1967-06-23

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to bring to the attent on of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a distinguished group of Speakers of the provincial legislatures. They are in Ottawa to attend the Canadian area council meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



DOMINION DAY


Mr. Speaker:: May I be allowed briefly to provide hon. members with further details concerning the ceremonies to be held on the morning of July 1 on parliament hill. To deal first with the matter of seating accommodation members may have observed the construction work go ng on at the foot of the main steps of the buildings. The section of stands being erected on the east side of the central platform will provide reserved seating for members of this house. A similar structure on the west side will accommodate the Senate. Because of the parliamentary character of this occasion, the wives of members will not be seated with their husbands, but in a reserved area immediately in front of the central platform on which the ceremony will take place.
I have been asked to suggest that it is of particular importance that members, and indeed all those in attendance, be in their seats by ten o'clock in the morning. The Prime Minister, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the cabinet will proceed from the centre block in a body at 10 a.m. to take the places reserved for them. At 10.05 a.m. the Speaker's procession will leave this building, followed some minutes later by the Speaker and officials of the other place. Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh will arrive a few minutes before 10.30 a.m.
At 10.30 a.m. an interdenominational service of thanksgiving and dedication will begin. Following the service Her Majesty will proceed to the dais which is to be erected on the central platform. Addresses will then be read on behalf of the two houses by their respective Speakers and presented to the Queen, who will reply. At the end of the ceremony the Queen and her entourage will descend the steps at the south end of the central platform and move in procession down the broad walk to the centennial flame.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
After the royal party has left the grounds of parliament hill the speakers, accompanied by the officials of the two houses, will return in procession to the centre block followed by the Prime Minister, the former prime minister and the cabinet. Members of the two chambers will then leave informally.
Reserved seat tickets will be sent to members and their wives on Tuesday, June 27.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Second and third reports of standing committee on transport and communications in both French and English-Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West).

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, prepared as usual in English and in French.

With that report, we are referring back to the house the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, including those of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
[Note: Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
June 23, 1967
1868	COMMONS DEBATES
Canada and V.S. Ministerial Meeting [English]



STATEMENT BY MINISTER FOLLOWING CANADA-U.S. MINISTERIAL MEETING

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce: Mr. Speaker, with the co-operation of the house, it was possible for a number of my colleagues and me to attend in Montreal this week the eleventh Canadian-United States ministerial committee on trade, and economic affairs.
The members of the United States delegation were: the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Fowler; the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Freeman; the Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Trowbridge; and Under Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Luce; the Under Secretary of State, Mr. Solomon; the Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Affairs, Mr. Ackley; and Ambassador Butterworth.
The Canadian delegation was comprised, in addition to myself, of the Ministers of Finance (Mr. Sharp), Industry (Mr. Drury), Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin), Agriculture (Mr. Greene), the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Rasminsky, and Ambassador Ritchie. The parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Macdonald) was also present at the meetings.
It was a matter of regret that due to the emergency session of the United Nations general assembly in New York, it was not possible for Mr. Paul Martin and the Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Rusk, to attend and to preside over these meetings. The United States delegation was most ably led by the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Fowler. In Mr. Martin's absence, I was privileged to lead the very good Canadian delegation.
At this point I beg leave to table in English and French a copy of the communique, and if it is the wish of hon. members I suggest that it be printed as an appendix to Hansard, as has been the practice in previous years.
['Of course, if as part of an international plan we agreed to accept a quota of refugees of this kind we would have to take the responsibility for making it possible for them to take their places in Canadian society. This would require training in a great many cases.']
Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table these documents? Is it the wish of the house that the documents be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For communique above referred to, see Appendix.]


Mr. Winters:: The most impressive and significant aspect of this meeting was without

doubt the forward looking nature of the discussions and the spirit of cordiality and of genuine good will which prevailed. These discussions have proven fruitful and will be of benefit in our day-to-day continuing contacts with the United States government over the weeks and months ahead. This I personally believe is their great merit.
As will be apparent from the communique, the committee considered a wide range of important topics of interest to Canada and the United States in the trade, economic and financial fields. These included broad policy issues of a multilateral character in which both our countries have a vital stake and important responsibilities. In addition, a major portion of our discussions was concerned with subjects of special interest in our bilateral relations.
In the forward looking context of the meeting, emphasis was placed on the opportunities for trade which will be presented by the results of the Kennedy round and we agreed to work closely together in studying further trade liberalization opportunities.
In a number of important areas, including co-operation in wheat marketing policies and food aid, the committee decided to strengthen the consultative arrangements between the two countries. On other issues where there are outstanding problems between Canada and the United States, each side had an opportunity to explain its case fully and frankly and to explore the possibilities of early accommodation.
I need not review at this time the many issues that were jointly examined, and which are outlined in the communique. I would, however, refer to one or two particular topics.
As will be seen from the communique, a very close identity of interest was recorded in the matter of the approach of the two countries to the problem of international liquidity and the need for general agreement on a contingency plan for reserve expansion.
We had a most useful exchange of views on the important question of foreign investment in Canada. This meeting provided a further opportunity for Canadian ministers to reemphasize the government's intention to maintain a favourable climate for foreign investment in Canada, while encouraging increased Canadian participation in the control and ownership of our economy.
Special attention was also devoted to the important question of energy resources between the two countries. The United States
June 23. 1967

