIN SALE PERSONNEL
Mr. McIntosh: How many Canadian wheat board employees were engaged full time in the promotion and sale of Canadian grain in each of the following areas (a) United Kingdom (b) Europe (c) Japan (d) China, during the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: There are no Canadian
Wheat Board employees whose promotional and sales activities are restricted to a specific country. The activities of board employees stationed overseas cover a number of countries within a general area and their activities are supplemented by frequent visits to specific markets by members of the Board and senior officials from Canada.
The number of employees engaged full time abroad during the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967 were as follows:
1963	(a) United Kingdom 4	(b) Europe 4	(c) Japan 4	(d) China nil1964	3	3	4	nil1965	6	*	4	nil1966	6	*	4	nil1967	6	*	4	nil
*The board's office in Brussels was closed and its activities consolidated with the London office on December 31, 1964.


AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS, CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	When is it expected that a new terminal building will be constructed at the Charlottetown airport?
2.	Does the Department of Transport plan to build runway extensions at the Charlottetown airport in the near future?
3.	Is the installation of an instrument landing system at the Charlottetown airport contemplated in the near future?
4.	Have requests been made to the government for the above improvements?
5.	What organizations have made or supported such requests?
December 4, 1967


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1, 2 and 3. Answered
by answer to question 664.
4.	The premier of Prince Edward Island made representations to the Minister of Transport during a recent visit of the minister to Charlottetown.
5.	As in 4.


CANADA PENSION PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. More: 1.	Who are the members of the Canada Pension Plan advisory committee and for what term of office has each been appointed?
2.	What is the name of the chairman of the committee and what is his normal occupation?
3.	What fees, salaries, emoluments or other honoraria or payments do (a) members of the committee (b) the chairman, receive?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Members and term of office as per list attached.
2.	R. St. John Macdonald, B.A., LL.M., Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto.
3.	(a) An allowance of $50 for each day in attendance at any meeting of the committee. Reasonable travelling and living expenses while absent from his ordinary place of residence in the course of his duties as a member of the committee, (b) Same as (a) above.
Members of the Canada Pension Plan advisory committee.
1.	Mr. W. J. Adams, Vice President and Secretary, The Canada Life Assurance Company, Toronto, Ontario; 3 years; 2. Mr. Andrew Andras, Director of Legislation and Government Employees' Department, Canadian Labour Congress, Ottawa, Ontario; 3 years; 3. Mr. J. Fraser Coate, Consultant, Pension Trust Division, Montreal Trust Company, 15 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario; 3 years; 4. Mr. J. E. Fortin, Consultant, Trust Companies Association of Canada, 11th Floor, 302 Bay St., Toronto, 1, Ontario; 3 years; 5. Dr. C. L. Francis, 1130 Castle Hill Crescent, Ottawa 5, Ontario; 3 years; 6. Mr. W. Arthur Johnston (Consultants) Ltd., 52 Donald Street, Winnipeg 1, Manitoba; 4 years; 7. Miss Valerie Kasurak, Excelsior Life Insurance Company, Canada Trust Building, Windsor, Ontario; 4 years; 8. Mr. David Kirk, Executive Secretary, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, 111 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario; 4 years; 9. Miss Marjorie Laws, 595 Shediac Road, Moncton, New Brunswick; 4 years; 10. Mr. E. M.
27053-314}
Questions
Lawson, President, International Council of Teamsters, 490 East Broadway, Vancouver 10, B.C.; 4 years; 11. R. St. John Macdonald, B.A., LL. M., Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; 5 years; 12. Mr. C. R. MacFadden, Vice President and Secretary Treasurer, Ocean Fisheries Limited and National Sea Foods Limited, Halifax, Nova Scotia; 5 years; 13. Miss Ruth S. McGill, B.A., LL. B., Barrister and Solicitor, McGill & Robb, 2050 Scarth Street, Regina, Saskatchewan; 5 years; 14. Mr. John C. Molloy, St. Shott's, Newfoundland; 5 years; 15. Mr. D. E. Sloan, Manager, Investment Research, Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Montreal, Quebec; 5 years; 16. Mr. Wm. J. Smith, National President, Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, 230 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa 4, Ontario; 5 years.


RETURNS NOT FILED UNDER CORPORATIONS ACT
Mr. Caouelfe: 1.	During each of the last three years, how many companies neglected to file their annual reports In accordance with section 125 of the Canada Corporations Act?
2.	Were there prosecutions in accordance with subsection 4 of section 125, and (a) if so, how many (b) if not, were reasons given in each case and what were they?
3.	What was the total amount in fines collected under the said section?


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: 1.	For 1965, 495; for 1966, 441; for 1967, 1,150.
2.	No. The department instead of proceeding under the provisions of subsection 1 of section 125 is, since the amendments of July 1, 1965, to the Canada Corporations Act, dissolving defaulting companies pursuant to subsections 10, 11 and 12 of section 125 of the act.
Since this program started, 602 companies have already been so dissolved and because of the further amendment made in Bill S-10, which received royal assent on November 6, 1967, the compagnies in default for the years 1965 and 1966 will be dissolved unless they comply before the expiry of the statutory period of two years. The number of those in default for one year will decrease before the date of publication in the Canada Gazette because the department is sending private notices to each defaulting company.
3.	Not applicable.

December 4, 1967
Questions


COMPANIES HANDLING WHEAT FOR WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	What quantities of Canadian wheat were handled on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board by each of the following companies (a) Dreyfus Corporation (b) Bunge Corporation (c) Continental Grain Company (d) Cargil Grain Co. Ltd., in each of the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and to date in 1967?
2.	What are the percentages of Canadian grain handled for each of these years by each of these companies?


Bruce Silas Beer: It is not the policy of the Canadian Wheat Board to disclose the competitive position of grain companies with regard to their transactions with the board. To reveal the information requested would, in the opinion of the board, be prejudicial to its marketing operations.


PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the total amount of money in the public service superannuation account as at (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967?
2.	What rate of interest does the government pay for the use of this money?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the public service superannuation account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the public service superannuation fund during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1 Balance in the superannuation account as of (a) March 31, 1964, $1,856,407,622; (b) March 31, 1965, $2,161,828,358; (c) March 31, 1966, $2,390,383,091; (d) March 31, 1967, $2,689,467,819.
2.	Interest is credited to the superannuation account on the last day of each quarter in every fiscal year calculated at the rate of 1 per cent of the balance to the credit of the account on the last day of the preceding quarter.
3.	Interest credited to the superannuation account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964, $71,756,270; (b) March 31, 1965, $78,715,785; (c) March 31, 1966, $89,499,085; (d) March 31, 1967, $98,499,363.
4.	Total amounts paid out of the superannuation account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964, $56,807,908; (b) March 31, 1965, $64,160,629; (c) March 31, 1966, $69,906,914; (d) March 31, 1967, $74,902,119.


REVISION OF R.O.P. PROGRAM
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has the Minister of Agriculture made any plans for the revision of the R.O.P. program?
2.	If so (a) what precisely is the nature of such plans (b) when will they become effective (c) what advantages are foreseen in their institution?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1 and 2. The Minister of Agriculture has no precise plans for revision of R.O.P. programs except that recently announced for the R.O.P. dairy program; namely, the extension of recording to unregistered animals in herds on R.O.P. testing. However, all R.O.P. programs are under continuing review and at the present time the R.O.P. dairy program has received study through the national milk recording conference and the advisory board for R.O.P. dairy cattle, both of which were held last month. The dairy farmers of Canada are following up the results of the milk recording conference and through a committee intend to bring in recommendations for a plan which will unify the milk recording now carried out under all dairy herd recording programs.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO HIGHWAY COST, KEEWATIN, ONT.
Mr. Reid: 1.	What was the amount paid to the province of Ontario for construction of the trans-Canada highway from the east boundary of the town of Keewatin to 400 feet east of the east branch bridge?
2.	Did the agreement provide for the future maintenance of the section to be the sole responsibility of the government of Ontario?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): 1. $556,026.
2. Yes.


STERLING HELD BY BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many pounds sterling were held by the Bank of Canada at the time of its recent devaluation?
2.	How many pounds sterling did the Bank of Canada buy and sell during the two previous months?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 and 2: The Bank of Canada maintains working balances with central banks in a number of countries, denominated in the currency of the country concerned, through which are passed all transactions of the bank in that
December 4, 1967

currency on account of itself, of the government of Canada and of other customers. Similarly a number of central banks carry accounts with the Bank of Canada denominated in Canadian dollars.
Balances carried in such accounts are related to the type and number of transactions involved and to the various services rendered free by the central bank where the account is carried.
The information about its foreign currency assets and liabilities which the Bank of Canada publishes in its weekly and monthly statements is specified in Schedule B of the Bank of Canada Act. It has not been the practice nor is it considered appropriate to give such information in relation to individual currencies.


NAVAL MINE COUNTER MEASURES
Mr. Ormiston: 1.	What is the extent of Canada's mine counter measure force?
2.	What types of vessels are used for this kind of operation?
3.	How many ships are capable of being used in this capacity?
4.	How many are employed at present?
5.	What is the present complement of officers and men employed in this mine counter measure force?
6.	Is there a standard type of equipment used by allied navies?
7.	How many aircraft are employed in this work?
8.	Where are personnel trained in mine counter measure work?
9.	How long has this force been in existence?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Ocean, coastal and inshore minesweepers and minehunting ships are used in mine countermeasures. As it would take a great deal of time to mount an effective mining offensive, the particular capability of minesweeping in the RCN is considered to have a relatively low priority as compared with other tasks assigned to the Canadian armed forces. However, men are still being trained in mine clearance which is principally a diving operation, and divers attached to the diving units of the R.C.N. undergo such training with the United States navy. The R.C.N. also has six coastal minesweepers, one of which is being used for training while the other five are being held in reserve. The techniques of mining and minesweeping are changing and continuing study is being given to these developments to determine what capability would be most effective in the years
Questions
ahead. For example, an R.C.N. officer has recently attended trials to examine the feasibility of using helicopters in minesweeping. A NATO committee is endeavouring to establish standard equipment for mine countermeasures.


APPLICATIONS TO TEACH IN NATIONAL DEFENCE SCHOOLS
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-: Kingsway):
1.	Does the Department of National Defence accept applications to teach in defence department schools from men teachers up to the age of 60 and not accept applications from women teachers after the age of 40?
2- ft so, will the government consider eliminating the age differential respecting applications from men and women teachers?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. In Canada, the engagement of teaching staffs for Department of National Defence dependants' schools in Canada is under the jurisdiction of the local school board that is appointed to administer the school under the applicable provincial regulations.
In so far as outside of Canada is concerned, the Department of National Defence accepts applications from sponsoring school boards in Canada on behalf of teachers in their employ who are interested in teaching at a Department of National Defence dependants' school overseas. Such teachers are not engaged by the Department of National Defence, but are loaned by their employing boards for assignment overseas under a two-year loan of service agreement. Age limitations have been established for female teachers between 23 and 40 years of age and for male teachers between 23 and 60 years of age.
2.	Consideration has been given to eliminating the age differential between male and female applicants, but it is not intended to change the existing age limitations at this time.


ANTEN MILLS, ONT., POST OFFICE REVENUE
Mr. Smith: What was the revenue from Anten Mills, Ontario, post office in each of the last ten years?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: 1957-58,	$317.26;	1958-59,	$237.35;	1959-60,$217.34;	1960-61,	$326,86;	1961-62,	$283.60;1962-63,	$283.28;	1963-64,	$276.00;	1964-65,$314.51;	1965-66,	$362.61;	1966-67,	$344.07.
December 4, 1967
Questions


AREA DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT
Mr. Hales: 1.	How much money was in the area development account as of (a) March 31, 1967 (b) October 31, 1967?
2.	How much money has parliament appropriated to this account since its inception and on what dates was this money appropriated?
3.	How much has been paid out of this account for development grants under the Area Development Incentive Act?
4.	How much has been committed and yet to be paid out of this account?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. (a) $48,848,241,10 (b) $42,836,226.85.
2.	The amount of $50,000,000 was authorized under the Area Development Incentives Act which was assented to 30 June, 1965.
3. As of 31 October, 1967, grants in the amount of $7,163,773.15 have been paid out under the Area Development Incentives Act.
4.	The Area Development Incentives Act provides for an amount of $50,000,000 and such other amounts as may be appropriated by parliament for the purposes of the act. Parliament has also approved committing authority of $200,000,000 under the act. As of 31 October, 1967, an amount of approximately $135,000,000 has been encumbered to cover specific commitments to pay grants on projects approved subject to compliance with the act and regulations. Nearly $128,000,000 has yet to be paid out in addition to the amount expended as of 31 October, 1967.


R.C.A. TELEVISION TUBE FACTORY
Mr. Hales: 1.	What was the approved capital cost of the new R.C.A. television tube factory at Midland, Ontario?
2.	What was the total amount of the area development grant payable under the Area Development Incentives Act to the R.C.A. Co. in respect of their new television tube factory at Midland?
3.	Is this amount payable the maximum permissible development grant under this act?
4.	What is the estimated amount of income tax forgiveness under the three year tax holiday provided under the area development program for the R.C.A. Co.?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The approved capital cost of the facility for purposes of the Area Development Incentives Act has not yet been determined pending examination of final accounts submitted by the company to the area development agency.
[Mr. C6te (Terrebonne) .1
2.	The total amount of the grant payable under the act cannot be determined until the allowable capital cost is verified.
3.	See 2.
4.	The three year income tax holiday under
section 71A of the Income Tax Act was an optional benefit until the expiry date of the provision on March 31, 1967. An applicant could not take both benefits. In this case, the company applied for a capital grant under the Area Development Incentives Act.


HOUSING STUDY OF ISOLATED COMMUNITIES
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Has the firm of Moody, Moore and Partners of Winnipeg, architects and consulting engineers, yet completed the first phase of the housing study of isolated communities including some Indian communities in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, which study was undertaken on behalf of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	Has any initial design or designs of prototype housing appropriate for such communities been prepared and/or submitted to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisler of Labour):: 1. By arrangement with the firm of Moody, Moore and Partners this work is now being carried out by the Winnipeg firm of Kennedy Smith Associates. The first phase of this housing study is completed.
2. The first phase report has been received by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It classifies and comments on some 40 communities visited. It suggests a number of physical groupings of housing and communal facilities that might have application to some of these communities. It comments on existing housing and makes suggestions towards improvement by siting, layout and construction techniques.
C.M.H.C. have made additional moneys available through part V of the National Housing Act for printing 500 copies of the report so that these can be made available to those concerned with these communities and reserves.


OLD AGE SECURITY PAYMENTS
Mr. Clermont: 1. What was the total outlay for old age security pensions for the following fiscal years 1962-1963, 1963-1964, 1964-1965, 1965-1966, 1966-1967 (a) In Canada (b) in the province of Quebec (c) in the federal constituency of Labelle?
December 4, 1967

2.	What was the percentage of the federal contribution to these allowances?
3.	How many persons received such allowances (a) in Canada (b) in the province of Quebec (c) In the federal constituency of Labelle?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. (a) 1962-63, $734,381,632; 1963-1964, $808,391,300; 19641965, $885,294,468; 1965-1966, $927,299,487; 1966-1967,	$1,073,005,708.	(b)	1962-1963,
$155,359,915; 1963-1964, $171,996,794; 19641965, $189,682,327; 1965-1966, $201,031,152; 1966-1967, $239,765,492. (c) Records of pensioners are maintained in numerical sequence by province, and therefore it is impossible to give information requested.
2. 100%.
3.	The figures given are as of March 31st in each case: (a) 1962, 927,590; 1963, 950,766; 1964, 971,801; 1965, 993,582; 1966, 1,105,776; 1967, 1,229,561. (b) 1962, 196,827; 1963, 202,405; 1964, 207,917; 1965, 214,294; 1966, 242,865; 1967, 275,515. (c) As in 1. (c) above.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I should like to ask that question No. 310 be withdrawn. It is somewhat complex and requires too much research.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the success of the confederation of tomorrow conference and the promise for the future contained in the establishment of a continuing committee of provincial premiers, as announced on Thursday last, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could give us an indication as to whether the government will find it possible to establish effective liaison with this committee.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we already have a section in the Privy Council office which is concerned with liaison with the provinces in respect of matters of this kind. I am not sure whether
Inquiries of the Ministry this establishment of the new provincial organization requires special liaison but I would be very glad to look into it. This is something we certainly can consider at the first federal-provincial conference. We might even consider it next week, though we will not be dealing then with this specific matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Without being controversial but referring simply to the fact that so far as the conference is concerned liaison has been at the official level on the part of the government of Canada, will the government consider the establishment of liaison at the ministerial level?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad to consider that as well, Mr. Speaker. In the past the President of the Privy Council has been responsible for liaison on that level. This has been particularly true in recent years. It may well be that the developments of the last few months will require some alteration in this procedure so that liaison can be established on a rather more formal basis.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister regarding reports that the international service of the C.B.C. is to be discontinued at the end of this month. In view of the fine service which has been rendered by this program in making known the views and attitudes of the Canadian people to other people in all parts of the world, is it the intention of the government to silence the voice of Canada at the end of this month?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I am perhaps as aware as any member of the use and importance in the past of the work of this broadcasting organization in short wave communication to other countries. Naturally we are looking into the operations of all government agencies with a view to cutting down expenses wherever that is possible. I can assure my hon. friend that no decision has been taken to abolish this service.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the government be making a statement in the house far enough in advance of the actual discontinuance of this program to give members an opportunity to

December 4, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry express their opinion in respect of this very important decision?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; especially in view of the newspaper comment I think it is important to make an announcement of this kind as quickly as possible. It is my hope that this can be done this week during the debate on the budget.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to ask a further supplementary question of the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received representations of any kind from interested groups in Canada who are vitally interested in the international broadcasting service being continued because of the valuable work it has been doing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received a great many representations. Indeed, every time it is rumoured that we are going to reduce or cut back a service or look at it on the ground of expenditure, I receive a great many representations.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the representations which the Prime Minister will consider, would he have the government look at the 1966 white paper on broadcasting, issued by his own government, which stressed its conviction of the importance and value of the international service?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am also aware of that, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Last Friday, I had the occasion to appear on television, in Sherbrooke, with two well-known separatists from Montreal. Is this government aware that well-known separatists are constantly going to and fro between Quebec and Cuba and does the minister know about the true purpose of these visits to Cuba?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I have had some reports about that situation and I may

be able to add something tomorrow or Wednesday.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Could the hon. minister check whether the Russian diplomatic bag, for example, is not used to transport money to help finance the separatist movement in Montreal?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask whether the Soviet government has yet replied to the Canadian note reported to have been delivered on Saturday, in which the charge was rejected that recent demonstrations at the Soviet embassy in Ottawa were carried out with "government connivance".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian note was delivered on Saturday. It was in reply to a note that had been sent earlier to the Canadian government by the government of the Soviet union. I hope there will be no further notes on this matter.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the latest report from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, which shows that in the third quarter of this year housing starts fell by 11.2 per cent, and that October was the fifth month in a row during which centres with a population of over 10,000 showed a decrease in housing starts, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline what he and his department intend to do to overcome this serious trend?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Not necessarily on motions, Mr. Speaker, because I do not know where the hon. member got his figures. Housing starts in the
December 4, 1967

month of September were a record high in Canadian history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: And housing starts in the month of October ran them a close second.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister like me to send over the figures that were issued today by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, so he can become aware of what is going on in his own department?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The minister does not have to read them; he has the figures here in his hand.


George Harris Hees: I would like to make the minister aware of the figures for his own department.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received any communication in protest against the closing of main shops of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Montreal, Winnipeg and Calgary, affecting approximately 4,000 men including a considerable number in Fort William, for the period of the last week of December? If so, does the minister intend to approach the management for reconsideration of this move which, if carried out, will undoubtedly cause undue hardship to our already hard pressed railway employees?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no such protest has been received in my office.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question on this subject, and I address it to the Minister of Labour. If these lay-offs take place, will any compensation be paid to the employees for the time they will lose between Christmas and New Year's?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If they are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, they will get them.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. R. K. Andras (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question, which arises from the comments made by the hon. member for Fort William, is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister in the course of investigating this protest also investigate the substance of comment by the railway unions to the effect that this lay-off has been designed by the C.P.R. management to offset or recover the cost of retroactive wage increases owing employees from August 1 as a result of recent wage settlements?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, if there is an investigation, then of course that question could be included. I understand there was consultation between the company and the unions affected and there seemed to be a fair measure of agreement between them in respect of this proposal. That would seem to be the reason no protest has been received to date, but of course I would be interested in examining the allegation made by my hon. friend.


Mr. Norman Fawcett (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour which is related to the question asked by the hon. member for Fort William with respect to the laying off of C.P.R. shop men. It is the same question that I directed to the minister on Friday last. I should like to ask the minister whether, in the event that these laid off employees are not covered by unemployment insurance, any arrangement has been made for compensation of the employees.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, not unless it has been made by the company concerned, and that is a question that should be directed to the Minister of Transport.


Norman Edward Fawcett: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I direct that question to the Minister of Transport.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a further question to the Minister of Transport regarding this matter of the C.P.R. laying off shop employees. Since this move affects some 4,000 employees, who are not likely to be covered by unemployment insurance because of the short duration of the lay-off, can the minister have an investigation made to determine whether the right of these men to be paid on their holidays, Christmas day and New Year's day, will be affected? Can he also ascertain whether there

December 4, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry is any justification for this lay-off between Christmas and New Year's?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will be glad to pass on that question to the management of the railway company. I think I should tell the hon. gentleman, however, that an effort was made by the railway and its employees to seek periods of temporary lay-off which would avoid laying off some of the employees on a permanent basis. I was given to understand that a considerable amount of accord had been reached between the two groups, and that this procedure was preferred to the alternative, which would have been permanent layoffs. I understand this was the mechanism approved by the majority of the workers themselves in an effort to share the consequences of a reduction in the work available. If that is the case, I think the hon. gentleman would applaud the co-operative attitude of this kind, and I am sure he does.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister find out from the representatives of the workers whether this was indeed a mutually satisfactory arrangement, or whether it was an arrangement instituted solely by the management of the C.P.R.?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Normally when the union is not reasonably satisfied it proceeds directly, or indirectly through the good offices of my colleague, to make its dissatisfaction known. Since in this case I had not received any direct representations from the union, or indirect representations through the offices of my colleague, I assumed there had been at least a considerable degree of accord between the parties involved.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: May I ask the Minister of Transport if these lay-offs by Air Canada, the C.N.R. and other government agencies are the result of the Minister of Finance urging that there should be a slackening in the economy, though goodness knows it is slack enough in the Atlantic provinces at the present time?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker.



MEDICINE HAT-REDUCTION IN SERVICE RESPECTING FRESH FLOWERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: My question is to the Minister of Transport. I want to ask the minister whether he has received representations from the Western Florists' Association complaining of serious cut-backs

in the C.P.R. service carrying fresh flowers for Medicine Hat and, if so, what he has done about these representations.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: To the best of my knowledge no representations have been received, but I would be glad to check with my office. I try to send as many flowers as I can to my friends out there locally; if there is a problem of transportation involved with respect to the surplus I shall be glad to see what I can do to assist.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Because of lay-offs and dissatisfaction with l.c.l. rates in the maritimes, will the minister now respond to the request of the Atlantic members that the transport committee complete its coast to coast survey by travelling to Atlantic Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last week, this is under consideration. I cannot see any reason why the committee should not travel to Atlantic Canada, but I would like to report to my hon. friend after I have had a chance to get a definitive word from the committee.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare with reference to a report in the Ottawa Journal of Saturday, December 2 that Hon. Jean-Paul Cloutier, minister of family and social welfare of the province of Quebec has announced that his government is ready to assume the distribution of the federal government family allowance cheques. Can the minister say whether agreement has been reached on this, and whether this would apply to all the provinces if they so desired?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there has been an exchange of correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of Quebec. The government
December 4, 1967

of Quebec expressed its readiness to assume responsibility for the administration of the federal family allowance program in that province.
After careful consideration it was our decision that it would not be desirable to alter the present arrangements in the administration of federal family allowances.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The minister stated earlier that following consultations with the province of Quebec, the federal government decided to keep its jurisdiction in the field of family allowances. During those consultations, did the minister and the government reach a decision about a possible increase in the family allowance rate in Canada?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the appropriate minister has heard the representation made by the hon. member.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the minister was just about to answer; he had to pause for the translation of my question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the appropriate minister. I apologize for not giving him notice, but my question is the result of a telephone call from one of the officials of the Public Service Alliance just prior to my arrival in the house.
Will the employees of the Public Service Commission, including employees of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, be given Tuesday, December 26 as a holiday? This information is urgently required in order that those concerned may make their holiday and travel arrangements for the Christmas season.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice, and I will answer my hon. friend later this afternoon.
2705a-3151
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question asked a few moments ago by the hon. member for Kootenay West may I say that Tuesday, December 26, 1967 is not a holiday for public servants in Canada, who receive 10 statutory holidays during the year, somewhat more than received by most people in industry.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister bring the house up to date on the situation between Greece and Turkey, and on the position of the Canadian troops who form part of the UN peace keeping force in Cyprus, as a result of last week's developments?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to report on the position of the Canadian contingent other than that our troops there are carrying out their duties. Yesterday morning the Secretary General appealed to the governments of Greece, Turkey and Cyprus to end any threat to the security of each other. This was necessary because of last moment hitches in what was thought likely to be an agreement on the part of all concerned.
The Secretary General also indicated that his good offices would be available to all the parties, if considered desirable, with respect to United Nations efforts in the supervision of disarmament or in practical arrangements for internal security.
The response of the governments of Turkey, Greece and Cyprus has been positive, and I hope it will be possible to begin very soon the withdrawal of national forces from Cyprus and the de-escalation of some of the military measures that have been taken recently in the area. However, the fact is that at this moment agreement between the parties is not complete on all points and I regret to say that relations have not improved between the two communities in Cyprus.


Mr. Lamberi:: May I ask a supplementary question. Since Canada is a Nato ally of the two countries involved, has this government brought its own views before them to

December 4, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry impress upon Greece and Turkey the necessity of arriving at a just settlement and de-escalation in the area?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We certainly have and I reported to the house on this a week ago. Our efforts included direct telephone communications between myself and the foreign minister of Turkey at a time when we were greatly concerned about possible military action. We have been in continuous consultation all along with the representatives of the United States and Britain, with Mr. Vance, the special emissary of the United States government, and Mr. Rolz-Bennet, the representative of the Secretary General.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of reports that Archbishop Makarios is objecting to an increase in the strength of United Nations forces, will the minister assure the house that in the event of the United Nations extending the mandate in Cyprus this house will be given an opportunity to discuss the terms of that mandate, and whether it has been extended sufficiently to provide security for the Canadian forces who are part of the United Nations peace keeping force there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I were to reply directly to that question I would be indicating the nature of the objections being registered by one of the countries concerned. I think, in the interests of a settlement, it would not be appropriate for me to do so. I will, however, bear my hon. friend's question in mind and at the appropriate moment will respond to it.


Alexander Bell Patterson: May I
ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of reports that an expanded United Nations force in Cyprus is being contemplated, can the minister advise the house whether Canada has been requested to supply additional personnel?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Canada has not been asked. I would ask my hon. friend to note what I said a moment ago to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I wish to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question related to the one

asked by the hon. member for Edmonton West. At the present time France retains its membership in the political arm of NATO. Has the Canadian government received any information that would indicate that France intends to consider withdrawing entirely from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: No, sir.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. I pose this question because of continuing difficulties in the economic field in the Atlantic provinces. Can the minister advise if as a result of difficulties that have arisen between the government and British American Oil Company regarding loans to assist in the construction of an oil refinery in the strait of Canso area, construction of such a refinery will be delayed and in fact might possibly be abandoned?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps it would be wrong to describe the situation as difficult, or to indicate there are difficulties on the part of either of the negotiating parties. Normal negotiations are going on, and I would be rather less pessimistic than the hon. member has indicated he is.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the house when the Minister of Trade and Commerce will return from his overseas trip so he can answer pressing questions relating to wheat exports?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am afraid I misled the house the other day, when I said he would be back within a week or ten days. His itinerary covered more countries than I realized at the time. I am told he will be back at the end of this week. Meanwhile his trip has been most successful in the promotion of Canadian exports.
December A. 1967


James Ernest Pascoe: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the government aware of the drop of nearly 100 million bushels in wheat deliveries by farmers this crop year because the elevators and terminals are filled?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps this is a good reason why the Minister of Trade and Commerce should travel in foreign countries.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has he received any objections from the Canadian Air Line Employees Association about the lay-off or dismissal of sales employees in both Montreal and Toronto? In any case, is he aware of this termination by Air Canada? If so can he inform the house the reasons for it, and whether additional sales employees were recruited in the last two or three months before these terminations took effect last Friday?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from the Canadian Air Line Employees Association in which they raised a number of questions including those just posed by my hon. friend. I think I might just quote, in part, an answer that has been given to me by the company to forward to the employees association:
Air Canada indicates that it will be increasing its efforts in the very difficult task of forecasting manpower needs with the hope that it can identify more effectively those cases which might lead to a surplus. It is the company's opinion that the future trend will be a more pronounced seasonal fluctuation calling for the use of some summer staff to be recruited on a temporary basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who wrote that; Paul
Martin?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The	management of Air
Canada. The answer to the last question posed by my hon. friend is that I believe they did recruit some employees not too long before the lay-off occurred. This is to be regretted and I hope it will be possible for the management in the future, through improved planning, to avoid this kind of situation.


David Lewis: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that some of the
Inquiries of the Ministry employees released were hired by Air Canada without being informed that their job was to be temporary and that they left other work to take on these jobs, and in view of the fact some of the hiring was apparently done in connection with Expo which everyone knew would come to an end, will the minister submit to Air Canada the need for better planning, and particularly the need to give consideration to the plight of employees who have been laid off under these circumstances?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to pass along these representations to Air Canada, together with those I have already received on the same subject.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I
ask a supplementary question. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the rather unfortunate reference last evening on the Ed Sullivan show to the safety record of Air Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, it has not, Mr. Speaker.



BEEF PRODUCTS-OPPORTUNITY FOR INCREASED SALES TO U.K.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the United Kingdom has prohibited the importation of beef and beef products from the Argentine, has the minister made any arrangements through his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce to export Canadian beef and beef products to this large potential market?


John James Greene: No specific additional measures of which I am aware have been taken, Mr. Speaker, by reason of the prohibition of Argentine meat, but we are continuously attempting to broaden our markets not only in the United Kingdom but elsewhere. We will certainly be pleased to take the hon. member's suggestion into consideration.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Can the minister say whether our trade commissioner there has reported?


John James Greene: I have not received any report as yet, but I will be glad to take the hon. member's question as notice.

December 4, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



REPORTED DEVELOPMENT OP LOW GRADE HIGH YIELD WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. May I ask the minister to inform the house and the many interested farmers in western Canada whether the Department of Agriculture has developed a new variety of low grade wheat that will be made available to farmers for use as seed in order to produce a low grade, high yielding wheat?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to take the hon. member's question as notice. I do not know of anything specific that he may have in mind, but if there is I will take the question as notice and report to him.



PURPOSE OF OTTAWA VISIT BY U.S. SECRETARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister any information he can report to the house on the visit of the United States secretary of agriculture, Mr. Freeman, to Ottawa over the week end?


John James Greene: Mr. Freeman did not think very much of the game, Mr. Speaker.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[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 National Health and Welfare in his capacity as government house leader. Is he now in a position to answer the question I put to the Solicitor General at six o'clock on Friday last?
Perhaps I might give the essence of my question. In view of the fact that the subject matter of Bill No. C-5, a bill calling for the lowering of the voting age, had its subject matter referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections on June 23, could the house leader tell us why the committee has not met to deal with this term of reference?
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the committee is master of its own destiny. I would of course be glad to follow up the matter with the chairman of the committee to see whether it would be possible to discuss the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question or as a point of order, may I ask the minister whether he is aware that the committee has not even met yet and that the chairman of the committee has not been named? We are usually told that these things have to originate with the government house leader, who calls the committee together in the first place.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of all the points my hon. friend has made.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he can give the house any information at this time concerning the position of his government with regard to the steel situation at Sydney. If the Prime Minister is not able to do so now, when might he be in a position to give this information?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to my last statement. The premier of Nova Scotia, as my hon. friend knows, is convening his legislature today in regard to this matter. I received a message from him a week or so ago saying that he would be getting in touch with me and hoping we could meet at the earliest possible date. I have indicated that I would be very glad to do this but that the premier might like to wait until he finishes the session of the legislature, when we will meet at once.



ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRIES AFFECTED BY GENEVA NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Well, the three nuclear powers, the United States, the Soviet union and Britain are of course participants in the disarmament discussions of the 18 at Geneva. They would be participants in the United Nations discussions, as would France. Regrettably, China would not.']
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the fact that in three and a half weeks the Kennedy round tariff reductions start coming into effect, could the minister advise the house
December 4, 1967

when he expects to make a statement to parliament and to the Canadian people as to what steps the government intends to take to ease the impact on industries adversely affected by these tariff reductions?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we are still working on formulating a satisfactory plan.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. When does the minister expect to make a statement regarding agricultural producers who are similarly affected?


John James Greene: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not get the import of the hon. gentleman's question.


George Harris Hees: Could I have the minister's answer again? It was impossible to hear.
Let me start all over again, Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture based on my question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the fact that in three and a half weeks the Kennedy round tariff reductions start coming into effect, when does the minister expect to make a statement to the house regarding the steps the government intends to take to ease the impact on agricultural producers who are adversely affected by these tariff reductions?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, at the recent conference we did have considerable discussion with the producers about the impact of the Kennedy round decisions on agricultural producers. We will be continuing these discussions with farm organizations, and will certainly take any action within the authority available to us in respect to any changes that have to be made in the agricultural industry.


George Harris Hees: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of this matter to all agricultural producers in Canada, will the minister make a statement in this regard before these tariff reductions come into effect?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I had a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture, but I should like to direct it to the Minister of Finance. Is there any possibility of postponing the commencement of the Kennedy round of tariff reductions from January 1, 1968 to a later date?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have entered into an agreement to bring the results of the negotiations into effect as far as we are concerned on January 1. If we did not do so we would be breaking our agreement, and other countries would not give us the advantage of the changes they have made in our favour in their tariffs.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, and is related to that posed by the hon. member for Northumberland. In regard to the statement the minister is going to make shortly about the Kennedy round tariff reductions, will the minister be in a position at that time to give encouraging news to the steel producers of this country who are being faced with a serious problem as a result of the Kennedy round, with the country being flooded with steel produced with cheap labour, which of course makes for serious competition for our own steel producers.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the
arrangements with respect to the importation of steel and the proposals in relation to dumping have already been announced.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. With regard to the announcement on Saturday by President Johnson and the welcome news that the United States has decided to enlarge and to clearly indicate its policy on inspection of both private and public nuclear reactor centres in the United States, I wonder whether the government of our country has expressed its own reaction to this new step that has been taken by the United States government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have been urging this on a number of governments during the past three years, particularly during our discussions on the non-proliferation agreement in Geneva.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the present situation at Geneva and the likelihood that no agreement will be reached during the present session of the United Nations,

December 4, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry is the Canadian government giving consideration to any new proposal which it might advance at Geneva in order to facilitate the reaching of a settlement there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the desirable thing to do now, if we could get agreement, would be to transfer the place of discussion from Geneva to the United Nations, and this we have been urging. Whether this will be done depends on the attitude of other countries.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Is the Canadian government also urging that other nuclear powers might participate in the discussions either at Geneva or in New York.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Well, the three nuclear powers, the United States, the Soviet union and Britain are of course participants in the disarmament discussions of the 18 at Geneva. They would be participants in the United Nations discussions, as would France. Regrettably, China would not.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the government made a decision as to whether members of parliament may attend the forthcoming conference on housing and urban development, either as delegates or as observers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is no reason whatever why members of parliament should not attend the conference public sessions. I hope and believe that at least some of the sessions will be public.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether the international north Pacific fisheries commission has any studies under way in connection with underwater explosions being set off by the Soviet union in the north Pacific south of the Aleutians and, if so, whether he has any information he can give the house as to the possible effect of these explosions on the north Pacific fisheries.


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: I have no information as yet as to the effect such explosions may have on the fisheries of the north Pacific, but I will inquire and report to the hon. member.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-PROVISION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR HERRING FISHERMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask whether he is in a position to give the house any information about the plans his department has with respect to providing alternative employment for the herring fishermen and shore workers on the west coast who are dependent upon the herring fishing industry.


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: I was asked a similar question a few weeks ago, and I replied then that the question of providing alternative employment for the fishermen and workers laid off on account of the situation in that industry was being studied by the Department of Manpower and Immigration.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. May I ask whether we can expect him to come to a conclusion about this before the herring fishing is supposed to resume on January 7?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we are doing everything in our power to try to find some work for these men, and I hope that we shall soon have a report.
We are just as interested as anyone else in the house that all workers should be employed in Canada.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Has the hon. gentleman received any reply from the Minister of Fisheries or his deputy with regard to the representations which I understand he made in connection with a program to assist the herring fishermen on the west coast?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As hon. members probably know, the Minister of Fisheries has been away from the house for a few days. He returned today for the first time. The representations, which I
[Mr. MacDonald (Prince).1
December 4. 1967

assured the hon. member and others would be made, have been made to the minister and his deputy minister. However, I understand that the minister has not yet received a full report from his deputy. I believe he may be in a position to report on the subject tomorrow.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to clarify certain powers of the board; to provide for the appointment of two vicechairmen in lieu of one; to provide for an appeal division of the board; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, the amendments proposed in the resolution take cognizance of the reality and of the force of very important changes that are current in the Canadian industrial relations environment. The purpose of the amendments is to clarify the powers and to facilitate the work of the Canada Labour Relations Board in the light of these significant changes to which I have referred.
Most hon. members will recall that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, commonly known as the I.R.D.I. act, came into force on September 1, 1948. It is now in its twentieth year without amendment of any kind. The Canada Labour Relations Board was established on the effective date of the legislation, September 1, 1948. I might say it was established as the successor organization to the Wartime Labour Relations Board which did such a good job for Canada during the war and the important post-war years.
This board administers the provisions of the act concerning the certification of bargaining units and, because this work takes a fair amount of time, I mention also the revocation of certifications and the review of earlier decisions. It also deals with the writing of provisions for incorporation into collective agreements that fix a procedure for the final settlement of disputes concerning the meaning or violation of such agreements. It also
Industrial Relations Act deals with the investigation of complaints referred to it by the Minister of Labour that one party or another has failed to bargain collectively in good faith.
The board consists of a chairman, one vice chairman and eight members, four of whom represent the employees and the other four represent the employers. The present chairman has had a board background of experience in this field. He has served as deputy minister of labour and as vice chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board before taking over its chairmanship in 1964. The vice chairman of the board is a senior civil servant. He is the deputy director of investigation and research in the Department of the Registrar General. The vice-chairman does not participate in the work of the board if the chairman is available. He acts as the presiding officer only in the absence of the chairman.
The history of this board is rather interesting. During the war years there were four labour groups of appreciable size in this country, the old Trades and Labour Congress, the Canadian Congress of Labour, the railway unions, and what were called the Canadian Catholic unions in the province of Quebec. There were Teamsters and other organized groups, but the four that I have mentioned were the four major groups of organized labour in this country.
When the Canada Labour Relations Board started to function in September, 1948, representation on it was substantially the same as on the Wartime Labour Relations Board. There was one representative of the Canadian Trades and Labour Congress, one of the railway unions, one of the Canadian Congress of Labour, and one of the Canadian and Catholic unions. When the Canadian Labour Congress, the C.L.C., came into being it provided the unions affiliated with it with three representatives, whereas the Canadian and Catholic unions, now the C.N.T.U., continued to have only one representative.
During the 20-year period that it has been functioning the board has done yeoman service for the people of Canada. It might be said that the philosophy of the board has been the administration of the provisions of the act and the determination of each particular case on its merits. During these 20 years the growth of collective bargaining has greatly increased the work of the board. I shall give some figures to illustrate this. During the period prior to 1966 the average number of applications dealt with by the board per annum, in round figures, was

December 4, 1967
Industrial Relations Act about 100. In the last two years applications have averaged in excess of 140 per annum, an increase of roughly 40 or 45 per cent. In addition, and this is something I stress, rivalries among labour unions have placed increased pressures on the board.
The amendments covered by this resolution are designed to assist the board to deal with these new developments. I think I should state at this stage that no change in the representative character of the board is proposed, such as the three representatives from the C.L.C. and its affiliates and one representative from the C.N.T.U. If the resolution and the bill based thereon are accepted, the board will continue to represent equally the interests of employers and employees.
The amendments, however, do propose some new elements. First, they are designed to clarify the provisions in the act relating to the appropriateness of bargaining units. They also deal with the character of unions involved in applications for certification or designation.
It is also proposed that there be two vicechairmen of the board as against one under the present act, and that the board be empowered to sit in panels. With the increase in work to which I have referred, the desirability of having the board sit in panels, as do so many of our courts, has become self-evident. On occasion there are a series of appeals. Unfortunately they may all come at the same time. If one relates to a problem in Ontario, another to a problem in British Columbia, another to a problem in the Atlantic provinces, another to something which is peculiar to the prairie region and yet another relates to the province of Quebec, it would certainly be desirable that the board sit in panels, just as the Supreme Court of Canada does on occasion, and as do our provincial courts of appeal when they sit in divisions. That is one reason it is desirable that we have two vice-chairmen instead of one.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question for clarification? Does the amendment indicate the composition of each panel, that is, whether or not a member from a particular part of the country or a particular organization should sit on a panel when a particular part of the country or organization is involved?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, no more than does the Supreme Court of Canada Act make such provision in respect of the allocation of work

by its members. That is handled by the chief justice. However, I believe my hon. friend who is a distinguished member of the bar knows that when an appeal from the province of Quebec comes before the Supreme Court of Canada the chief justice, as presiding officer of the court, will make sure that if it is at all possible all three members of the court from the province of Quebec will sit on the particular panel.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister whether that means that if certification were applied for by the C.N.T.U. the two members who were representatives of the C.N.T.U. would be on that panel?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: This will become clearer when the bill itself is actually before the house, but I would hope that if there are three representatives from the C.L.C. as against one from the C.N.T.U. there might be a pattern established so there will be a balance in representation; in other words, that there would be one from each respective group, depending on the particular problem being discussed.
As I say, not only is it desirable to enable the board to sit in panels so that possibly three differents matters might be considered at one time but also so that one panel may sit in the maritimes, one in Ottawa, one in western Canada and possibly one in some part of Quebec. This would enable the work to be done with greater dispatch.
In addition it is proposed that an appeal division of the board be established. The appeal division will become operative to deal with appeals from rulings involving a determination of the appropriateness of the bargaining unit, that is, where an employer operates in more than one establishment or operates in more than one geographical area within Canada. It could be possible, if the full board sits as a panel, that the appeal would be taken to the appeal division. There may be various types of appeal. The nature of the appellate tribunal to be provided for here will be known as soon as copies of the bill have been distributed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, would the
minister permit a question? Will all members of the board be eligible for appointment to the appeal division?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It would be possible that the chairman or a vice chairman who did not take part in the original panel might be a member of that board, but not the other members of the board. If the chairman had
December 4, 1967

presided at the panel hearing he might not wish to sit on the appeal. This sometimes happened in the Atlantic provinces when I was a young, practising lawyer. I think it is highly desirable that we should avoid that. I would expect that where cases of serous differences arise the chairman, in anticipating such a situation, might assign one or other of the vice chairmen and then make himself available to chair the appellate division.