cabinet members gave us a welcome re-affirmation of United States recognition of the important role of oil in our over-all trade and economic relationship, and of their continued interest in enabling Canada to share in the growth of the United States market.
Canadian ministers again took the opportunity to mention the concern felt in Canada about the extra-territorial application of the laws of other countries. At the same time we noted the readiness of United States secretaries to use their best endeavours to resolve particular problems in this area if and when they arise.
This meeting of the ministerial committee will, I am sure, contribute significantly to the atmosphere of co-operation and mutual understanding within which we can best hope to resolve the complex and difficult problems which from time to time arise between the world's two largest trading partners.
May I say that it was a particular pleasure to welcome United States cabinet members and their wives to the great city of Montreal and to have them visit Expo '67 in this centennial year. I wish in conclusion to thank my colleagues and the large number of Canadian officials who participated both in the preparatory work and in the meeting itself for their splendid co-operation.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker,
I am sure that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) who led the Canadian delegation is relieved to know that this meeting is over. It is difficult to make any particular comments about the details because the minister has given us an over-all report on the various subjects the two delegations discussed.
I should just like to make an observation to the effect that I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce is modest in some respects when he says that the United States delegation was ably led, and then also reported that he led the Canadian delegation. I think he must have led the Canadian delegation as ably as the United States representative led the delegation from that country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: I was struck by the words the minister used when he said that the meeting was held with cordiality and good will. From reading the press reports I notice that the Americans were really put out, and said so in no uncertain terms to the Canadian delegation, about Canada's action in respect of the Mercantile Bank. I can only hope that the
DEBATES	1869
Canada and U.S. Ministerial Meeting Minister of Trade and Commerce and the other members of the delegation did not allow themselves to be browbeaten by the United States delegation.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is to be hoped that at some point the minister will enlighten the House of Commons and the Canadian people concerning just exactly what was accomplished at this meeting in Montreal, because he certainly has not told us this, morning. He told us it was a very cordial meeting and that a number of matters were discussed. We were not even given a hint as to the result of the discussion.


Mr. Knowles:: He spoke like Paul Martin.


Colin Cameron: I may say that the minister is an able pupil of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), and manages to. do the same thing in fewer words.
I am interested in the comment he made about the energy resources of our two countries. Is one to take from that that the United States has some energy resources which they are prepared to contribute to a common pool? If so, I should be interested to know what they are. I stress this, Mr. Speaker, because of some disturbing reports and statements which have come from the United States of America, and which show that many people in that country regard the natural resources, of Canada as much theirs as they are those of the Canadian people. I do not think the people of Canada would be prepared to accept -that.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
I gather that the two countries are still concerned about the problem of international liquidity. Perhaps the minister may be able to help his colleague, the Minister of Finance,. (Mr. Sharp), in persuading some recalcitrant members of the Big Ten that there is a necessity for action.
I wish to conclude with this: I am concerned about the indication in the minister's statement that the principal concern of this government is in the export of raw materials from the Canadian economy. My concern was not lessened by an answer the minister gave me in committee a few days ago. I asked him if it was not the primary responsibility of the-

June 23, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian government to ensure the development of the Canadian economy, and the minister replied that that was one of their concerns, but not their primary concern. This gave me cause for grave misgivings.
I hope that at some time we shall be told specifically what was agreed on between the Canadian government members and their United States counterparts.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is there any authenticity to the report which appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning that Canada has agreed to accept 40,000 Arab refugees? If this report is correct can the Prime Minister enlarge on the matter. Can he tell us whether Canada will bear the full cost of this humanitarian action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member knows, he cannot ask about the accuracy of a press statement. He can ask a question directly. I am sure we can assume that the question has been asked directly.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think I may be permitted to assume that the question was asked of me directly. I must answer it by saying that there is no foundation to the report on which this question was based.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Should the government feel motivated to take action such as this will the Prime Minister assure us that first, before any decision is made, the matter will be brought before the House of Commons for its deliberation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the house will have an opportunity to discuss an important matter of this kind. I do not wish to give the impression that any decision on this matter of taking refugees is imminent. For one thing, the Arab states take a very unfavourable view toward other countries receiving refugees from that area, at this time. The matter must be arranged not only in co-operation with the government of Israel, where the refugees-or where a lot of them at least-are at the present time, but with the governments of the Arab states themselves.
CMr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).]
The response of Arab refugees outside that area can only be one factor in dealing with the refugee problem. But there is no likelihood of a decision being made immediately with regard to this matter; it will require a great deal of negotiation on an international basis.


Michael Starr: Would the government give an assurance that no decision will be made before the subject has been debated in the House of Commons?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the House of Commons were not sitting, and agreement was reached between all concerned that this would be an important step in dealing with the refugee problem, I am sure the hon. member would wish us to play our part. But I can assure him that if the house is sitting no decision would be reached until hon. members had been consulted.