David Lewis: I am sorry to interrupt again, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that we will have the details when the bill is before us but I wonder whether the minister would inform us, since the appeal division will be part of the board, if that means that all the members of the appeal division will be taken from among the members of the board or is it the intention under the bill that additional persons will be appointed?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The intention under the bill is that two additional persons will be appointed as public interest representatives, if I may use such a term.


David Lewis: I understand that they would not be members of the Canada Labour Relations Board.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: They would be members of the board but members only of its appeal division. They would be appointed as representatives of the general public. It would be the intention of the government to select these two public interest members on the basis of demonstrated ability and stature in industrial relations in Canada and from among those persons generally regarded as impartial between labour and management. This is more in line with the course, I might say, that the United States has followed in connection with its board. It is also in line exactly with what the government has done in setting up the public service arbitration tribunal. If you look at section 60 of that act you will see that it is not necessary to have nominees from either of the large labour groups or organizations, nor is it necessary to have a nominee from the chamber of commerce or the Canadian Manufacturers Association.


David Lewis: I am sorry to interrupt again, Mr. Chairman, but will these additional members be permanent members of the appeal division or will different members be appointed for each appeal.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: They will be permanent members, but not full time members. At the
Industrial Relations Act same time the amendment is also intended to clarify the authority of the board to make certain rules governing its procedure. If it is to establish panels and if there is to be an appeal division to deal with certain types of appeals, then I think it is highly desirable that the regulations and bylaws governing their activities should be modified and brought up to date.
At this stage I should like to repeat what I have said on previous occasions. It is my intention to move as soon as possible that this bill be referred to the appropriate committee of this house, the committee on labour and employment, for detailed discussion clause by clause. It certainly is the very sincere wish of the government that all those who have a vital interest or any real interest in these amendments should present their views before the committee when the opportunity to do so arises.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us whether the intention is to refer this matter to the committee before or after second reading?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would hope at the earliest possible moment.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will it be before second reading is completed or will it be after second reading?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It would be my hope that it would be before second reading-right away.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, in view of what the minister has said, that the house will not be asked to approve the principle on second reading before every opportunity has been given for representations to be made in committee, I certainly do not intend to take up too much time at this stage. However, there are a number of questions which came to my mind while the Minister of Labour was making his remarks in respect of the proposed amendments which are set out in the resolution.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The minister said that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act has not been amended or changed since its inception in 1948. This points up the fact that it must have been a good act at least so far as the people involved are concerned and consequently no amendments have been necessary. Evidently the minister is not now proposing any changes to the act itself except in respect of the Canada Labour Relations Board. This act has a different application in respect of

December 4, 1967
Industrial Relations Act the Canada Labour Relations Board than in respect of other things it covers. The minister is not proposing any amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. All he is proposing is amendments affecting the Canada Labour Relations Board.
I felt that as the minister gave the history of this board he seemed to be following a tortuous path, particularly when he explained why amendments were necessary. He said there were a greater number of applications being made, but to my knowledge the board has never complained. Any time I have spoken with the members they seemed to be perhaps the most satisfied members of any board and have enjoyed their work. They are dedicated people who have spent many years accumulating experience, and on only rare occasions have their decisions been appealed. I suppose it is true that there is always dissatisfaction on the part of those who have not been successful in their applications for certification but generally speaking this board has been looked upon as fair and just in its decisions, which have been readily accepted.
This board has always had as members people representing management and labour organizations who have been recommended by management and labour. The turnover of personnel has been very minor over the years. This is probably because of the very good work done by the board. There has always been rivalry between applicants for certification as to who should represent an organization. This will be true no matter what board or commission makes the appointment. In any event good judgment must always be used.
In the past it has been the practice that large organizations like the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, junior chambers of commerce, the Canadian Labour Congress, railway unions and the C.N.T.U. have, on the basis of their membership, been represented on this board as well as on others. For this reason I want to know what the problem is now which makes it necessary to make these drastic changes.
The minister has agreed to send the bill which will follow this resolution to a committee before second reading, at which time perhaps these questions can be asked and answered. This is a very wise move and I hope that the good judgment of the minister in sending this matter to a committee before second reading in order that members may acquaint themselves with the facts before

voting on the principle will set a precedent that other ministers will follow in future.


David Lewis: Somebody will persuade him to change his mind.


Michael Starr: Perhaps someone persuaded him to bring in these amendments, but the minister is using good judgment in committing himself to this committee that he will send his bill to a standing committee of the house prior to second reading. He is the only minister who has used good sense in this regard so far.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am sure the hon. member for Ontario will recall that I did this on a prior occasion at his suggestion.


Michael Starr: The minister is consistent in using good sense, and it is about time other ministers started to do the same in respect of other bills. I am sure if they did we would experience greater progress in the house.
The Canada Labour Relations Board has never had any interference from any minister. I know that I did not interfere with its operations when I was the minister. It seems to me that there is now to be direct interference as a result of the amendments proposed by this resolution. The minister is the sponsor of this resolution but whether or not he is the author of these amendments is not known. Perhaps we will find that out during the committee meetings.


Jean Marchand: Does an amendment to a law constitute undue interference with a board?


Michael Starr: That is what we will find out when we get to the committee. The minister has said that the first purpose of the amendments is to clarify certain powers. In my experience as Minister of Labour I was never approached by anyone, not even by members of the board, who felt that clarification of the board's powers was needed. Unless some unforeseen circumstances have developed since 1963 which make this clarification necessary I see no apparent reason why it should be done now. This is one of the things we want to find out. Have the members of the Canada Labour Relations Board asked the minister to introduce these amendments in order to clarify their powers?
There is now one vice chairman on the Canada Labour Relations board. He does not act unless the chairman is away. There has never been any problem in this regard, but I
December 4, 1967

see that now there are to be two vice-chairmen. I suppose they will have to toss a coin to see who will take the place of the chairman when he is away. Perhaps it is anticipated that the present vice chairman is going to be away a great deal of the time and that the second vice chairman will act as chairman when the chairman is away.
Apparently there is to be an appeal division of the board, which now consists of eight members and a chairman, representative of all major unions and employers in Canada. If an applicant for certification is unsuccessful he will have the right to go to this newly constituted appeal division. I am sure we will find that all the decisions of the Canada Labour Relations Board will be appealed. There is always a loser in an application for certification. These appeals will be made to two strangers to this board. Very likely they will be people who have not had any experience with the Canada Labour Relations Board.


Mr. Whelan:: That is not what the minister said.


Michael Starr: That is exactly what he said. He said the appeal division would consist of three members, a chairman and two others, who would not be members of the Canada Labour Relations Board. So we will have a situation where two people can overrule a decision of nine just and fair representatives of our leading unions and our leading manufacturing association in this country.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I still maintain that practically all the decisions made by the board will be appealed. I think this is a mistake. However, we will have an opportunity to discuss it in committee. The largest labour organization in Canada is the Canadian Labour Congress and the government confers with it in respect of representation on all these boards. I have not yet heard the Canadian Labour Congress criticize the Canada Labour Relations Board in any way or ask for any amendments of the type the government proposes to make to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. We will have an opportunity in committee to find out what is the thinking of the Canadian Labour Congress.


Robert Muir: The Minister of Manpower and Immigration does not like the board.
Industrial Relations Act


Michael Starr: If the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the employers and the unions have not protested, who has? Who wants these amendments to be made? These are questions that must be answered. We hope the Minister of Labour will be more specific in answering them when we are in committee.
What will these amendments mean to the board? What will they do to the Canada Labour Relations Board? Will they have the effect of emasculating the board? Will they have the effect of ruining the reputation of the board, which has had such a wonderful reputation since 1948? Will these amendments mean that chaos will be created in the labour movement? These are questions that come to my mind, Mr. Chairman.
I hope the minister is not being made a tool in respect of the amendments that are now proposed. We congratulate the minister on his thoughtfulness and reasonableness and hope that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is not now talking him out of sending this bill to committee before second reading, because the minister has given his word and is a man of his word. The minister is also a man of integrity and I am sure he will not allow the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or the government house leader to talk him into not keeping his word to this committee.


David Lewis: December 4, 1967
Industrial Relations Act there were on it representatives of the Trades and Labour Congress, the Canadian Congress of Labour, the railway unions and the organization that preceded the present C.N.T.U. At that time I think it was still the Canadian and Catholic Unions. There were these four organizations represented.
When the C.C.L. and the T.L.C. combined the same situation prevailed. The minister ought to know that before he starts talking about three members representing the C.L.C. It may be that the union the present railwayman on the board represents is affiliated with the C.L.C.-frankly, I do not at the moment recall-but this was the case before. Prior to the merger of the C.C.L. and the T.L.C., the railwayman on the board may well have also represented a union affiliated at that time with the T.L.C. What you have now on the board is precisely what you have always had. When the T.L.C. and the C.C.L. combined, the members who represented those two organizations represented the one organization.
As a matter of fact, as the minister ought to know if he does not know it, the two members of the board who were nominated by the C.L.C. were in fact representative of what were previously the C.C.L. and the T.L.C. If my memory serves me right, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. D'Aoust are the two members nominated by the Canadian Labour Congress. Mr. D'Aoust is an ex-officer of what used to be known as the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, and Mr. MacDonald is an ex-officer of what used to be known as the Canadian Congress of Labour. They are both now in the C.L.C. The present combined organization represents the same people represented in the old organizations. What in unjust in this situation? What is unfair in it? What is the minister or anyone else complaining about?
In any case, Mr. Chairman, if the minister and the government had the courage to do what they apparently intend to do-although I am not quite clear about it-let me point out to them that the legislation says nothing about where the representatives are to come from. It merely says that the board shall consist of a chairman and not more than eight other members, four representing employees and four representing employers. Within the confines of this legislation a change can be made in the representation if in the government's view that is necessary. But the government, not having the courage to do that, proposes that there be panels in order to achieve the representation that it

thinks ought to be there in particular cases. In this way the minister will introduce the rivalry which he regrets exists in the labour movement among the members of the board itself. If that will not destroy any possibility of impartiality of the board, I should like to know what will.
It is true that members of the board are appointed from many groups in the community, but the intention of the legislation and my experience in appearing before the Canada Labour Relations Board as well as before other boards in this country lead me to know as a fact that after some time on the board those men originally representing particular groups follow a pretty consistent pattern of decision-making and precedents and take into account the interests of the community and of industrial peace in this country. Before the merger of the Trades and Labour Congress and the Canadian Congress of Labour I have known C.C.L. members of the board to hold against affiliates of that organization; I have known T.L.C. members of the board to hold against affiliates of that organization. I have known in respect of the Ontario and Manitoba boards, before both of which I have appeared, and am also aware from the decisions of all other boards in Canada which I have read, that where the labour member comes from frequently does not determine the decision which he supports. The importance of this is that from the start you try to get all members of the board to be as objective and impartial as human beings can be and to develop a sense of responsibility for the community and for the whole field of industrial relations, e (4:10 p.m.)
What does the minister now propose? He proposes to make sure that the members of the board who happen to be from the C.L.C. will remain at all times C.L.C. partisans, that the members of the board who happen to represent the railway unions will for all time remain railway partisans, and that the members of the board who happen to represent the C.N.T.U. will for all time remain C.N.T.U. partisans, regardless of the objective facts and principles of the situation. If I understood the minister correctly, he is setting out deliberately to destroy any possibility of impartiality and objectivity by the members of the board.
The minister then said he wants to clarify the definition of an appropriate bargaining unit. Again let me remind him that the present definition is in the widest possible terms.
December 4, 1967

A unit means a group of employees, and a unit appropriate for collective bargaining means a unit appropriate for such purposes, whether it be an employee unit, a craft unit, a technical unit, a plant unit or any other unit, and whether or not the employees therein are employed by one or more employers. When the minister says he intends to clarify the definition, I suspect that what he really intends to do is not to clarify but to confuse the section and to insert into it a limiting term which will tie the hands of the Canada Labour Relations Board.
The minister spoke about the establishment of panels. I cannot understand his aim in doing so because I know the act and the regulations fairly well. Let me remind him that at the present time there is a section in the act which permits the board to authorize any person or board to exercise or perform all or any of its powers or duties under this act relating to any particular matter. What the board has always done is to have an investigating officer examine the membership and so on of an organization applying for certification. Let me also remind the minister that under the rules of the board made pursuant to the act the quorum of the board may consist of only three persons, namely the chairman or vice-chairman and one member representing each of the interests. Again I cannot help but suspect that the establishment of panels would not assist the board in doing its work.
As one of us here know, such as the hon. member for Ontario and others, the Canada Labour Relations Board has not sat for more than two days a month in years. It is only very occasionally that the board sits for more than two days a month. I am not aware of any backlog of work that it may have, and if there is such a tremendous amount of work all it has to do is to sit an additional day a month. There is nothing in what the minister has said or in what any of us know about the working of the board which would justify the setting up of panels, the result of which would be a division of the interests of the board rather than a development of its jurisprudence in these matters.
There are panels under the Ontario labour relations board which sit every day of the week. In fact two or three of these panels sit every working day of the week. This board has an agenda which requires the meeting of these panels. I challenge the minister's statement that there is any backlog of work in the Canada Labour Relations Board which
Industrial Relations Act could not be tackled by an additional day or two a month of sittings by the board. Instead of sitting two days a month it could sit three or four days a month and if there is any backlog of work it could thus be easily taken care of.
Panels are not needed for that purpose. The minister wants to set up panels for the purpose of dividing the members of the board into sheep and goats. He wants panels for the purpose of emphasizing and underlining the rivalries which he regrets. He wants panels for the purpose of destroying the possible objectivity and impartiality of the board. He does not need panels to get the work done. That could be done by an extra day or two of sittings by the board.
The minister spoke about an appeal division. All of these points will no doubt be dealt with again by other hon. members, but let me say a word on this matter. Let me remind the minister that the philosophy behind all the labour relations boards in Canada and in the United States is perfectly simple and valid. It is that the labour relations board should be practical, should consist of men and women with practical experience in the labour relations field, and should be representative of the two interests concerned, namely, management and labour. It is that such a practical board, representing the people with whom the board's work is concerned, should be given the widest possible discretion to discover, on the basis of its practical experience, the best modus vivendi and modus operandi in the labour relations field, and the best way in which to do the work which will encourage peace and minimize the possibility of labour unrest.
For that reason, when the wartime board was first set up-and I will be glad to be corrected if I am wrong-a provision was inserted in the act whereby no lawyers were allowed to appear before the board. I am not concerned at the moment about whether I am right or wrong in this. What I am concerned about is the philosophy which was represented by that provision, namely, that the board's operations should be as informal as possible and as uncluttered as possible with legalities and the ordinary confining rules of evidence which necessarily govern proceedings in a court. The purpose behind the philosophy was that the functions and operations of the board should be informal and should stem and derive from the practical experience of its members, and that the board should seek to be as impartial as possible.

December 4, 1967
Industrial Relations Act This is why the act under discussion, as well as every other labour relations act in Canada with which I am acquainted, and I think I am acquainted with every one, contains a provision whereby the decisions of such boards cannot be appealed before the courts but are final and conclusive for all the purposes of the act. This is also why the present statute contains a provision that the board may reconsider any order or decision it has made. It is a simple philosophy that instead of appealing to another body which may impose on the board considerations and principles which the board has decided are unwise from its practical experience, the board is given an opportunity to reconsider any decision it has made, and if there are additional arguments or new evidence it is given authority under the act to vary or revoke any decision or order it has made. So far as is possible the act intended to keep the board free from legal formalities and from the procedures of appeal as well as free from interference from outside. It was to be a board that could work out on a practical basis, on the basis of its own experience, the kind of industrial life to which it has authority to direct itself.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I cannot help but suspect that this appeal board is not being set up for the purpose of appeal in any real, meaningful sense at all. This appeal board is not to meet a pressing necessity that exists, because the right to reconsider is there. Again, I cannot but suspect that this is also a subterfuge for a government not having the courage to change the composition of the board itself. I feel that by having an appeal division the same objective will be achieved in a roundabout way.
I have not heard from any labour source, unless I have failed to read everything I have	received-not	even from the
C.N.T.U.-any request for an appeal board. I doubt very much that any responsible spokesman for labour, no matter what organization he represents, will look with anything but dismay at this proposal for an appeal division. You will have the imposition on the practical experience of the board of the actions of two people from the outside who will sit in appeal. You will have a constant flow of appeals from the board to this appeal tribunal because, as the member for Ontario so wisely said, there is always a loser in these cases. The loser in almost every case will go to the appeal board, so it will be the appeal board that will make the policies of the board rather than this body composed

of the representatives of management and labour.
We will have to deal with the bill in greater detail when it comes before us. I should like also to join the hon. member for Ontario in congratulating the minister for undertaking to send the bill to committee before second reading. If he can accomplish that, it will be worth doing.
I want to say in conclusion-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: What I think the minister said was that he would send the substance of the bill to the committee, and I hope that can be accomplished.


Michael Starr: Don't back away from it now.


David Lewis: The question was, would he send the bill to the committee before second reading and he said yes, he would. As a matter of fact, I have some sympathy for the minister because I do not know whether the rules permit that.


Michael Starr: Yes, it has been done before.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I agreed to send the subject matter of the bill, not the bill itself.


Michael Starr: Before second reading.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: I do not
know whether I am right in saying so but I believe this matter should be decided in the house when the Speaker is in the chair, and not in committee.


David Lewis: As a matter of fact, I was going to say I wanted to pursue this argument at a more appropriate time. I reiterate that I join with the hon. member for Ontario in congratulating the minister upon undertaking, as I suggest, that the bill would be sent to a committee before second reading. I want to say that there are many areas in this act that do need amendment, and I am thinking of the conciliation procedure for the settlement of disputes and the whole machinery for avoiding labour strikes. The part that does not need amendment is the part that deals with certification and the Canada Labour Relations Board. Because of the objective which the minister has not been frank enough to put before the committee, the section to which we will be moving amendments is that section which experience and practice have shown works so well now for the people of Canada, for labour and management.
December 4, 1967


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is obviously the result of pressure put on the government by the labour unions which complain that they are badly treated or misunderstood by the Canada Labour Relations Board.
For example, the C.N.T.U. has complained many times about the Canada Labour Relations Board, and today the government is presenting the following resolution, and I quote:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to clarify certain powers of the board; to provide for the appointment of two vice-chairmen in lieu of one; to provide for an appeal division of the board; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who just resumed his seat, said that this resolution may have been introduced to please a given group or trade union. He was probably referring to the C.N.T.U. which had difficulties with the C.B.C. on a few occasions, but he did not want or he avoided to mention the C.N.T.U.
A moment ago, he expressed his lack of confidence in the introduction of a bill to improve labour and industrial relations, to clarify certain powers of the board, to provide for the appointment of two vice chairmen in lieu of one, and also to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Mr. Chairman, we find it difficult now to discuss this proposed measure which will be introduced, since it is not the bill itself that has been put before us but the resolution preceding the introduction of the bill in the house. Therefore, even if it is possible to guess at some of the provisions of the bill which will follow the resolution, we must wait until the bill is introduced in parliament to discuss them.
The hon. member for York South says that this bill should put a stop to the increasing number of strikes in Canada, but we are now witnessing rather difficult industrial relations, labour-management relations in England. In fact, there have been strikes in the nationalized railways as well as in other nationalized or public industries. There again, the theory of socialism, of the labour state was applied, and that does not seem to have settled many things. To have, in Canada, an organization, an industrial relations board or an employer-employee relations board that would act
Industrial Relations Act efficiently, study both sides of the question, consider objectively the existing problems or those that might crop up, I believe it would be a good omen.
I also think the minister is right in proposing his resolution and seeking authority to introduce a bill which we may discuss with all the necessary leeway and move amendments if we are not satisfied with its contents.
I believe we should support the immediate adoption of this proposed resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I shall await the bill which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) intends to introduce before making further comments.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the Minister of Labour introduced a resolution to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and gave specific details of the content of the bill and the purpose of the resolution. He pointed out that this act has not been amended since 1948. He also pointed out that the realities of the economy and of the labour market in Canada have changed considerably in these 20 years. He stated that the main purpose of the resolution and the bill to follow was to meet two problems, the increasing rivalry between trade unions, and the increasing work load of the board.
I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member for Ontario, a former minister of labour and chief critic of the Conservative party on labour matters, ask who wants amendments. He stated he did not know anybody who wanted the act amended and he questioned the resolution and the proposed changes. It seems to me the hon. member for Ontario must restrict his reading to English newspapers in Ontario. As one who would be a natural choice for minister of labour if he were re-elected to office, which is doubtful, he should be aware of the widespread criticism of the present composition of the board and the resultant injustice to French Canada in the set-up of the board.
While his leader was in French Canada over the week end preaching that we must give consideration to the two founding language groups in Canada, the hon. gentleman is telling us here that there is no criticism of this act in Canada. I should like to read a brief extract from the memorandum submitted to the government by the Confederation

December 4, 1967
Industrial Relations Act of National Trade Unions in which it is stated:
The act must be amended in such a way that when the two organizations-
The C.N.T.U. and the C.L.C.
-are in conflict over a question on which the board must make a decision, the two unions be represented equally.
This means in practice, Mr. Chairman, that there must be more representatives from the C.N.T.U. and less from the C.L.C. The minister has stated that there will be no change in representation on the labour relations board but that new methods would be devised to deal with this problem.
I think we must do something to correct the great feeling of injustice on the part of many trade unionists in the province of Quebec in relation to the board. One long-standing principle of British justice is that justice must not only be done but that it must be seen to be done. According to a great number of people in the trade union movement in Quebec, justice is definitely not seen to be done as far as the Canadian Labour Relations Board is concerned, especially in the matter of jurisdictional disputes.
As we all know, there are four representatives from labour and four representatives from the employers on the board. Of the four labour representatives, two are from the Canadian Labour Congress, one is from the railway unions and the fourth is from the C.N.T.U. In some of the decisions about which the C.S.N. has complained, three of the representatives-the two C.L.C. representatives plus the representative of the railways -have voted against the position taken by the C.N.T.U.
There is also another reason that the number of chairmen should be increased. At the moment, of the nine members of the Canada Labour Relations Board only three are French speaking. If there is going to be equal justice in this country for those who are French speaking as well as for those who are English speaking, then there must be a greater degree of bilingualism among the members of the Canada Labour Relations Board. So far there has not been this degree of bilingualism, the type of bilingualism that the leader of the official opposition has been preaching about since his election but which his chief labour critic does not seem to favour too much. At the present moment, Mr. Chairman, if a union which basically is comprised of French speaking members appears before the Canada Labour Relations Board it must

engage a lawyer to represent it who speaks good English. It must make sure that all its representations to the board are understood by the board.
With regard to the method of appointment to the board, it seems to me that while persons from English speaking Canada can be appointed to the board without the necessity of their knowing French, a French speaking member must know English before he can be appointed. Is this the type of justice we are trying to promote when we speak, as the Conservatives do, about respect for the two founding language groups in Canada?
No, Mr. Chairman, there is dissatisfaction with the present setup of the Canada Labour Relations Board. It is not simply that we must make amendments to satisfy one group; we must also be sure we have fair play and that we have justice, especially in the matter of jurisdictional disputes, from the Canada Labour Relations Board.
The Canadian Labour Congress dealt with this question in their last brief to the government of Canada. On page 28 this statement appears:
We wish to reiterate the position taken by us before the cabinet committee that we do not propose to accede to any change in the composition of the board which would reduce the number of congress nominees and add to that of the confederation. We say this secure in the knowledge that we are indisputably the major trade union centre not only in Canada as a whole but in the province of Quebec as well. The congress alone has members in every part of Canada. We do not propose to subordinate ourselves to a minor organization merely to satisfy the aspirations of its leaders.
As far as I can see, Mr. Chairman, legislation of this nature is not meant to satisfy the aspirations of a minority but to bring about greater fair play and justice. It also seems to me that the Canadian Labour Congress, which is the major labour group in Canada, should not condone the principle of the majority dictating to the minority. There should be justice for minority groups in Canada and recognition of their point of view by boards set up by the federal government.
I should like to quote some of the points made by the C.S.N. in an addendum to their brief to the federal government last year. They say:
We have frequently had considerable difficulty before the C.L.R.B. A federal body must accept the realities that exist in the country. If this is not done, and if the employees concerned by this matter do not obtain justice, the C.N.T.U. will seriously question its participation in the federal organizations, in the future-
December 4, 1967

A federal body like the C.L.R.B. cannot directly or indirectly be made the tool to shackle a free union for the benefit of an American union that is unacceptable to its members.
The latter point has reference to a situation where a large number of French speaking employees of the C.B.C. in Quebec rejected the previous union which was dominated by U.S. interests.
I suggest that there is much room for improvement in our labour relations law. The government has appointed the Woods commission to bring forward far reaching changes in the law, but in the meanwhile there are other changes that can be made to effect greater justice and fair play to other groups in Canada, whether they be from Quebec or from outside Quebec.
The minister must be commended for bringing forward this measure. I know that all members of trade unions, whether they belong to C.L.C. affiliated unions or to C.N.T.U. affiliated unions, will appreciate a greater flexibility in questions involving jurisdictional disputes, panels and appeals, thus ensuring a more complete hearing and greater justice than is the case at the moment. This will do much to unify and consolidate the labour movement in Canada.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer immediately the point made by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace who has just resumed his seat. I doubt that anybody in this chamber would object in the slightest to any change which might be necessary in order to give fair representation on this board to French speaking members. If that were the purpose of the bill to be introduced by this resolution and if it were clearly set out in that form, I doubt that any member of this house would have any objection to raise.
But it is not necessary to change the legislation in order to achieve the admirable objective stated by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. There is no need whatever to bring in legislation for that purpose. The government already has the necessary authority to do what is described. There is nothing in the act to prevent it. But if this were the purpose of the bill, why does the minister not tell us? He mentioned no such thing.
The answer is, of course, that the bill does not do what the hon. member has suggested. It does not provide for any additional French speaking members. Indeed, it provides for nothing which relates to the observations
Industrial Relations Act made by the hon. member who has just resumed his place. I can only suggest that this is another red herring introduced to prevent our looking very closely at the legislation.
I wish to deal with just one aspect of the resolution and that is the proposal to set up an appeal division. I cannot imagine anything more damaging to sensible decisions in connection with labour legislation than the setting up of an appeal division, a hierarchy of appeals within one single board, especially when this board is dealing with a relatively narrow subject matter. I myself had a good deal of experience a number of years ago with the first labour relations court ever set up in Canada, the Ontario labour relations court which was brought into existence in 1943. I appeared as counsel for a number of the parties before that court. The court did its best. On a number of occasions it rendered decisions favourable to labour, decisions which were regarded as fair.
My point is this. Representatives of both labour and management were agreed that the proceedings of the court were utterly unsuitable for dealing with labour relations matters, and the court was abolished within a short time. What were the reasons for doing so? They have already been indicated by my hon. friend from York South. They are that it is absolutely essential when dealing with labour relations to establish a tribunal which can act quickly and can act on practical grounds, not on the basis of legalistic considerations.
What is the purpose of the legislation now proposed? It is to provide a board which can promote the process of collective bargaining and lead to industrial peace. The main function of this board is to determine who shall represent the workers. If there is to be a hierarchy of appeal procedures set up within this board and if, as is possible, the position is made still more complex by further appeals to the legal courts of the land, we may easily reach a situation which has already been reached in the United States where after a union has applied for certification legal proceedings can drag on for four years, by the end of which time it is possible that the organization concerned no longer exists or the parties have long settled their differences without benefit of the procedures of the law. It is totally wrong to introduce here arguments which are appropriate to the constitution of courts. We are not constituting a court in this instance. Yet we create, in

December 4, 1967
Industrial Relations Act effect, a court if we induce public spirited people from outside to hear appeals from decisions of the Canadian Labour Relations Board or any division of it.
The minister showed his tendency to think in lawyer-like terms when he referred to the Supreme Court of Canada and suggested that the Canadian Labour Relations Board needed additional panels because they are needed in the Supreme Court of Canada. But the Supreme Court of Canada has to hear appeals in connection with totally different systems of law and it is obviously appropriate in this instance that the court, or the majority of the court, should be trained in whichever legal system they are administering. But here we are dealing with industries which are by definition national industries of national scope. It would be an extraordinary thing were two different groups dealing with the same code, the same system, to apply it in different ways in different parts of the country.
Above all, the proposal to introduce a hierarchy of appeals represents the introduction into the field of labour relations of a concept which has no place there. It could only lead to delay, confusion, frustration and jealousy; it could only make the whole operation fail to do its job in promoting peaceful labour conditions.
When I see such poor reasons advanced in favour of this resolution as those which have been given us so far, I am bound to repeat the question asked by my hon. friend from York South: What are the indirect purposes behind the introduction of this resolution? I do not think we have been given any frank statement. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace suggested a grievance on the part of the province of Quebec. If the purpose of the resolution is to remedy this grievance, let us hear from the minister and consider whether there is a better way of doing it than by messing up legislation which has worked reasonably well in the past. We are all interested in the terms of the bill itself but I express a great deal of reserve about this legislation, relieved only by the undertaking that the subject matter will be referred to a committee of the house where it can be fully examined before second reading.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to take part in the discussion at this stage. I thought we would have the opportunity of speaking on second reading. If this bill is referred to a committee, I hope it will

be after the house had had the opportunity to decide on the principle of the bill. However, as we do not seem to be quite decided yet, I should like to make a few remarks.
It was mentioned, that the field of labour relations is very specialized. It has brought about the establishment of special courts, either for certification or for conciliation. Surely, as was mentioned, the problems involved are not only legal problems, but first of all economic and social problems of a very special character which ordinary courts are not prepared to consider objectively.
In discussing such a bill, however, one can be sentimental or even angelic Mr. Chairman but I think that, at the present time, it is not the government that is evading the issue but those very people who would have this house believe that arbitration boards, labour relations boards are not what they are, that is to say, organizations representing interest groups. And that is not hypocrisy; that is just the way it is.
It happens, for instance, that labour representatives on conciliation boards, if my information is good, never signed a minority report favourable to the employer, and I have no recollection of having seen a representative of the employer signing a minority report favourable to the workers. Even if they are very objective, that never happened.
I have never seen, in the Canada Labour Relations Board, members of the Canadian Labour Congress voting against one of their unions concerned, when it was in conflict with another union. It happened that the members of the Canadian Labour Congress divided when they had to deal with two requests coming from their own central committee, but never in the case of one request only coming from a union under the congress. Evidently, it is entirely coincidental.
There is, of course, that objectivity the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) mentioned. However, his objectivity is only in his head because in practice-and apart from that-the act did not want those people to be objective in the sense that is expected of a judge in a regular court. In fact, there was so little desire for them to be objective that the board was set up on a parity basis: four representatives of the employers on one side and four representatives of the workers on the other. Why was that? If those people are objective, why are they chosen thus on a parity basis in each group? Because it is a well known fact-and the hon. member for York South knows it as well as I do-that
December 4, 1967

those people represent various interests. It does not mean that they are dishonest, but they are there to represent the interests of their central committee and their affiliated groups and when they do that, they comply with the spirit of the act.
Why say in this house that we are trying to destroy the present objective character of the Canada Labour Relations Board?


David Lewis: Because it is the truth.


Jean Marchand: It is not true. We want simply to make sure that some present-day wrongs cannot be committed by the board whose members represent interested parties, which is quite normal.
Moreover, I think, personally, that such a representative character of labour relations boards should be maintained, for this is a tried and true formula in the labour relations field. However to say that we would destroy the objective character of the board, just because we want, in some cases, to balance out the board in order to prevent any wrongdoing, is just too much. This argument would hold, perhaps, for someone who has never seen a labour relations board in operation, but I disagree, being quite aware that the people who represented my local within the Canada Labour Relations Board spoke for my local, just like others spoke for the F.Q.W. and employers' representatives spoke for management. In my estimation, there has never been any question of some other form of objectivity in the act.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, to talk about a subterfuge, is really to go a little far. In fact, when a labour union, which is not represented on the board or has a minority representation, comes before this body and sees its case lost from the beginning or cannot obtain justice, because of the interplay of interests and the natural tendencies and concepts of the representatives, I think that any impartial and fair person should be ready to reconsider the structure of this board-bearing in mind the cases I have referred to-in order that all the Canadian citizens, all the organizations-not only a few, but all-may be assured of a fair treatment by the Canada Labour Relations Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking only of the unions affiliated to the C.N.T.U. but of all those which, by accident or in conformity with the constitution of the board, are not represented on this board, because-and our friends in the New Demo-
Industrial Relations Act cratic party surely know this as well as I-there are various interests in the labour field. There are the interests of the unions and those of the employers. Because of the differences which exist between the labour unions in Canada, there are presently many cases where the employers, and not the union representatives, decide what union will be recognized. As soon as the union group is divided, the balance of power rests with the management. Is that normal? Is that what we want? Is that the power we want the management to have? The right to make the decisions for their employees, for their union? The opposite is true in other sectors of the economy, Mr. Chairman.
Without mentioning any name, I know that when an employer enjoys a normal and friendly relationship with a labour organization, it is customary for that employer, within the Canadian Labour Relations Board, if that organization has some interests to promote, to support-unless there are policy objections-the union applying for certification, because it is, of course, indirectly in its interest. It is normal. We wanted it that way, so let's not bring up questions of objectivity.
Why, Mr. Chairman, are ministers asked to divest themselves of private interests, of directorships in companies? Is it because the House of Commons does not trust the objectivity of the present ministers or those who might be appointed eventually? It is not for that reason, but because if they had private interests, their objectivity would be in danger.
That does not mean that the members of the board are dishonest people; let no one put in our mouth things we have never said. Personally, I think that the members of the board are honest people, whether they belong to the Canadian Labour Congress or they are appointed by employers. I think that most of them-all those I know, anyway-are people upon whom I would rely in any case, except in cases where they have private interests. It is normal then for the legislator to balance the representation within the board so that the interests at stake are not sacrified to the process of law. That is all we want to do; we are seeking to preserve the principle of representation of the parties concerned within that board. However, it is impossible to have them all represented on the C.L.R.B.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
There is, at present, the main labour organization, the Canadian Labour Congress. On the other hand, there is the C.N.T.U. which has only one representative. There are

December 4, 1967
Industrial Relations Act also other unions, which may be bona fide unions or still to be established, and which are not represented on the C.L.R.B. Does this mean that because they are not represented on the C.L.R.B. they will not have the same privileges as the unions affiliated to the C.L.C.? Does this mean that some citizens, some free organizations in Canada will not be treated like the others? Does the house want to treat various groups differently? I do not think so.
I know full well that certain groups were defeated before the Canada Labour Relations Board strictly bcause they did not have representatives to fight for their interests. It is obvious. Everyone knows it. Look around and see how the world of labour insists that it must be represented everywhere. Is it because labour fears a lack of objectivity on the part of those who are appointed by the government? No. It is because they have interests, points of view and is just what those boards need.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this resolution is precisely to see to it that the structure of the board will ensure fairness, not just accidentally, but because it is made up of good men; indeed, its structure should at least ensure balance in every case, especially in cases of conflict.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it has been mentioned


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I did not understand, but what structural change has been suggested?


Jean Marchand: I beg your pardon.


David Lewis: What structural change in the board has been suggested, I have not heard anything about it.


Jean Marchand: It is in the resolution before us, Mr. Chairman-excuse me if I remained standing-where it is mentioned that an appeal division of the board will be provided. For the benefit of the hon. member for York South, this changes the structure, as a matter of fact, it is a new structure. That is why I say that we have tried to create a structure that would really guarantee impartiality.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I am sure of one thing, and it is that a body, like the Canada Labour Relations Board, or any other body set up to render justice in Canada, must provide guarantees of impartiality, and this board, just like any government department, must not belong to any

particular organization. Nobody has the right to monopolize the labour relations boards or any other organization dealing with labour relations. Unfortunately at the present time, it is too often the case. This is the condition which we wanted to correct.
There has been some reference earlier to the splitting of competing unions and to the fostering of division in labour ranks.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the arguments of upholders of labour unions are very weak when they depend on the law to bring Canadian unions together. I question very much their judgment and their wisdom. The labour movement itself can unify not only its structure but also its bargaining units. When the labour movement must rely on legislation to achieve such unity, I find it extremely weak and disappointing, because under this resolution and later, under the bill, nothing will prevent the unity of the labour movement from trying to have bargaining units of the size they choose.
On the other hand, efforts are made to maintain privileges and particularly to cover the voices of some who are being heard and who, on occasion, are being flattered for other purposes. But when a practical problem arises, it does not work any more, it is good only for statements of principles.
When the special status and the two nations theory or the awareness of various environments in Canada are involved, it always goes well in principle, but as soon as an attempt is made to alter legislation so as to eliminate excessive privileges, to correct abuses, then the question of objectivity and the traditions in the labour world are invoked.
To my mind, Mr. Chairman, the greatest tradition in the labour world is to seek justice not only for such and such a labour organization but for all labour organizations and for all workers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I earnestly hope that students of this matter will take the trouble to read side by side the speeches that have been made today by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Particularly I would ask those who read their speeches to note the purpose of this legislation, first as given by the Minister of Labour and now as given by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. We were told by the Minister of Labour that there were administrative reasons, a backlog
December 4, 1967

of work and things of that sort. When my colleague the hon. member for York South suggested there was a certain amount of subterfuge the Minister of Manpower and Immigration came clean-


Jean Marchand: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I did not speak about the panels at all. I think the Minister of Labour referred to the panels.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member wants to be fair but if he will look at what I said he will find that I referred to the fact that as a result of the historical background there would be three members on the board from one organization as against only one from another. Not only must justice be done but it must appear to have been done. That is the import of the statement of my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I still think it would have been better had the ministers compared notes before they spoke rather than attempt to rationalize their speeches afterward. The main purpose of the speech of the Minister of Labour seemed to be to indicate that there were administrative difficulties and a backlog of work and certain other problems to be solved. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration came clean and told us that in his view the general purpose of the legislation is to alter the balance of labour representation so far as the Canada Labour Relations Board is concerned.
The main thing that is wrong with this legislation is that it has been drawn in a dishonest fashion. I say to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that he is trying to have it both ways. Either the appeal provision and the panels that the Minister of Labour proposes to set up do what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration wants, namely, redress the imbalance, in which case the Minister of Labour is misleading us, or they do not, in which case the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is misleading those who wish this to be done.
I suggest that the proposal by the Minister of Labour that this matter not proceed to second reading but rather be referred to the committee on labour and employment is a good one. I believe in that case we could persuade the government that the bill ought to be torn up and drawn over again. If the purpose of the bill is what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration says it is, then
Industrial Relations Act let it be drawn in that way. If there is a backlog which cannot be taken care of by extra days of sittings in the month or if there is a need to get other people on the board to represent other groups, then let them increase the size of the board. The more we look at the proposal and the more the minister tries to justify it the more this legislation appears to be one of these attempts to do indirectly what the government is not prepared to do directly. The best thing we can do in respect of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is to keep the subject matter before the committee until the government decides to bring in a properly drawn piece of legislation or until the session ends.


David Lewis: Until we have an honest piece of legislation.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: You have not seen it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Postmaster General had a piece of legislation which we did not get an opportunity to see either, but we have had statements from the two ministers telling us what this legislation contains. The Postmaster General is quite right; we have not seen the legislation. All we are going to see now is draft legislation. I hope that in that form we will be able to do something about it.
There is another point I should like to make when we are discussing the amendments of the Minister of Labour. We want to complain bitterly and strenuously about the things the Minister of Labour is not bringing forward. May I remind him that four years ago this very month, in November, 1963, his predecessor, the then minister of labour and present Minister of National Health and Welfare, assured us that at the earliest possible moment the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act would be brought before parliament for amendment with respect to matters that needed amending.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
May I remind the minister also that two years ago this month, in November, 1965, the Freedman commission published its report in which there was spelled out a whole new concept of the rights of workers with respect to their jobs. I need not go into the details of the Freedman commission report. In the main, while admitting that management had certain rights, it stated that when it came to technological changes the least that should be done is to make them negotiable with the workers. The right of the workers to their jobs was spelled out very clearly in the

December 4, 1967
Industrial Relations Act Freedman report. We tried to get something done about that report when we had other legislation before us but we were put off and told that this was something which was related to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and could come in the future. Here we are, two years since the Freedman report and four years since the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his former portfolio assured us that this act would be amended, and we now have before us only the unnecessary proposals mentioned today.
In the meantime the urgency of these other problems has grown. Only a few days ago my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, asked a question about what was happening to a skilled group of employees, namely the railway telegraphers in the city of Winnipeg and other places who are being laid off because of technological changes. The purport of my colleague's question was, will the government in the near future be bringing forward legislation to implement the recommendations of the Freedman commission? This question was asked on November 27 and is recorded in Hansard on page 4716. The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, no legislation is contemplated for introduction at this session to implement any such recommendations.
We have heard questions today about layoffs by the Canadian Pacific Railway to take place between Christmas and New Year's. Also alluded to today by the leader of this group was the question of whether the timing of these lay-offs between Christmas and New Year's will affect the right of these men to pay for Christmas day, Boxing day and New Year's day. This brings up the whole question of the difficulties the Department of Labour has had in administering the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, particularly with regard to both general and annual holidays.
The minister may say that this is another piece of legislation and not the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Let me remind him that not only do some of us think that these various pieces of legislation are related, but when the Canada Labour (Safety) Code was passed by this parliament last session it contained section 30 which gave the commission that is revising the statutes of Canada the power to put into one statute of Canada the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, the Canada Labour (Safety) Code, the Female Employees Equal Pay Act, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act

and the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. In other words, by bringing that section before us the minister himself admitted that these various pieces of legislation are integrally related.
It is in respect of some of these other pieces of legislation that we are having difficulty in interpreting the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and in getting the government to move on the Canada Labour (Safety) Code. Something desperately needs to be done about these matters. We get nothing out of the minister about these other problems, yet he comes along today with this piece of legislation that is totally unnecessary.
May I take a moment or two longer to emphasize the seriousness of the problem created by technological change and what it means to some employees. I mentioned the small group of railroad telegraphers who have been told by the C.N.R. that their positions will be eliminated. The employees concerned feel that this is in violation of a clause of their contract and that they should be protected against this kind of thing by labour legislation. I also think they should be protected. In the meantime all the company says to these employees, who at the moment are skilled persons with average earnings of $3.07 an hour, is that there are certain positions in the Canadian National services which are vacant and that they may be able to pick up some of these jobs.
What are some of the positions that these $3.07 an hour telegraphers are being told they can get? There are positions in dining cars at $1.99 per hour and positions as labourers at the Fort Garry hotel in Winnipeg at $1.28 per hour and so on. As a matter of fact the communication from the C.N.R. to these employees lists a whole page of various jobs that are open, but they all range from $1.28 per hour up to around $2 per hour. None of them equals the $3.07 an hour they are now receiving.
Undoubtedly the lay-offs the railways are making at Weston shops at Winnipeg, Ogden shops at Calgary, Angus shops at Montreal, and at Fort William and other places are due in part to automation and technological progress. If there is one overriding factor that faces us so far as the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is concerned it is the need for inclusion in that legislation of something along the lines of the recommendations of the Freedman commission report. Yet despite the fact that for four years we have been told that this legislation was going to be amended and despite the fact
December 4, 1967

that the Freedman report has been around for two years we can still get nothing out of the minister or the government on this very important matter.
The Minister of Labour and his colleague who is now sitting with him, no doubt briefing him on a few procedural rules, go about the country making speeches. The theme of many of the Minister of Labour's speeches is positive industrial relations in the new environment. I have read many of them with interest and I suggest there is a need for positive industrial relations. There is a need for the government to get into the picture and help solve problems rather than fight battles, and I am using some of the minister's own words. One of his interesting statements was to the effect that there is a greater need for more fire prevention officers than firemen. This speech was made in Vancouver on November 7 of this year.
The minister also referred to the task force on labour relations set up by the Prime Minister and headed by Dan H. D. Woods. In the speech he made at Vancouver on November 7 the minister said he was hopeful that we would have the advantage of at least an interim report of the Woods task force within the next few months. If we are going to have any further delay in amending the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act we should at least wait until we have the benefit of the Woods report. But no, we have nothing advanced on the basis of the Freedman commission report and we have nothing proposed by the government to deal with the serious problems facing railroad telegraphers and the others I have mentioned. No attention is being paid to the suggestions that may have been made to the government by the Woods commission. Instead, we have this piece of legislation today. This is something that the Minister of Labour did not make clear, but it has been made clear by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Therefore, I join with those who have said it is unfortunate this legislation is before us at this time. If it were to carry in its present form, far from doing the things the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and others hoped it might do I suggest it would make the job of the Canada Labour Relations Board impossible, and the reasonably satisfactory job of certification the board has done would become impossible. The net result of all these changes will not be good and will be inimical to labour relations in this country.
For these reasons I am glad the Minister of Labour has made it clear that instead of
Industrial Relations Act
proceeding with second reading of this bill at the present time the subject matter will be referred to the committee on labour and employment where I hope we will be able to do a real job on it.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I think this is an appropriate time for me to rise, because it is obvious from what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said that the intention of his segment of the opposition is to use the fact that the bill may be sent to the committee as an excuse to defeat this legislation. Obviously the purpose of that part of the opposition is to destroy the bill. If that is the intention let me remind hon. members that I made it clear this afternoon that this matter could be dealt with in another way. What I said in answer to the hon. member for Halifax was that I hoped this bill would be referred to the committee at the earliest possible moment. In answer to a further question by the hon. member, who asked if the bill would be referred to the committee before or after second reading, recalling what had happened on an earlier occasion when a bill in which I was interested came before the house and was referred for clause by clause discussion to a committee of the house rather than to committee of the whole, I expressed the hope that in this case we would follow such a course. If the hon. member has in mind that by following this course he is going to destroy a bill that the government thinks is urgently needed at this time I can only say that his hope will not materialize, and the sooner that fact is understood or appreciated, the better.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, will the minister explain what he means? I am a little slow catching some of these nuances.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition may I say that on an occasion a year or so ago-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, Mr. Chairman. My question is, what does the minister propose to do now?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: When the bill comes up for second reading the subject matter will be dealt with in the light of the observations made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the minister, using his own method of interpreting my speech, is withdrawing

December 4, 1967
Industrial Relations Act the clear commitment that he gave to this committee?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Certainly he is.


Jean Marchand: No, that is not what he said.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There are a few comments that I feel I should make before this resolution is put to a vote. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, commenting on alleged differences in the remarks made by my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and myself, picked certain statements out of context. I would like to make it clear that when I was dealing with the motion I dealt with all four aspects that are covered in the motion. I referred to clarification of the powers of the board, and I gave an indication of why changes might be needed. I then referred to the history of the board and said there were three votes to one when it came to certain votes within the board. Without questioning the integrity of individual members of the board the fact that I mentioned there were three votes to one is an indication that the government feels that in the opinion of some people at least justice must not only be done but it must appear to be done, and when you get three votes to one this question is bound to arise in the minds of some people.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration dealt with one aspect only; I dealt with all four aspects of the matter. I dealt with the necessity for clarification and the desirability of appointing an additional vice chairman. I will be perfectly frank and say that one reason I think this should be done is that perhaps 35 or 40 per cent of the applications that come before the board are from French speaking parts of Canada, and neither the chairman nor the vice chairman speak French. Let us be frank, realize this, and agree that in fairness we should have a second, a bilingual, vice chairman so that at least one of the three senior officers of the board has a knowledge of our second language.


David Lewis: No one objected to the second vice-chairman.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I did not go into detail in this respect because I said the appropriate place to go into it in detail was in committee when the bill was before it. I dealt with the advisability and desirability of having

panels. Panels work well in other tribunals and there is no reason why they should not work here. The work of the board has, as I have already mentioned, increased by about 40 per cent, and having regard also to the changes that have taken place in industrialization in Canada there are good reasons why one panel of the board might not necessarily sit in Vancouver and another in the maritimes or the prairies of western Canada. There is no reason why the whole board should be taken out to these areas when it could sit as a panel, for example, where there is one matter of special interest to workers in the province of Quebec. We do not need the whole board to deal with that question. A panel could deal with the particular problem and another panel could be dealing with a matter of greater or lesser importance in another part of Canada.
The board is comprised of very busy men. It is true they usually sit for only two or three days each month. But they are busy executives as well as labour leaders. If they are to devote more and more time to the work of the board we are not likely to obtain the same calibre of men as we have had on the board. There is an advantage in having them sit in panels as do our courts. No one suggests that we do not get, from any one of the two or three divisions of the court of appeal of the province of Ontario or any one of the two or three divisions of the court of appeal of the province of British Columbia, the same justice as if the full court was sitting. There is an appeal from these courts to the Supreme Court of Canada. They frequently sit in divisions or panels to take care of situations that arise in different areas.
Nobody is trying to suggest for one moment, and certainly the Minister of Labour is not trying to do so, that one of the difficulties we are attempting to overcome in this legislation is not to make sure that not only will justice be done when the board decides something but that it shall appear to be done. That is one of the basic questions at issue today.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit me to ask him a question arising out of his discussion of justice being done and the matter of balance? For the information of the committee, could the minister inform us from what sources the present employer members were appointed?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I
believe the views of the Canadian Chamber
December 4, 1967

of Commerce are sought. Usually they nominate one member. The views of the Canadian Manufacturers Association are also sought. They nominate a member. The views of the railways are taken into consideration and they nominate a member, although the railway employer representative has been on the board since 1944, I think, when it was originally constituted as the wartime labour relations board. There has never been any change there. He is getting on in years but is still doing pretty effective work, I believe. He is over 80 years of age. There has been no change in that representation for 24 or perhaps 25 years.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear at the outset that I am not opposing the passing of the resolution and as far as I know none of my associates are opposing its passage. But I must say to my old friend the Minister of Labour-and anything I say, of course, does not reflect on him-in any personal sense-that I am appalled at what I have seen here this afternoon. The minister gave an assurance as to what the procedure would be, that the bill would be referred to committee after first reading. I do not think there is any question at all as to what the assurance was. One could not help but notice certain conferences taking place after the assurance was given, and now the minister has withdrawn that assurance.
I can only say in a spirit of friendliness to my hon. friends opposite that this sort of behaviour, this giving of assurances and then failing to carry them through, is of course one of the principal reasons why there are few people in the country who have any confidence in my hon. friends opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When they give an assurance to the committee they should carry it through. As far as I am concerned, all this has nothing to do with the merits of the resolution and I do not propose, as I say, to vote against it because of the withdrawal by the minister of an assurance he gave to the committee.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
As I said to the minister in all seriousness through you, Mr. Chairman, the minister, having made this statement to the committee' should stand by it. It was right of him to have made it in the first place, but now he should stick to his guns. Such action would reflect more credit upon his associates and
27053-316J
Industrial Relations Act himself rather than for him to waffle because some of his colleagues have spoken to him and have advised him against this move.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I should simply like to draw attention to the actual words I used which were: "It would be my hope that it would be done before second reading."


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the comments of the Leader of the Opposition require some clarification. To describe the statement made by the Minister of Labour as an assurance is going a bit far. The minister stated that it would be his hope to send the bill to a committee right away, and it is obvious that by "right away" he meant before second reading.
There are only two motions that can be moved. One is for the minister to say: "I move that bill X be referred to the committee", which under standing order 77 would be ruled out of order immediately, and the second motion would be to move that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter of the bill be sent to a committee. We know that this has been done on several occasions, but it has been done in a spirit of co-operation when members of the house were more interested in studying the clauses of the bill than in destroying it. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests we should refer the bill to the committee where it will be torn up and destroyed. My hon. friend then complains when the government refuses to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not what I said.


David Lewis: He suggested the government should be persuaded to bring in a new bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, so that it could be destroyed in the committee and another bill brought in with different purposes. I think it is going a bit far to suggest that the minister should move that the bill go to a committee before second reading when notice has been served by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the purpose of the exercise is to destroy the bill.


Mr. Fulion:: May I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether, as leader of the house, he is not perfectly aware that he did not enumerate all the alternatives available to the Minister of Labour and to the government? It is perfectly possible for the government to give notice of a motion that the standing committee have referred to

December 4, 1967
Industrial Relations Act it the subject matter of a bill. This would not destroy the bill but would refer its subject matter to the committee, and its place on the order paper would not be affected. The minister carefully omitted that well understood and frequently used device by which the subject matter of a bill is in fact referred to a committee without there being any necessity for the formal motion that the bill be not now read a second time or any other formal proceeding which would delay or prejudice the bill in any way whatever. The simple course available to the government is to support the undertaking of the minister without prejudicing the progress of the bill through the house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, we have not opposed sending the bill to a committee. The minister is proposing the reference of the bill to a standing comittee after second reading in the house. What is not being agreed to, and I think we should be clear about it, is the reference of the subject matter to a committee before second reading when it is the clear intention of at least one group in the house to destroy the bill. The only course which the government would have open to it subsequent to delaying tactics in the committee would be to start afresh. My hon. friend has suggested another procedure. Quite frankly I would be happy to consider if if he would give us one or two precedents.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I suggest it is monstrous for any minister to suggest that merely because two speeches have been made by members of the New Democratic party-and I will not deal with the merits of those speeches-the government will withdraw the clear and specific commitment made by the Minister of Labour. There is no question that it was made. Further, I want to leave this thought with the Minister of National Health and Welfare who has suggested two alternatives. I say to him there is a third alternative, namely that with unanimous consent it is possible to sent the bill to a committee for consideration without prejudicing its place on the order paper. I am quite sure from what has been said that the members on this side would be agreeable to doing this if the minister were prepared to go ahead with his original commitment to refer the bill to the committee before second reading.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a few words to this interesting debate.

because it was I who raised the question originally. There was not only one exchange involving the Minister of Labour but two. The first one has already been referred to, but I should like to point ,out that at least twice during his speech, to which the Minister of Labour was listening very attentively, for Ontario made the following points. First of all, immediately after my exchange with the minister the hon. member for Ontario said: "Mr. Chairman, in view of what the minister has said"-that the house would not be asked to approve the principle on second reading but that every opportunity would be given for representations to be made in committee-"I certainly do not intend to take up too much time at this stage."
May I also say parenthetically that a great many members of the party to which I belong at that point decided to refrain from making representations and to let the hon. member for Ontario speak for us inasmuch as we would have the opportunity to discuss the bill in committee. The Minister of Labour did not rise to speak when the hon. member for Ontario made that point and he did not object to it. Later in the same speech-


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member reading from a document which is available to members of the house?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am reading from the running copy of Hansard which I have temporarily purloined from a privy councillor.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, is it the practice of the house to allow members to make use of the blues? If that is to be the procedure in the house, may we all have copies of the blues so that we can follow the text?


Mr. Grafftey:: The hon. member will have the blues soon enough.


Maurice Rinfret: I am informed that it has not been the practice of the house for members to read from the blues, which are not an official document. Since I did not object when the minister did so perhaps the hon. member should also be allowed to do so so that both sides can be heard.


David Lewis: I suggest that the hon. member for Halifax should refer to what was said from memory.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not quarrel with the decision of the Chair but I have had a chance to refresh my
December 4, 1967

memory. The second time that the hon. member for Ontario made the point to the Minister of Labour he said, and I recall his words very well, that he had agreed to refer the bill to follow this resolution to a committee before second reading. He said, as I recall his words: The minister has agreed to send the bill to follow this resolution to the committee before second reading. Twice the hon. member for Ontario used the phrase "before second reading". I raised the question twice and used the words, "before second reading".
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Then there was an exchange involving the hon. member for York South who referred to all the friendly arm twisting that was going on involving the Minister of Labour and his colleague the house leader as well as the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. An attempt was made to change the meaning even though the Minister of Labour said that he had followed exactly this course on a previous occasion and he did not see why he could not do so now. It is a shame the blues are not distributed to every member in the house because the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra would have to eat his words. We were told one thing this afternoon, and now they turn around and deny what they told us.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow we will all have an opportunity of reading Hansard and checking more carefully our recollections of what was stated. I have stated, as the Minister of Labour has done, the reason for not sending this bill to a committee before second reading. I base my conclusion upon two lines of action. The hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Peace River have stated it is possible to move a motion that will allow this to happen, namely, that the bill may go to a committee before second reading without the bill losing its position on the order paper. This suggestion is worthy of consideration and will be considered. We cannot consider any of these devices until the order for second reading is called.
It has to be made quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that the government, as the minister stated, is ready to have this bill go before a standing committee after second reading. There is a debate on whether it should happen before or after second reading and there is a very important principle involved, as has been declared by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. As far as we are concerned we are prepared to have this bill go before a committee. If hon. members can
Industrial Relations Act bring forward a method that will retain the position of the bill on the order paper, then we will consider even taking the other course.
However, we are not going to put ourselves in the position, through some procedural device, of carrying out the declared objective of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which is to destroy this bill. He is entitled to do that and he has so declared. We are entitled also to protect an important piece of government legislation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If my memory serves me right, on the earlier occasion that I referred to when certain other legislation came up I cannot say whether it was done by unanimous consent but the resolution did not lose its place on the order paper. I can assure you of that. What has disturbed me is the alarming declaration by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that he and his group are determined to destroy this bill. If that is his purpose, then that certainly was not in line with the pious hope I expressed earlier today.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One of the troubles with this government is that when anything happens to alarm them they change their minds, and their positions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Like most members of the House of Commons-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is the way
the old leader carried on.


Mr. Ricard:: It was effective in 1958.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are mutterings coming from the Secretary of State for External Affairs which I cannot hear but I am sure they are interesting. As I was saying, like most members of the House of Commons I like to think I carry some weight around here. I did not know I carried so much that I could scare the government away from a position in half an hour.


Mr. Churchill:: If you can scare them they are in bad shape.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the remark of my neighbour, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, reached the record. He said that if I could scare the government they are in bad shape. Apparently I have, and they are. Let a couple of statements be clear. The Minister of National Health and Welfare tried to tell us two or three times what the Minister of Labour said. He even read from

December 4, 1967
Industrial Relations Act the blues, which is not permitted. I do not have any blues so I will not read from them.


An hon. Member:: You are in the blues.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have not even seen the blues. The Minister of National Health and Welfare tells us that the Minister of Labour said he hoped the matter would go to committee as soon as possible. He stops with the word "hoped". Most of us were here and we heard the exchanges that took place. When the minister was asked by the hon. member for Halifax whether he was willing for it to go before or after, he said before. Several times during exchanges with the hon. member for Ontario the minister said, yes, before. On one occasion when he was put into a bit of a corner he said, the subject matter. Well, that is clear; the two things mean the same thing, sending the bill before second reading or sending the subject matter of the bill. It means sending the bill or its subject matter to a committee before the bill has had approval in principle on second reading.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that when we see Hansard tomorrow it will be very clear that the Minister of Labour made a commitment to this committee that the bill would be sent before we had the debate on second reading. Now, for the Minister of Labour to say that commitment is altered because of one speech of mine-boy, I am going to buy copies of Hansard for today and send them all over the country. One speech, and I have altered the position of the government. I hope I can do that tomorrow on something else.


An hon. Member:: Stanley for leader.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pas encore.


An hon. Member:: Jamais.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Jamais, oui. The Minister of Labour likes to quote the sentence in which I said I was against this bill and if we got it in committee we would tear it up. He suggests that I stopped there, but I did not stop there. I still believe that this bill, as the minister has outlined it to us, should be torn up and that it should be replaced by a better bill that would deal with the problems that are posed by the minister as well as by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. We should have a bill that deals with the important and pressing problems which I outlined a few minutes ago. To suggest, however, that because I want to get the bill drastically altered in committee the government has a right to go back on its commitment to the

committee of the whole is another subterfuge and, as the Leader of the Opposition says, is another example of the reason the Canadian people do not have confidence in this government.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the position of the government was clear when the Minister of Labour stated it. He repeated it three or four times. I suggest that commitment should be carried through and that this bill, before second reading, must go to a committee so the committee can produce a much better bill than the one which has been proposed this afternoon.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I am going to let the house leader in on a little secret. I watched him skittering around from seat to seat at the end of the speech delivered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated that when we got the bill in committee we would do a job on it. The Minister of Labour interpreted these remarks to mean we were going to do a hatchet job on it, which may or may not be the case. As most hon. members know, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been the whip of our party for quite a while. Traditionally, of course, the whip is a person of whom we stand in awe. I should like to let the Minister of National Health and Welfare know despite this I am apparently not as much afraid of him as is the minister.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has in part at least, put in perspective what he said, if the minister will consider the full context of his speech rather than simply the last few sentences. He dealt with what we in this party often view as a vacuum in a piece of government legislation. The minister will recall that the hon. member dwelt at some length on the fact that there was no suggestion that any of the principles of the Freedman commission report would be included in the bill.
I share his disappointment that in respect of matters that are really important to the working people of this country the proposal in the resolution, as we understand it, is so barren. I am sure that this disappointment is shared by all members of the New Democratic party in this house. I do not think the Minister of Labour should construe the closing remarks of the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as meaning
December 4, 1967

that the members of this party are not prepared to give fair examination to the proposals in the bill when we see it, because this we always seek to do. When we express reservations, as did the hon. member for Greenwood, about the advisability of there being an appeal division, we do not necessarily mean we oppose the idea of a second vice chairman.
Anyone who has been in this house for a little while and has observed what has been happening understands perfectly well the situation we are in. Apparently the practical suggestion of the Minister of Labour caught certain of his colleagues a little off base. It seems to me that the house leader became somewhat confused by the haze created by the smoke from the fiery speech made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and really did not keep in perspective what has been happening on this side of the house.
I was about to say that I hope the house leader will sober up but I will say "sober down" because this conveys the sense of my meaning a little more accurately. I hope he will not seek to circumvent the statement that we clearly understood the Minister of Labour to make as to his intention. I also hope he will realize that if he does seek to do so at this stage of the proceedings it will only result in needless misunderstanding when we deal with very important questions in the whole field of labour relations and collective bargaining in this country, some of which are perhaps dealt with in the minister's bill but many of which, from the context of the resolution, obviously are not.
My own feeling for what it is worth is that the minister's proposal would enable the labour and employment committee to do something it has not had the opportunity to do for quite a long time, namely, to explore the many important questions surrounding collective bargaining relationships between management and employee as they affect the I.R.D. Act in a broader way than would be the case if we were to confine ourselves to a cursory consideration of the bill after second reading.
I think that the original attitude of the Minister of Labour when he made this suggestion is much more likely to bring positive results than the course he is being pressed to pursue, if I am not mistaken, by his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I hope that during the dinner recess the government house leader, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, will sort this thing out in a spirit of parliamen-
Industrial Relations Act tary co-operation, somewhat in the vein suggested in an earlier speech by the new leader of the official opposition. As a result the committee would be able to approach examination of what is contained in the minister's bill not without differences of view but in a proper parliamentary spirit, at the same time enabling the members of the committee and perhaps some of the representatives who may appear before it to put forward their views in a broader context than might otherwise be the case if we dealt with the matter as the house leader seems to desire, purely within the narrow context of what will appear in the bill after second reading.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Nicholson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-186, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), Immigration, British Columbia- non-participation in refugee settlement plan; the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays), Canadian National Railways-transportation of live chicks-lower St. Lawrence; the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deach-man), Post Office Department, Vancouver- employment of postal truck drivers.
Pursuant to provisional standing order 6(1) it being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minisier of Justice: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting divorce, the grounds thereof, the jurisdiction of the courts, and for the appointment of

December 4, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
certain persons qualified to sit and act as judges and for their remuneration while so acting and for certain other provisions in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Chairman, for a long time divorce has rightly been a matter for concern to the Canadian people.
We felt duty bound, as a government, to reform divorce laws, to try and bring them more in line with the present social climate, without, for all that, runnng against the demands which are normal and worthy of respect of those who have reticences on that subject.
In trying to draft the present bill we met with two types of difficulties. The first, Mr. Chairman, is related to the field of federal-provincial relations and the second were mainly connected with the matter of conscience troubling a number of Canadians who expressed their views either through the various Churches or outside of them. Those Canadians are anxious, just as I am, to modernize the divorce laws of our society, while complying, at the same time, with that basic requirement that the present government considers essential, namely the necessity of surrounding the family with maximum protection.
With regard to the problems of the first group we proceeded as follows. Starting from the fact that under the Canadian constitution, divorce and marriage fall clearly and squarely within the jurisdiction of the central government we decided against shirking our responsibilities and we drew up an act dealing with the divorce problem, attaching to the solution of that problem measures of a corollary nature, that is which cannot be separated from the effects of a broken marriage as such.
We did so, Mr. Chairman, respecting as much as possible the current traditions and laws in the various provinces. The province of Quebec is known to have, in the field of marriage, a certain number of laws contained mainly in the Civil Code and forming part of the traditions in that province; it was essential that they should be respected.
But it should be remembered that other provinces too have had for a very long time their practices and their courts which, in the field of divorce had adopted certain procedures to which we wanted to bring some

degree of uniformity while bringing them up to date.
In regard to the second roup of problems, dealing with those I have included under the heading of problems of conscience and problems often referred to by religious organizations and by the churches, we have done two things. We have introduced in our legislation which Parliament will have the opportunity to see in a moment, special sections requiring the Court and the lawyers themselves to seek to reconcile the parties.
And we have also introduced in our legislation the concept of "the marriage breakdown" which is a concept that the churches themselves, in their joint briefs, have recommended.
This means, Mr. Chairman, that in this bill, we are taking into account, not only of the social problems which had to be solved but of the spiritual and moral problems and of the constitutional and legal problems.
IEnglish]
This bill, Mr. Chairman, represents an attempt to codify and extend the present laws of divorce applied in Canada along the lines recommended in the final report of the special joint committee on divorce dated June 27 last. That report contains some 21 recommendations respecting the subject of divorce and related matters. The bill adopts many of these recommendations, some of them in a modified form. In certain instances, the recommendations of the joint committee have not been adopted and with regard to other matters a somewhat different approach has been followed. We shall, of course, be considering these matters in more detail at later stages.
Speaking in more specific terms, I should say something about the grounds for divorce as contained in the bill. Hon. members will be aware that there has been a good deal of debate in recent times respecting the desirability of one comprehensive ground for divorce, namely marriage breakdown. My colleagues and I are aware that views to this effect are widely held by well-meaning people in this country, and indeed many of the Christian churches have advocated this approach.
While recognizing that this viewpoint has much to commend it, the bill has not been prepared on this basis, but retains the traditional marital offences as grounds for divorce, and includes as well a modified concept of marriage breakdown as a new ground for divorce. In so far as we are concerned
December 4, 1S67

with grounds for divorce, the bill can be fairly described as a composite one, recognising both marital offences and marriage breakdown. In this respect, the conclusions of the joint committee that breakdown could not constitute the sole and comprehensive ground for divorce, have been adopted.
[DOT] (8:10 p.ra.)
The new marriage breakdown principle contained in this bill, since it is to be administered by the existing courts in accordance with our well established judicial traditions, shies away from the vesting of any broad, undefined and uncontrolled discretion in the courts, in favour of a definition of legal rights by parliament. The result is that, the so-called inquest approach to divorce is rejected in favour of the customary judicial approach by which marriage breakdown will be established by evidence or proof of the existence of specified matrimonial situations.
For these reasons the government considers it desirable to maintain the administration of the divorce laws in the established courts of this country, to be administered pursuant to the rules or principles of law laid down by parliament, rather than invest a broad and uncontrolled administrative discretion in some new courts or tribunals.
Notwithstanding that hon. members will find that the grounds for divorce are being substantially extended by the bill, they will find that the bill is not simply or merely a divorce bill in the traditional sense. It is also a reconciliation bill, in that it imposes stated duties on both the legal profession and the courts in relation to the matter of reconciliation, and these provisions have been included in the hope that as many as possible of the broken marriages that come before the legal profession and the courts can be saved.
The government is fully conscious of the important public interest that exists in our society in relation to the maintenance and continuation of marriage and the family unit, where this is possible. The salvaging of marriages is at least as important as the burying of dead marriages that cannot be salvaged. However, a bill directed to the subject of divorce is not necessarily the most appropriate or only vehicle that can be employed to strengthen and give substance to the marriage estate. The government recognizes that financial assistance and encouragement may well be necessary to develop adequate counselling and other agencies that are necessary to deal with faltering or broken marriages, and it is the intention of the government to
Divorce Law Reform
keep this most important matter under continuous review.
The bill also contains provisions dealing with the law of domicile in so far as the existing law on this subject affects the position of married women in our society. An attempt has been made to place the married woman in a position equivalent to that of her husband for the purpose of obtaining a valid decree of divorce both within Canada and abroad.
No comprehensive bill on the subject of divorce would be complete without provisions for alimony, or pension alimentaire as the civil code of Quebec puts it, and for maintenance and the custody, care and upbringing of children. The bill therefore contains provisions dealing with these matters as corollary relief to petitions for divorce. Alimony, maintenance and custody orders made under the provisions of the statute will be enforceable by law throughout the whole of Canada upon being registered in the superior courts of this country.
The bill also contains provisions that will have the effect of abolishing parliamentary divorce, as we now understand it. In this regard we have departed a little bit from the report of the joint committee, but I think it is a step that this parliament is prepared to take. Therefore the Dissolution and Annulment of Marriages Act is to be repealed and divorce jurisdiction in respect of the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland will be vested, at least temporarily, in a new divorce division of the Exchequer Court of Canada.
I mention that this jurisdiction might be temporary because the bill also contains a provision which will enable the jurisdiction to be transferred from the Exchequer Court to the Superior Court of Quebec and to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland by a proclamation issued by the governor in council on the respective recommendations of the lieutenant governors in council of those provinces. The idea is not to force upon any province a mode of procedure in the courts that it is not prepared to attain, but to suggest that, when these provinces are ready, we are ready, and that in the meantime we take out of parliament this outmoded way of proceeding, whereby divorces for two provinces had to be dealt with by one of the houses of parliament.
Consequential amendments are therefore proposed to the Exchequer Court Act. These amendments will establish a divorce division of that court, with special provision being

December 4, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
made so that any person who holds, or who has held office as a judge of a superior or county court, may by special request sit and act as a judge of the divorce division. A special provision for the remuneration of such persons has been included to assure the judicial independence of such persons at all times. I am sure hon. members will realize that this is the reason we are proceeding now by way of resolution rather than by introducing a bill right away.
The bill will also contain detailed appeal provisions and a number of other matters that do not need to be discussed at this stage. However, it should be mentioned that there is a clause in the bill which will prevent it from coming into force for at least three months after it has been assented to. This provision has been inserted to permit the holding of such discussions or conferences as may be necessary to facilitate implementation of the new laws throughout the country.

I should like to mention here, Mr. Chairman, that such period of consultation should also allow the federal government and the provinces to discuss an extremely important other problem, that of judicial separation.
Hon. members will see that in this bill, we have dealt with divorce only; the problem of judicial separation has been, for the time being, I hope, temporarily set aside. Hon. members will readily realize the reason why we have chosen to proceed in this way. If we had included the matter of judicial separation in this bill, as it would have been easy to do when drafting this legislation, this bill would have raised very complicated problems of implementation in a number of provinces.
I do not refer here, Mr. Chairman, to constitutional problems because, although the matter is debatable, we feel that the judicial separation comes under federal jurisdiction, since it falls readily-


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the minister permit a question at this stage? Would he be prepared to say at this time whether or not the government has adopted as being valid the opinion given by E. A. Driedger who, in response to a request from the committee, furnished a legal opinion dealing with matters which are ancillary or related to the problem of marriage and divorce? The minister's answer might be helpful in discussing this matter at other stages.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: now deals with the matter of judicial separation. However, as hon. members will remember, the civil code of Quebec dates back to 1866, one year before confederation. Had we adopted anything without going through this type of consultation in respect of judicial separation, we would have been changing part of the civil code of the province of Quebec.
As I say, we could do this constitutionally, but this is not the kind of thing we should like to do without a great deal of prior consultation, especially due to the fact that the province of Quebec now is in the process of redrafting its civil code and the chapters on marriage. This type of argument is also true in respect of some of the other provinces which have varying provincial laws on matters of maintenance, the consequences of a judicial separation, and so on.

Mr. Chairman, that is why we have thought it simpler, in this bill, to deal only with divorce proper and its immediate aftermath. This three month period, following the enactment of the bill, shall be used not only to consult with the provinces, but also to discuss the extremely important matter of legal separation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, in just a few words I should like to indicate that we on this side of the chamber approve of reforming the divorce law, and consequently look forward to receiving the bill and examining it in detail. I do not propose to make any comment upon what the minister has indicated will be contained in the bill because, since the bill is already drafted, obviously anything I said would not in any event affect the measure as introduced. So, I should like to say simply that we will approve of the resolution and look forward to seeing the bill.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I should like my first words on this matter to be those of relief and pleasure at being in this house when, at long last, a measure of reform of our divorce law is to be brought before the house. I should like to congratulate the minister on having the honour to be the one who is introducing this legislation.
The archaic divorce laws we have had have caused untold misery to many thousands of Canadians. This measure of reform is long overdue. As the minister pointed out, parliament has had jurisdiction over this matter for over 100 years and yet has never 27053-317*
Divorce Law Reform
boldly exercised it in any way. It has legislated in a piecemeal way, usually merely by introducing the existing laws of England at particular stages of our history.
Mr. Chairman, not having seen the bill, I do not think at this stage it would be appropriate for me to enlarge on this matter at any length or comment at any length on what the minister has said. I think perhaps it is a truism, although one which I think ought to be said, that, notwithstanding the pessimists, marriage is thriving in Canada, fortunately very many Canadians find in the marriages and families a very great source of happiness. All of us must be concerned that we do not do anything to undermine or defeat the institution of marriage.
I believe we also must recognize that, despite any individual views of our own, none of us has any right to impose on others views which no longer are socially acceptable. One thing on which most, if not all, of us will agree is that the present law is entirely unsatisfactory. The single ground of adultery is a superficial and inadequate ground. It leads not only to the commission of the offence but also to fabrication and perjury which are a disgrace to the courts. There is also the problem of those persons who, finding marriage unacceptable or impossible, form common law unions, stable unions which can never be normal unions so long as divorce is what it is at the present time. There is the problem of children of such unions.
The minister has said that by and large the report of the joint committee, on which I happened to be a member, will be largely accepted. I cannot refrain, however, from expressing a measure of regret that the legislation is not accepting the clearcut choice which exists between the two basic theories in respect of the dissolution of marr:age. One is that the grounds of matrimonial misconduct upon which divorce can be based should be enlarged. The other is that the dissolution of marriage should be based upon the declaration that the marriage is dead; that is, that the marriage has broken down, and that there exists no longer any hope of reconciliation.
This is not divorce by consent; it is divorce by judicial decision. The mind of the judge would be directed to the question of whether there is hope of reconciliation, and not to the hopeless and futile exercise of deciding whose misconduct was responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. We would have much preferred to see the government accept the recommendation made initially by the

December 4, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
United Church and concurred in by many other churches. This is the recommendation that breakdown be the sole ground for dissolution of marriage. When I say "we" I am not of course speaking for my own party; I am speaking for some of us who were members of the committee, who looked into this matter and heard the representations which were presented. The reasons for stressing breakdown are many. I will not enlarge on them here. I feel, under the compromise choice that the government apparently has adopted, that lawyers will still advise their clients to go on the simple ground of matrimonial misconduct and that we will still be back to the same old questions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would the hon. member permit a question. As a lawyer, does he not think it is preferable that parliament should indicate to the courts the grounds which the lawmakers themselves feel indicative of a breakdown, rather than leave to the court the administrative freedom to make this kind of decision; is there not a question of legal propriety involved in this?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I think not. I believe the courts are perfectly competent to determine whether the marriage is in fact dead, for the many different reasons which may have resulted in this unhappy outcome. I think once you specify grounds you limit the grounds. Once the marriage has broken down, then I suggest the marriage is dead and it is the duty of the court to dissolve it.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Let me suggest that the basic ground involved in the breakdown of a marriage should be the finding of a court that there is no hope of reconciliation. The causes for that situation may be very many, including adultery, cruelty, desertion or a hundred and one other things. Once this fact, the fact of breakdown has been established, whatever the reason may be, then the court should be empowered to take action on that finding.
It is my personal belief that the courts can determine this question just as well as they determine today whether a mother or father under certain circumstances will make the best and most responsible individual to raise the children. This is a very general question, but I believe the courts can determine it, and should have assistance from social workers and others who have studied the background of the marriage in question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Could I ask the hon. member another question? If our bill included the
[Mr. Brewin.!
marriage breakdown concept would the hon. member see any objection to keeping also the other concept of marital offence?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes. I wish I had time to go into this at length, and perhaps on second reading I shall attempt to do so. I recommend that the minister should look again, as perhaps he has already done, at the very excellent survey of this whole subject called "Putting Asunder", which is a report made by a committee appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. That committee comprised a number of judges, sociologists, lawyers, groups of doctors and other people who, having had a law which enlarged the grounds for matrimonial misconduct on which divorce was based since 1937, came to the conclusion after careful study that this is not the best approach, but that the best approach was based on the principle of marriage breakdown, the other things being symptoms rather than causes.


William Warren Allmand: May I ask the hon. member a question? If we accept the marriage breakdown concept, is the hon. member not afraid that different judges in different parts of the country will devise their own philosophy of marriage breakdown with the result that in some jurisdictions it will be easier to obtain a divorce than in others, because in some areas there will be more liberal minded judges?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am not quite sure whether the hon. member is a lawyer, but if he is he will know that of course the personalities of judges differ. But there are rights of appeal, and jurisprudence can be developed on this subject just as well as on other subjects, such as the meaning of cruelty. I take it that the act will include cruelty as one ground for divorce. This is also a vague and general provision, yet the courts have to determine what is cruelty. One judge may recognize cruelty much more easily than another. I think this is inevitable in any human judicial system. I do not think this is a good enough reason to reject the concept of marriage breakdown.
I was attempting to deal briefly with a summary of my reasons for thinking the marriage breakdown concept is the best approach. In my view, and in the view of others, this system gets away from the present requirement for sordid proof of adultery. That is my first reason. The second is that it would afford in all cases the necessity of the court seeking a reconciliation, or at least the determination that the parties cannot be reconciled. I had hoped to hear the
December 4, 1967

minister say that some such provision would be included in the bill, but I cannot judge the bill until I see it. In any event, the whole concept of breakdown necessarily involves in almost every case a judicial investigation of the question of reconciliation.
Finally, this concept gets away from the false notion of a breakdown of marriage based upon matrimonial misconduct where one party blames the other, which is totally unreal I suggest in 99 out of 100 cases. The view I have expressed is not my own view or the view of a few people. It was supported before the committee by the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, the National Council of Women, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Comittee on the Status of Women and a number of lawyers and individuals who appeared and gave evidence. It is not in any light-hearted way that we put this suggestion forward.
I can understand that it is perhaps difficult to break away from traditions of the past, but I should like to express my regret that the government has not seen fit to accept what we believe to be the best approach, and has accepted what we consider to be the second best approach. This is not the time to go into this matter in great detail, but I should like to give the committee the definition taken by the law reform commission in England as to what a good divorce law should be. Good divorce law should seek to achieve the following objectives: to buttress rather than undermine the stability of marriage and, when regrettable the marriage has broken down, to enable the empty legal shell to be destroyed with a maximum of fairness and a minimum of bitterness, distress and humiliation.
I believe this bill will go some way in that direction, but there are improvements which can be made. It is my hope that the minister will be flexible, as I think he usually is, and will listen to suggestions that may be made at the committee stage. I understand there is to be provision in the bill for dealing with problems regarding the maintenance of a divorced spouse and children. This is as it should be and I hope there will be effective means for enforcement of any order that may be made in that respect.
We in this party and the people of Canada generally await with interest the specific wording of the bill. I have criticized the choice of the government and I will stick to that criticism. I regret that it has accepted something I think is second best. Neverthe-
Divorce Law Reform
less I should like to end as I began, by saying I think the minister shoul feel proud and honoured to be introducing in this house the first comprehensive measure on divorce reform this parliament has ever seen.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about this bill related to our divorce laws.
If I understood the minister's remarks correctly a few minutes ago, he stated that his bill was not meant to promote divorce as such, but rather to improve the current situation in Canada.
Now, if this is the purpose of the resolution and the bill to follow, I should say immediately that I support the minister, for I, too, believe that our divorce laws may need some improvement and amendment.
However, to improve the situation in a permanent and efficient manner, the government should particularly try to eliminate or prevent the causes of misunderstanding between members of the same family. Now, I think that poverty and destitution are the main factors of disunion, which unfortunately lead too often to a separation or a divorce. Those are two of the main reasons for disunion or misunderstanding, and I think the government could eliminate those points further by adopting truly social measures.
There are other causes as well. For exam-1 pie, I often see heads of families forced to go quite a distance to earn a living for their families and they are therefore unable to go and see their wife and children very often.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that is often another cause of disagreement and quarrel within large families, and I think a way might be found to prevent this. Today, heads of families are often forced to work far from home, in large as well as small towns. Moreover, the wives leave to seek outside work in order to make ends meet. Quite often, the husband and wife do not work the same hours; one works in the daytime, another at night, and sometimes vice versa. This means that sometimes they do not see each other for weeks. I think that there also social organizations should exert themselves on correcting this irregular situation.
There is a third cause which I would like to mention to the minister to-night, I mean alcoholism which is already widespread and is spreading even more, and which is a main cause of divorce, of discord. Alcoholism is spreading more and more in our country and

December 4, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
we notice that it sows the seeds of discord in homes and entails poverty. So when the wife-sometimes it is the husband, because alcoholism is spreading more and more among women-is weary of such of life, she is prompted to request divorce.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
So, I think we could almost completely eliminate the situations due to alcoholism by organizing an efficient war on this national plague. I understand that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) would find a reduction in his revenue, but I think that the whole population of Canada would gain considerably.
The best way to fight divorce is to eliminate its causes as much as possible. Obviously, there will always be some, but several can be eliminated if we work at it efficiently.
Whatever the bill the minister may introduce in the house, I hope that he will respect the sacred nature of marriage, the very basis of any society. In fact, if we go back in history we realize that the peoples, who are said to be the least civilized, attach great importance to matrimony and were respectful of it. So, we, who claim to be civilized, should be capable of bringing down the necessary legislation, effective legislation to improve the situation of our Canadian families.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that as the Minister of Justice spoke this evening his words were accompanied by a flutter of hope across this country from all those people who have waited so long for action in this regard, the people who have written to us as members of parliament, the ones who have signed their names and the ones who have not, and the ones who have been voices in the night on telephones wondering when something was going to be done, and hanging up in the midst of the explanation that it would take quite a bit of time before something could be done. I am sure that along with hope, scepticism will come from the thought that this chamber will spend too long debating a bill which I am sure will achieve a great measure of agreement across the country.
Surely by now we can separate the moral standards that individuals or groups of people might demand of themselves from the standards that should be written into the law of a land that has become increasingly secularized. I was pleased to hear that the
[Mr. Laprise.l
minister added the marriage breakdown concept to the grounds for divorce, thereby going beyond the report of the committee.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That is not correct.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is quite correct.


Howard Earl Johnston: I hope this chamber will not spend too much time in a contentious debate as to who is right or wrong and who has gained or lost in this regard, because surely if we pass the bill it will be given the test of time. If the grounds spelled out in legalistic terms are no longer necessary, their use would wither and the use of the marriage breakdown concept would grow; on the other hand, if it proved too contentious the reverse would be true and one would wither and the others grow.
I would add only one more thing, namely the wish that somehow we could prepare the sort of legislation that would make marriage itself a little more difficult to enter into, even as we are about to make it easier to dissolve. Surely one of our problems is that it is far too easy to enter into this most important contract, and subsequently to spend far too long trying to dissolve a contract that should never have been entered into in the first place.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, many of us have waited a good long time for this particular night. Quiet though the atmosphere be, it is a source of satisfaction to many in this chamber and many in the other place. In my own case I have been interested for a period of nine years in this subject, and I see members around who have been interested in divorce law reform much longer than I have. I know that in the other place new measures were introduced as far back as the start of the second world war, and foundered when they came over to this chamber.
I would like to compliment the Minister of Justice, a member of the swinging set, if I may say so, for bringing in the legislation. As I understand his remarks, the bill is largely based on the report of the divorce committee. The chief author of that report is our oldest parliamentarian, Hon. A. W. Roebuck, who will shortly celebrate his ninetieth birthday and who threw all his energy into about two years of intensive work to make this legislation possible.
There are five points I would like this house to consider. I am going to make a suggestion as to how we could tackle divorce reform and put it on a more systematic and
December 4, 1967

less of a centennial basis than we have in the past. With regard to the question of grounds for divorce, I think the Minister of Justice said that the legislation followed pretty well the report of the divorce committee. I would appreciate it if he would indicate whether that is true or not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Fairly well, but not
completely.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The minister says fairly well, but not completely. I can understand that. There are in the committee report some grounds for divorce that probably would not appeal to all hon. members or to certain members of the government. I hope that when we deal with the bill before us there will be a free vote on each of the grounds set forth in the committee report, so that the conscience of the members can be exercised in individual cases. For example, if the bill were to include divorce on the ground of illness-and I do not know if that is contained in the legislation, but it certainly was in the committee report-then I believe it would be more satisfactory if we had the opinion of some 200 members of the House of Commons with regard to that particular ground for divorce than only the opinion of the smaller group on the committee.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Greenwood has flogged one ground for divorce which has been pretty well kicked around during the year of committee discussion, that is the addition of a brand new approach, namely that of marriage breakdown as a specific and individual ground.
I wish to point out to the committee that this has been thoroughly touted and that the ideas of the hon. member for Greenwood, attractive though they may appear to be, have been shot down by a rather impressive commission of hard-nosed people in the United Kingdom who have examined the problem of marriage breakdown. The ideas that the hon. member put forward have also been snowed under by any group that I have heard discussing this matter in the House of Commons.
But be that as it may, whether one considers marriage breakdown as a ground for divorce, or recognizes the recommendations contained in the report, I would suggest that in examining all the possible grounds for divorce the only one that has been left out is that of people living together in conditions of extreme incompatibility. 1 believe that every
Divorce Law Reform
other situation which could arise is covered first, in the committee report, where it mentions adultery, rape, sodomy, bestiality, cruelty, desertion, non support, bigamy, non-consummation; and then there is recognition that marriage breakdown can arise for five reasons, namely illness, criminality, imprisonment, alcoholism, drug addiction, desertion and separation. I suggest that possibly we were not exact enough to rescue men from marriages in which the female partner is a practising lesbian, but I think this can be cured by a simple amendment, if it is not already contained in the legislation before us.
The second point deals with the rights of women and children, and I am glad the Minister of Justice clearly indicated that these are ancillary rights which can be dealt with in divorce cases.
The third point on which I should like to comment briefly is one on which action is now being taken. The woman in this country have been at a disadvantage in the past by being tied to her husband's domicile, with the exception of the 1930 amendment regarding desertion, and it is a welcome change that this defect in the legislation is being overcome.
The fourth point is the question of court procedures. We are pleased that the Quebec and Newfoundland cases will be booted off parliament hill. The last time they were swiped they were kicked from the Senate building over to the west block and in my opinion there is no reason why they should not go into some building outside parliament hill. I share the hopes of the Minister of Justice that the Quebec and Newfoundland cases will eventually find their way into the courts of the respective provinces. I think the formula he suggests in that regard is an appropriate one. It is difficult not to support it in view of the fact that it must cost the litigants who come before us anywhere from $1,000 to $1,500 above and beyond what they would pay in the courts of other provinces if they were not living in Quebec or Newfoundland. Since there is little enough money in any marriage, if there is any money to be spread around it should go to the women and children and to the establishment of new homes. This is a step in the right direction. I hope the minister has included the hearing of cases in county courts, as I gather is the case. The committee felt that this would make it financially easier for the petitioner to have their cases heard.
Finally, the fifth point is on the reconciliation and saving of marriages. I must confess

December 4, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
that I think the committee did not get its teeth properly into the subject. I believe action should be taken in the house with regard to the question of saving marriages. Although we must not forget that parliament cannot legislate good marriages, perhaps we can take certain steps, which suggest themselves on the basis of experience in the United States for example, to help, counsel and possibly to same marriages. My own studies in this field indicate that only 10 per cent of divorces can be warded off in this way, but when we consider that there are 8,500 divorces in the whole country and that this number is bound to double under the new legislation, even 10 per cent is a worthy objective.
Finally, I suggest to the minister that after a reasonable period of five years during which time this legislation would be in effect, judges should be consulted on how they feel the law could be strengthened. When the committee was meeting I know that any time I spoke to a judge about the divorce problem and about how it should be dealt with, I received good advice from him which I passed along to the committee. I think there should be more liaison with the judges on this matter. Further, I should like to suggest to the minister that social workers and other persons working on the matter of reconciliation should be consulted to see how effective we are in this area.
May I conclude by saying that the legislation has been a long time in coming, but I am very satisfied that it has.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to be very brief and to add only a few remarks to what has already been said on the important resolution before us. This is a historic night for thousands of Canadians, when finally the parliament of Canada is devoting itself to passing a resolution dealing with divorce reform.
Many of us on both sides of the house have worked for many years toward amending our laws on divorce. Speaking of myself, shortly after I became a member of the house I joined many others in introducing private members bills on the subject, in the hope of getting the government to take some action in this regard and to introduce divorce reform measures.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I wish to congratulate in the fullest posi-ble terms the joint committee of the Senate
[Mr. McCleave.l
and the House of Commons which has examined this subject, and to compliment the Minister of Justice and the government for having the courage to deal with the subject and to introduce a bill. It has always been said, certainly to me, that divorce reform was some sort of Canadian sacred cow with which politicians could not deal. I know that I have had many politicians with long experience say to me: Young man, you should not talk about divorce reform or urge that we deal with it; it will get you into nothing but trouble. I do not believe it is a sacred cow. I am delighted to learn that the Minister of Justice does not think so, and has had the courage to present a resolution covering a very comprehensive divorce reform measure.
In the past, of course, this government has attacked a number of other things that have been regarded by Canadian politicians as sacred cows, things with which governments should not deal. I refer to the flag, the anthem and many other subjects. I am delighted to learn that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are prepared to tackle controversial subjects which it was always thought governments would be well advised to leave alone. All of us who have had any dealings with divorce, either as lawyers, members of parliament or members of a committee, know the tremendous heartaches, hardships and suffering which result from our present stupid and antiquated divorce laws.
We have in British Columbia, the province from which I come, a divorce act which came into force on November 18, 1857. In my view it is one of the greatest centennial presents we could give to the people of Canada when, 110 years later, this parliament is finally bringing into force a new divorce act. As I say, we have been dealing with a divorce act in British Columbia, and in most of Canada, that is 110 years old. I know there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who will express their thanks to the Minister of Justice and to this parliament for finally getting around to dealing with this subject of divorce reform. There are many Canadians, I believe, who feel that what takes place in this chamber is quite removed from the ordinary problems of life, and that parliament is sometimes rather remote from the ordinary difficulties many people have. I believe that in this measure we are debating tonight we are showing the Canadian people that we, as
December 4, 1967

individual members of parliament, are concerned with the problems which affect ordinary people, such as deserted wives and uncared for children.
As I say, I should like in a very few minutes to record my appreciation to the government and the minister for introducing this measure. We are of course discussing a resolution which precedes a bill, and should not deal with the details of the bill which will follow. I only hope the bill will receive speedy passage through this house, so the people who are suffering under our present divorce laws will be able to receive some relief under the new act.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate parliament on the step being taken tonight. During the last ten years we have sat in this house for many hours discussing the problem of divorce. I think we have raised this problem, from the point where divorce was a dirty word which no one would use to the point where the situation became so bad that all the news media in the country were pointing out to members of parliament that we were many years behind the times, and the need for reform was urgent. Reform was acceptable to the people but members of parliament were still dragging their feet.
There were many members of parliament who participated in the divorce blockade a number of years ago. I think of the hon. member for Halifax who spoke a few minutes ago, who took one side, and I took the other. I believe this controversy brought about the acceptance by parliament of the fact that the problem should have been solved many years before. I can remember a prime minister one night almost getting down on bended knee and talking about the 1500 people who were involved in divorce bills. He said the fact we were holding up these divorces might mean many children would be born out of wedlock. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the government has finally decided to do something for these people. They have decided to take a look at the neglect that has occurred in the field of social legislation for many years, and which has produced hardship for many people.
Let me say that on many occasions the hon. member for Skeena and I wondered whether or not we were right in taking advantage of the very unusual circumstances which allowed us to hold up these divorce bills, in the hope that eventually parliament would reach the conclusion something had to be done about the situation. I am happy to
Divorce Law Reform
have been able to be in this parliament when the government finally decided to introduce this measure. I certainly appreciate the things that have been done by many people over the years. I am thinking of people in the news media who wrote articles and who appeared on television interviews to discuss this controversial problem. Eventually every person in the country obtained sufficient knowledge to enable him to decide whether or not to support our archaic social laws, or whether they should be changed.
I am proud also that the present Minister of Justice has continued a concession made by a former minister of justice. It was the late justice minister Favreau who introduced the first change by establishing procedures for divorce in the Exchequer Court, rather than the parliamentary procedure, thus making possible the end of the blockade. This course had been advocated many years before by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has always been impressed with the idea of having* the Exchequer Court as the divorce court for those provinces that did not have divorce courts.
Mr. Chairman, we are delighted with this resolution; but we should also speak about the other social problems we must face. I am thinking of the discussions that took place during those years when we fought for divorce reform. I know there were many members who believed as firmly as I did that divorce reform was absolutely necessary. During that period the news media were willing to publicize many of these social problems, and I am pleased to note the Minister of Justice is going to do something about them.
I can remember the time when "divorce" was a bad word and we used to pass divorce bills 100 at a time. Nobody cared about them, and cared less about whether the children would have any maintenance. I remember one case in which the hon. member for Timmins and I were interested. The husband had accumulated a million dollars by investing $25,000 that his wife had, but in attempting to get rid of her he was providing nothing for her. If he had been successful he would have turned her out on the street without a cent, and this because of the action of this house.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I think it is safe to say that abortion is another matter the minister will have to look at. I am not referring to aborting a mother

December 4, 1967
Divorce Law Reform
ior clinical reasons; I am referring to abortion in cases where it is a question of the woman not wanting to have a baby.
We will have to look at the problem of homosexuality from the point of view of at least allowing acts between two consenting adults conducted in private, as is now the case in Britain. I am also sure we will come to legalize birth control. Another area we will have to look at is what in my opinion are the crazy social laws of the church which were introduced four or five hundred years ago. These were enacted into legislation in Britain, and we have inherited them. The province of Quebec is even further behind because they inherited similar laws from France, and the Napoleonic code was even more archaic in outlook that the British law.
Since we have provided some relief in the matter of divorce, as the hon. member for Greenwood stated I think we might as well go all the way. When a partnership breaks down it might as well be dissolved. That is true of any partnership. I sympathize with the Minister of Justice. He did ask the hon. member for Greenwood whether he thought the courts were sufficiently equipped to handle the question of marriage breakdown. Personally I should like marriage breakdown to be the only ground for divorce. It cannot be an added ground; either it is a legal partnership which is continuing, or it is one that has broken down and should be dissolved. I do not think you can have it both ways.
I too am wondering whether the courts are sufficiently equipped to provide the kind of surveillance that would be required in cases of marriage breakdown. This also raises the question of what the courts have been doing hitherto. I have talked to a lawyer who has handled hundreds of divorce cases and it is his opinion that less than 10 per cent of these cases actually involve adultery. Everyone in court has known that the litigants have been telling lies. I feel safe in making that statement because at one time the hon. member for Skeena and I sent out 1,400 letters to respondents and corespondents, and we found that at least 400 of the names were fictitious. Some addresses did not even exist. I am sure the judges who tried these cases also knew they were false, and that most of the cases were rigged. Even where adultery was involved the woman in question was not the intended future partner of the respondent, but a woman who had been hired for a few dollars. Everything was a nice neat little package.

I am very proud that the minister appears at last to have taken the step of deciding that the federal government will have a say in the disposition and maintenance of children of divorced parents. Children are part of a marriage, and under the terms of the British North American Act they come under the jurisdiction of the federal government in such cases.
I wish to say very little more, Mr. Chairman, except that it gives me a great deal of personal satisfaction that the government is now introducing this legislation. I suggest to the minister that he will find himself in the same position as the former minister of justice, both of them being Catholics and coming from the province of Quebec. We were very worried about the position that might be taken by other agencies in that province, but I was pleased to find, after talking to the former minister of justice that he had not received one complaint about the change that was made during his term of office. For 50 years advisers to the minister of justice had argued that divorce by parliament was an exception to the rule: that divorce through the courts was not a right. But as I anticipated, the minister experienced no complaints, because the social reality of the situation demanded a change.
I think the minister has given a Christmas present to the 500,000 people that the Canadian Bar Association state are engaging in common law relationships. The value of this the minister will not realize until he starts to receive the mail that I am sure will flow when the legislation is passed. I am also sure that these relationships that have been established but not legalized will in most cases be legalized, and will probably become lasting unions which will be a credit to Canada. If the minister of immigration has been happy over the years at the arrangements that have been made to legalize the position of Chinese immigrants, I am sure the pride of the Minister of Justice will be that much greater because of the role that this legislation will play in the lives of a large number of people.
Parliament itself is to be congratulated on this proposed change, as are the members of the divorce committee and the members of the press who gave the buildup that has been necessary to bring about this social change. I could single out many who made a great contribution to the step that members of parliament are taking tonight. The role played by the communications media in establishing this social change has often been ignored.
'December 4, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	5025
This recognition is long overdue. Members of parliament are now striking out in a new direction and bringing in new legislation, not necessarily because it has been tried and tested in other countries but because we in Canada have decided it is good for Canadians. For this, parliament should be congratulated, and I hope that during the next ten years I am here I will see other social problems, that hitherto have been taboo, dealt with as realistically as the minister has dealt with this particular social problem.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to be very long. I had not intended to take part in the debate at all until I heard the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. I think everyone in the country is glad that this measure has finally come before the house. I think the country is ready for this change and I am sure the whole house will co-operate in passing the best possible bill.
I did think that the members of the house and the people of the country might take umbrage at the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who said that this government was not afraid to tackle sacred cows. The hon. member took a partisan approach, and then had the effrontery to liken this measure to the flag debate, for one, an occasion when the government had the stupidity to make a political football out of something that meant a lot to many people of this country. The government handled the matter very ineptly and made a great fuss about it when there was no need to. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, having shown an inclination to make a political football out of this matter, evoked the unfortunate reminder that this is a government that is accident prone and chooses the hardest possible way to do things.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Perhaps right now would be a good time to put in a little reminder that this is a subject of great importance to many people in this country. It is one with many aspects. Many people who are not themselves interested in obtaining divorces are watching very carefully to see how parliament will handle the issue. I suggest that the spirit in which the minister began the debate is the proper one, and that all hon. members of the chamber will co-operate-though we would be more confident of a successful outcome if we could forget the unfortunate predilection of this
British Columbia-Yukon Boundary Act government for mismanaging an affair, no matter how well begun.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Trudeau thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-187 respecting divorce.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-YUKON-NORTHWEST TERRITORIES BOUNDARY ACT ADOPTION OF BOUNDARIES AS SURVEYED AND MARKED

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-19, respecting the boundary between the Province of British Columbia and the Yukon and Northwest Territories.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I presume that on this important and historic occasion the minister will have just a brief word to say.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before us is simply designed to define the boundary between British Columbia and the Yukon and Northwest Territories. It is not an extraordinarily important event in the legislative technique, because if you recall, last year I introduced similar bills in the house to define the boundary between Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and the northern territories.
My hon. friends might be more interested to know that the bill was discussed in the other place on June 30 and on November 7, 1967 and that it was passed on November 8, 1967.
There is no change in the boundary itself, since the 60th parallel of north latitude is already indicated as the boundary in that area in several documents as for instance, the Imperial Act of 1866, the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act. As a matter of fact, these acts provide that the northern boundary of British Columbia is the 60th parallel of north latitude.
It is not a question of changing but of defining. Before this, as there were no markers on land, it was very difficult if not impossible to identify the boundary. It can be easily imagined that it may be extremely difficult for hunters, prospectors, or prospective buyers of land, for mining companies to make proper identification and it is easily understood that it must be useful for the
December 4, 1967
5026	COMMONS
British Columbia-Yukon Boundary Act federal and provincial administrations to know just where their jurisdiction begins and where it stops.


Mr. Fulton:: You mean, for the tax
gatherers.


Jean-Luc Pepin: From that point of view, among several others, of course.
That area over which I had the pleasure of flying last summer has been developed over quite a number of years. It will be recalled that in 1898, it was the scene of the Gold Rush; it will also be remembered that in 1943, the Alaska highway was built through it. But it is mostly since 1947, due to exploration work for gas and oil in the territories to the south and to the gradual extension of that exploration and development to the north, that this area has become important and will become even more so in the future.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of defining the land boundary rather than changing it.
As early as 1898, the federal Department of the Interior had started the work, which lasted from 1899 to 1908, but most of the surveying has been done since 1943. In that year, the Privy Council, with the agreement of British Columbia, instituted the commission on the boundary between British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, instructing it to survey those boundaries and to report to the parliament of Canada and to the legislature of the province of British Columbia.
The commission comprised the surveyor general of Canada, as usual, and the surveyor general of British Columbia. The commission undertook the survey of the boundary in 1945 and pursued the work from 1945 to 1959. Six hundred and twenty-two miles of boundary were surveyed; there are 39 miles more to survey at the western extremity. Those 39 miles lie on extremely difficult glacial terrain which holds no immediate interest for the mining industry in particular.
When the work was completed, the commission wrote its report, dated February 15, 1966. This report included a map showing the location of the surveyed boundaries and the monuments placed on the ground for site identification. This document was tabled in the House of Commons on December 14, 1966.
It may perhaps be asked-I see that some hon. members are absent, fortunately


-under what constitutional authority the federal government engaged in boundary surveying. The answer to that will be found in the British North America Act of 1871. Indeed, the act provides that the parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature, i.e., with the consent of provincial authorities.
By applying these provisions now, we can substitute the line of monuments on the ground for the abstract mathematical concept of the sixtieth parallel of north latitude,, mentioned in particular in the Imperial Act of 1866.
The British Columbia legislature passed an act entitled: An Act of Consent respecting the Adoption of the British Columbia-Yukon-Northwest Territories Boundary, which was sanctioned on March 23, 1967. Therefore, the conditions imposed by the British North America Act of 1871 have been fully complied with, and there only remains for the house to pass, if it will, the bill introduced tonight.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Stanley Ronald Basford: Would the minister permit a question? The premier of British Columbia-who now prefers to be called prime minister, but I will settle for premier-has often said that he would like to annex the Yukon territory. I take it from the minister's statement that the purpose of this bill has been consented to by the province of British Columbia, and that the bill will serve to protect the citizens of the Yukon from premier Bennett?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have no particular comment to make on that, except to say that the legislation presented tonight is not a revolution. It is a clarification of facts already acknowledged in previous legislation.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I think the minister referred to something like 39 miles. Knowing that there are in that area where the borders of British Columbia, Alberta, Yukon and the Northwest Territories meet, a number of new oil wells, and a lot of active interest in them, may I ask if there is anything serious enough in this change of boundaries that may affect rights to drill that have been given by any of the provinces or any of the territories?
December 4. 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	5027


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not think the hon. member should worry about that, because the 39 miles are at the western end of the border. It is at the other end of the line, and not on the British Columbia-Alberta border at all.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, when I suggested to the minister that this was an occasion of some historic significance I was not of course indicating that this was something that would go down as one of the great events in Canadian history. I was merely suggesting that what is being done here tonight through this bill is the culmination of work that goes back through the annals of Canadian history to the year 1899. Following the gold rush and the rapid increase of population in the Yukon territory, and the establishment of that territory out of the Northwest Territories, it became necessary to delineate the line of demarcation between the province of British Columbia and the new territory.
It is an interesting observation with respect to the difficulties of Canadian terrain that the process of marking out the boundaries on the ground has been taking place, off and on, ever since that time. It is also of historic significance, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) has indicated, that tonight we are recognizing an agreement reached between the Yukon territory and the province of British Columbia. It is most significant that British Columbia concurred in the delineation of this boundary before the parliament of Canada concurred. Of course, coming from the prairies I have to make the observation that the prairie provinces, of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, always being agreeable on matters which are in the best interests of Canada, preceded the province of British Columbia in giving their concurrence to this matter.
I do not think anything else needs to be said tonight, but I would like to congratulate those Canadians over the years who have been responsible for the accomplishment of the very difficult task of actually marking out the boundaries on the ground. In this connection I refer to the geological survey of Canada, and the men associated with that survey who have worked on it down through the years. I refer also to the survey and
British Columbia-Yukon Boundary Act mapping branch of the minister's department, and to the work done by Dr. Lamb, the dominion archivist.
I also wish to pay tribute to Don W. Thomson who in his recent excellent book, "Men and Meridians,'' has covered the history of this boundary demarcation. It was my privilege to be associated with Mr. Thomson, who because of his grasp of resource affairs, was loaned to the Resources for Tomorrow Conference for a short time. His knowledge of the subject has certainly been demonstrated in his recent book. Through this bill we are merely agreeing with a piece of work that has been done against the formidable barriers of Canadian geography and geology, and I can assure the minister that the members of the official opposition give the bill their wholehearted support.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I rose a few moments ago, not for the purpose of making a speech but out of curiosity to seek an answer to a question. This matter involves the province of British Columbia and the territories of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I am aware of the bill that was passed in the British Columbia legislature, I think in April of this year, giving consent to the boundary change. May I ask the minister whether the federal government took the position that it was deciding this matter on behalf of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, or was it submitted in any way to the councils of those territories?
I ask this question because we hear so much about their desire for democratic rule. These councils exist. They are part appointed, and part elected. Was consideration given to allowing the Yukon council and the Northwest Territories council at least a nominal share in a decision on their own boundaries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am not aware of that, Mr. Speaker, I will inquire and give an oral or written answer to my hon. friend.


Harold Edward Winch: Is it not reasonable that at least they should have been invited to participate?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is a perennial question, usually raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), inquiring whether the Yukon council and the Northwest Territories council have been invited to this or that. I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has followed the custom of saying that for the time being in these matters the federal government acts for the governments of the Yukon
5028	COMMONS
British Columbia-Yukon Boundary Act and Northwest Territories. I presume the same thing was done in this case.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I gather that the minister has said that although we do have semidemocratic organizations in control of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, the decision on boundaries was made by the federal government without any submission to the territorial councils?


James Ross Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that if the hon. member wishes to ask questions, questions which I think are very interesting, he should let the bill pass on to committee stage, where all these questions would be in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Possibly I should point out that if the minister continues answering questions he will close the debate.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to enter a debate on this measure, which is rather a routine one and which has been agreed to by the government of British Columbia; but the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford), in his usual farsighted way, with his comments on some remarks made by the premier of British Columbia has raised a technical debate to a different level altogether. One thing the premier of British Columbia has always been is a visionary. Unlike so many such individuals, as a visionary he has seen many of his fondest dreams come true, or is seeing them now in the process of being completed. Having done so many different things which have been of great benefit to that great province which I, along with the hon. member for Vancouver -Burrard (Mr. Basford), am happy to represent, it is not surprising that he should occasionally look at the geography of that part of Canada and see the natural extension that the Yukon territory makes with the province of British Columbia.
While there never has been any question of any forceful decision in this matter, there has I think always been a rather fond hope that some day the people of the Yukon would see the benefits that have accrued to the people of British Columbia with the government they have, and that there would be an automatic expression or wish that the territory and the province be united.
I was very pleased to hear the minister read the act of 1871 which indicated that it would be constitutionally possible for the fed-
[Mr. Pepin.)
DEBATES	December 4, 1967
ral government to agree with the provincial government to extend its boundary. There is very logical extension. We heard mention of the Alaska highway. Members of the house know that hundreds of miles of that highway are in the province of British Columbia and many more miles of it are in the territory. It would seem natural for a development of that nature to be under one jurisdiction. Certainly with the great power development which has been suggested for the Taku river, for instance, and the developments which are under way in that corner, including the province of British Columbia, the Yukon territory and part of Alaska, again the working out of a joint arrangement in which there would be one administration rather than two would be desirable.
Within the last few days we have had a little book distributed to members of parliament called "Blueprint for Autonomy 8 Steps to Provincehood". This was distributed by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
I admit that he neither made any comment nor endorsed the views expressed therein. It made most interesting reading because it is a demand for immediate autonomy; in fact it is a demand for a sort of Yukon power approach. The first of the eight steps to provincehood is "Create an Impasse".
I believe, and I am sure many members will agree with me, that one of our problems in Canada is that we are over-governed, that we are probably too blessed in the number of provinces, and that the development of the north really does not need the setting up of a complete provincial structure. We would hope that the infinitesimal populations will grow in the north; but that growth will not be assisted by all the trappings and expense of a provincial system of government that neither they nor the country as a whole will be able to afford.
I do not believe this whole question should be treated as lightly as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard seemed to treat it. The possibility of removing a boundary should always be maintained, whether it is newly drawn, newly photographed or newly surveyed. Artificial boundaries should not prevent the natural development of the great west of this country. While I do not wish to hold up this bill, this is a thought I should like to leave with you. It has been agreed that this is a logical, sensible, technical bill. Nevertheless we should keep in the back of our minds some of the potential development which is possible and hope that we will not add to the difficulties of fulfilling the great
December 4, 1967	COMMONS
vision of the premier of British Columbia, and I am sure of many citizens of the Yukon territory as well.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words about this bill, which as a logical and technical piece of legislation has the support of the whole house. I should like to thank the minister for his brief and precise explanation of the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the bill. I am glad to know, as the bill indicates, that the legislature of British Columbia has given its blessing to the boundary between the province of British Columbia and the Yukon territory.
Without a doubt this has been a very necessary undertaking. There are few people, apart from those associated with this type of work, who realize the amount of planning, office work and field work which goes into an accomplishment of this type. I have had considerable experience with survey crews working in very difficult mountain terrain. I am sure that in this instance the field crews must have encountered problems which were never reported in the newspapers or known to members of the house.
I support the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) in his expression of appreciation for the work these people do, which very often goes unrecognized because it is not the type of work which attracts publicity. I trust that the minister will convey to his staff, particularly the field staff, the appreciation of parliament for the work they have done in this regard.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to underline what the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) said in respect of this bill. So far as any determination of this matter by the council of the Yukon territory or the council of the Northwest Territories is concerned, I know that if the hon. member for Yukon had been here this evening he certainly would have raised this matter because he has long been a champion of the necessity of both of our territories obtaining a greater degree of self government. If the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) were here this evening I am sure he too would express a similar thought.
It may well be in the strict legal concept of a political entity that the minister is correct in intimating that the council of the Yukon Territory and the council of the Northwest Territories have no business making a decision or determination about this question.
DEBATES	5029
British Columbia-Yukon Boundary Act However, since we are embarking hopefully on a course of self government and later provincehood status for the territories, I believe they should be given some opportunity to express an opinion about this question. After all, it is the land territory of both the Yukon territory and the Northwest Territories that is involved.
With all respect for the admiration the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston) has for the premier of British Columbia-an admiration which all members of the Social Credit party do not share-


Alexander Bell Patterson: And which some other people, not Social Crediters, share.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Including the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson). He is not a Social Crediter, and whether he ever was is a debatable point. Regardless of the admiration the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke exhibits for the premier of British Columbia, without whose help he may not even be here, the fact of the matter is that there are other political entities involved, namely the Yukon and Northwest Territories. The least that should have occurred in trying to maintain the strict legality of the relationship between these political entities is the affording of an opportunity to the councils to express their opinions about this matter. This bill suggests in its preamble that the legislature of the province of British Columbia has consented to these alterations. It seems equally fair that the councils of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories should have been afforded the same courtesy, and should have been in the position to determine whether they agree with what is put before us now.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make sure that the questions I asked and the answer I received have not muddied the record. I did not quite understand the minister. Did he say tlat the only difficulty in respect of this boundary between British Columbia and the Yukon relates to the western end, rather than the eastern end where the boundary exists between that province and the Northwest Territories? If that is correct, that is all I want to know.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. If the minister answers this question he will close the debate.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Let me assure the hon. member that what he has said expresses
December 4, 1967
5030	COMMONS
British Columbia-Yukon Boundary Act exactly the intent of what I said. I could send the map I have to the hon. members for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) and Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who have both been so kind during this debate. Perhaps I should exercise the judgment of Solomon by giving them each half of it.
In relation to the question regarding consultation with the councils of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) just phoned the surveyor general of Canada who tells us that this point was raised with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I have been informed by the minister that the commissioner was involved in this border clarification.
I will write to the hon. members who have raised this question, giving them full details.
I must say that the position of British Columbia and the Northwest Territories is far from being the same, because the British North America Act of 1871, to which I referred, makes it necessary to get the consent of the province involved, but does not obviously say the same with regard to the Northwest Territories.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Tardif in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Boundary declared.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one question in respect of clause 2. It is my understanding that some papers concerning this matter had to be signed on behalf of British Columbia, and I should like to know whether they were signed by W. A. C. Bennett, the premier, or the pompous ass who calls himself the prime minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will have to check, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think that expression, which I shall not repeat, should be struck out of Hansard. We may not approve of provincial premiers or members of legislatures, but I doubt very much if we should speak disrespectfully of them here in this house, and I ask that the statement be withdrawn.


Maurice Rinfret: Fortunately or unfortunately I did not hear the expression. If there is no protest, I do not imagine that it should be withdrawn.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not clear as to your ruling, but premier Bennett of British Columbia was called a pompous ass. I am sure no one would want that appellation attached to him, not even the Chairman. I think the expression should be withdrawn. Surely this is not good appearing in a public document such as Hansard, which is read rather widely across this country. This is an insult to a distinguished politician.


Maurice Rinfret: I did not
hear that expression, but I am sure that if the hon. member said the premier of British Columbia was a pompous ass he will want to withdraw the remark.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, sir, but I did not know that such an expression was out of order in this House of Commons. As far as I am concerned there is only one prime minister in Canada, and that is the prime minister in the federal House of Commons.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
On the title.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I missed the proceedings on second reading of this bill. I should like to make one or two comments before the title carries, as a result of my experience as a member of the northern affairs committee when I visited the city of Whitehorse. Let me say at once that I am glad this bill will carry, and that it fixes the boundaries between the province of British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. When I was in Whitehorse I discovered a good deal of concern among the residents there that the premier of the province of British Columbia had some interest in abolishing the boundary. With the passing of this bill and with the statement in the preamble that the province of British Columbia is in agreement with and consents to this survey, I assume the premier has abandoned what I described when I was in Whitehorse as being one of his wilder schemes.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: By leave, now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third
time and passed.
December 4, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	5031
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Tomorrow?


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: If there is any question about the business for tomorrow, perhaps it could be asked now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will begin with second reading of the Publication of Statutes Act. Then we will deal with committee stage of the C.N.R. bill; and then I would like to call the budget resolutions appended to the notice paper of Votes and Proceedings of June 1, 1967. These are the resolutions relating to the earlier budget.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Budget No. 1.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If these items are disposed of tomorrow we would have an opportunity to consider calling second reading of the two bills that were given first reading today, namely the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and the divorce bill, or resuming the budget debate. I would be happy to consult tomorrow morning or mid-day with the house leaders as to what their preference might be in this regard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to disrupt the otherwise even tenor of our ways that has been established just recently, but I was under the impression that it has been agreed that the budget resolutions of June 1 would be deferred until after the adoption of the motion of the Minister of Finance now before the house. I understood the resolutions arising out of that motion and those now on the order paper would be agreed together. If there is agreement to the contrary, I beg the pardon of the house leader; but that was my understanding. I wonder whether the house leader would defer consideration of those resolutions until there has been a further opportunity of discussing this question tomorrow.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be quite happy to consult with hon. gentlemen tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. I had assumed I would be free to call these resolutions after the budget presentation had been made, but there may be a misunderstanding and I would be happy to consider this matter tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in 1960 during world refugee year the then Conservative government embarked upon a program of bringing, initially, 100 tubercular families to Canada and asked the provinces to participate with the government on a proportionate basis. The premier of British Columbia, the same gentleman who today is the premier of that province, spurned that offer, refused to participate in the joint venture and after a few agonizing and embarrassing moments of reflection embarked upon a grandiose scheme to buy food in British Columbia and distribute it to the starving peoples of the world. In fact, in a press release in May of 1960 the establishment of the world relief fund of the province of British Columbia was announced, and the then minister of health and welfare, Eric Martin, became its chairman. An amount of $50,000 was contributed by the provincial government by a special warrant and a commitment was made to match, dollar for dollar, every dollar that was contributed by the general public up to an amount of $475,000 which, if the full contribution were made, would raise about $1 million.
The world relief fund of the provincial government was heralded with great fanfare when it was announced, and then was immediately forgotten. Articles written in newspapers since that time have all pointed to the fact that the $50,000 has not been touched, and that the province has not embarked upon any world relief fund.
As late as this year Mr. Tom Berger, M.L.A., who was a member of this house, asked some questions in the British Columbia legislature as to whether or not the money was still there. The answer he received was that the $50,000 was still there, that no payments had been made out of it and that it did not seem likely that any payments would be made from that fund. We do not know where it went; it is still there in trust. However, this points up the deceit which the premier of British Columbia used at that time to cover up his lack of desire to participate in a very worthwhile program to assist the tubercular refugees from other countries to come to Canada, where they may receive some medical and other assistance.
The other day the Minister of Manpower and Immigration announced a government sponsored program to bring 50 handicapped
December 4, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion refugees to Canada, most of whom are tubercular cases. He announced that eight provincial governments would participate with the federal government in bringing these unfortunate souls to Canada, where medical and other assistance may be provided for them. Once again the province of British Columbia has failed to participate with the government of Canada in this very humane and worthwhile venture.
I submit that this indicates a lack of interest on the part of the premier of my own province, in an extremely worth-while venture. All I can do is to hope that publicity will be given to the manner in which he has treated his own world relief fund which he announced in 1960; the fact that it did not get off the ground and that no one in his government tried to make it work; the fact that Eric Martin, the then minister of health and welfare admitted he was at fault in not doing anything to bring the program into effect; and the fact that the premier has once again spurned the participation of his province in an extremely worth-while and humanitarian project.
Perhaps all we can do is to hope that if these facts are given some publicity the premier of British Columbia will be shamed, together with the government of Canada, into participating in this venture, and in giving some assistance to unfortunate people from other countries.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to take note of the remarks made by the hon. member for Skee-na this evening. I should like to indicate to the hon. member that it would be somewhat difficult to determine just what responsibility the minister has in this regard. I do feel, however, that the hon. member is making a contribution to the program by bringing this matter to the attention of the house, notwithstanding the fact that it would be difficult for the minister to take any action. I am sure the minister is hopeful that the new program will be universally accepted by the premiers of the various provinces. I am sure the hon. member's remarks may have the desired effect.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-VANCOUVER- EMPLOYMENT OF POSTAL TRUCK DRIVERS

Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to put a question


to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) concerning the plight of the employees of a company in Vancouver which, for many years, as a private company has hauled the mail for the post office, and which company bears the romantic name of the Pony Express. I want to turn first to a letter which I received from an executive of that company on April 30, and which reads in part:
-the Canada Postal Department proposed to enter into the trucking business July 1 in the city of Vancouver by taking over 25 per cent of the work at present held by a long established trucking company with a view to possibly doing all the work.
When I received that letter I promptly wrote to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) and asked him for particulars of the matter. I received from him a letter which I should like to read in part:
The present practice of handling this mail has been done by contract and not by post office employees except in the city of Windsor, Ontario. Long range plans of the Post Office Department have included for some time a study of the economics involved in taking over the service ourselves. The strike by employees of the Montreal contractor early in December last year emphasized the vulnerability of the department in this area. While the Post Office Department was in no way involved in the dispute between mail chauffeurs and the contractor, nevertheless, the strike resulted in considerable disruption of the mail service not only in Montreal but across the country because Montreal is a key distributing point. Preliminary study would indicate that it may well be more efficient and more economical to have the department operate its own vehicle service.
The only satisfactory method of establishing the economics and practicality of doing the job ourselves is to conduct an experiment and we picked two major post offices-Montreal and Vancouver- as suitable for pilot plant study.
I now want to refer, sir, to a further letter I have received from an officer of the Pony Express company regarding this contract. It reads in part:
Pony Express Limited has been the mail contractor since 1911, and despite the fact that they, the employees, consider membership in the teamster's union essential for their welfare, not once has the mail in the greater Vancouver area been delayed or held up since the company contracted to do any of the services under discussion. In fact, to the contrary, with the aid of the teamster's union and despite many local labour disputes and strikes, mail at all times has been delivered by Pony Express couriers, when in many instances post office employees have refused to cross picket lines.
At another point, the letter reads:
I understand that Mr. Cote has stated that "in the interests of progress" any Pony Express employee was free to apply for the position of postal chauffeur. I ask you, sir, is it logical or sensible for any man in this province to apply for the same job at a lower rate of pay?
December 4, 1967	COMMONS
I have learned recently that this experiment, as it is called by the Postmaster General, went forward despite the protests of this company, a company that has served so well and despite troubles that have existed in the postal department. Those who have been deprived of their jobs have made application to the Post Office Department for the position of postal chauffeur. I now find that some members have had their applications to become postal chauffeurs rejected, on the basis that they live outside the area served by the Vancouver post office, although they have worked for Pony Express for many years while living at these addresses, and while handling these duties in a satisfactory manner.
What I want to ask is this: I ask the Minister of Labour tonight what can be done specifically for these employees. I hope he will be able to give a satisfactory answer.
The other question I want to put to the government is this: Why is it necessary to continue with an experiment of this nature in order to correct what is considered to be a disruptive situation between labour and management in the Montreal area? Why must we in Vancouver, where the work of hauling the mail has never been handled more satisfactorily, be penalized because of these particular difficulties? I would ask the government to review the whole matter and not to deprive of work the Pony Express, and those employees who have worked so faithfully carrying the Queen's mail. I ask the minister to see what can be done to right what is an obvious injustice.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with that part of the question which is directed to the Minister of Labour and to say that I have had occasion to investigate the circumstances referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I am convinced that those employees of the Pony Express who are affected in this particular case have done an outstanding job over the years. In my opinion, based on my investigations to date, it
DEBATES	5033
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion would be most unfortunate if the five or six employees of the Pony Express who live in what I might call the metropolitan area of Vancouver are not able to perform their work as postal chauffeurs by reason of the fact that they do not happen to live in that part of the postal area referred to by the hon. member.
I might say that not only have I taken the matter up as Minister of Labour-because an important principle relating to employment is involved here-but I have also taken up the matter as a member of parliament representing that part of Vancouver where the main post office in question is located. I have had a particular interest in the matter and have taken it up with the deputy postmaster general and with the chairman of the public service commission with a view, I hope, to assuring that the five or six employees of Pony Express will not be deprived of their opportunity to qualify as postal servants in the employ of the Post Office Department.
This is particularly important today in view of the trend toward urbanization. People in outlying communities today find that through no fault of their own they are engulfed by neighbouring metropolitan areas or surrounding municipalities. It would seem unfair to deprive these people-after all, they are all Canadians-of their right to work, by virtue of some regulation that has been followed by the Civil Service Commission over a period of years.
I can assure the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra I am encouraged to believe some progress is being made, but I cannot give him the affirmative answer he would like to hear tonight. With regard to the second part of the question, which was not referred to in the matter about which I was given notice to speak tonight, the only person who could deal effectively with it is the Postmaster General, who unfortunately is not here.
Motion agreed and the house adjourned at 10.21 p.m.

Tuesday, December 5, 1967