Mr. W. B. Nesbill (Oxford):: Did I hear the Prime Minister correctly as saying that the governments of the Arab states will be consulted before any Arab refugees who are at present under the jurisdiction of Israel could come to Canada? Do not the people themselves have some say in the matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, but if refugees are in Arab territory, surely it is normal for the Arab states to be consulted and many of these refugees are there at the present time.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would the government give consideration to means of making sure that any refugees of this nature who might come to Canada would be given adequate training immediately after their arrival, so that they would not face unemployment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, if as part of an international plan we agreed to accept a quota of refugees of this kind we would have to take the responsibility for making it possible for them to take their places in Canadian society. This would require training in a great many cases.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York Soulh):: I have a related question for the Prime Minister. In view of the serious plight of refugees in the middle east and the announcement in the United Nations general assembly a couple of days ago that the United Kingdom has made an additional contribution of, if I remember
June 23, 1967


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, it was discussed yesterday by the cabinet and we have agreed to make an additional contribution in the light of the report which has just been received from the United Nations director-general of UNRWA outlining the immediate needs and perhaps the longer range requirements. I would prefer it if this matter were taken up on Monday when details of what the contribution is to be will be available.



WHEAT-FURTHER MEETINGS TO IMPLEMENT KENNEDY ROUND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldf-Melforf-Tisdale):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It relates to the meeting of the international wheat council held in London on June 19 and 20. Can the minister inform the house what arrangements were made for future meetings to implement the decisions of the Kennedy round?


Robert Henry Winters: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask me this question. It was agreed that all members of the United Nations and its specialized agencies, whether or not they are members of the international wheat council, will be invited to participate in the negotiation of a new agreement. The new agreement will incorporate the provisions of the memorandum of agreement included in the Kennedy round. The international wheat council will convene the conference in co-operation with UNCTAD. The conference will be held in Rome at FAO headquarters and commence on July 12.



FISHERIES-REDUCTION OF TARIFF TO ASSIST INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question and I am not sure whether it should be directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or to the Minister of Fisheries, but perhaps the proper
Inquiries of the Ministry minister will endeavour to answer it. In view of the marketing problems presently faced by the Canadian fishing industry, brought about by the flooding of the American market by other countries in search of hard currency, have any representations been made to the United States government to reduce the tariff wall on Canadian processed fish, which would thereby help the Canadian fishing industry?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I believe I could answer that question. Yes, there have been representations made. This was one of the subjects discussed in the Kennedy round of negotiations, and I think the hon. member will find that some action will result.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is he in a position today to make the statement that the right hon. Prime Minister yesterday suggested he might make today, with reference to the representations he has been receiving from members of the house and the numerous telegrams he has been receiving from the locals of the United Mine Workers of America union with regard to the inclusion of the McBean colliery in the Cape Breton Development Corporation?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 can very rapidly repeat a few of the things I have already said and add a few more. The nationalization of the Dosco coal mines on Cape Breton Island is justified by the economic and social situation on the island, a situation which is of national concern. Pictou county, where the McBean colliery is located, is not in a similar situation. The economic and social situation there is not one of national concern. As a matter of fact in the last two or three years the Atlantic Development Board has made grants worth $14 million to that area, $12 million for a power plant at Trenton, $1.2 million for industrial development in the Stellarton area, $300,000 for water supply at the industr al park, $400,000 for general industrial building-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

June 23, 1987
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: The area development agency-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I realize the minister got carried away with the sound of his own voice, but as a supplementary question may I ask him if he is aware that the unemployment rate in all the Atlantic provinces is twice the national average, despite any statement he may make?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is argumentative.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Further to the still controversial matter of the sale of the Saint John airport has the minister been able to arrange a meeting with the city of Saint John officials and, if so, when and where?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I have not yet been able to make these arrangements, but I am hoping to do so at a very early date. Perhaps I might be permitted to say that the government wants to take over this airport and, as I indicated the other day, there is no thought of any change in basic plans.


Thomas Miller Bell: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that this matter has been approved in principle and, if it is delayed, will work a tremendous hardship on the city of Saint John and even on the whole province of New Brunswick, will the minister recommend that this small amount be included in the supplementary estimates?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would think, sir, I would be transgressing the rules of the house if I attempted to answer that question in any way.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. My

question is based on a decision by an important group of Canadians who are concerned about Canada's natural resources. Has the minister received a brief from the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada urging a 15 year study of Canada's water resources, estimated to cost about $200 million? If so, would the minister inform the house of his response to these interesting proposals?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I fail to see the immediate urgency of the question. I suggest to the hon. member that it ought to be placed on the order paper.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General as minister responsible for the R.C.M.P.
In view of the numerous complaints from Quebec citizens visiting parliament hill that members of the R.C.M.P. on the hill cannot speak a word of French nor give information in French, could the minister investigate and insist that the R.C.M.P. commissioner station bilingual officers on the hill?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made representations which will undoubtedly be noted by the minister, but I do not think the question in its present form is in order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question so that it will be in order?


Mr. Speaker:: Hardly.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member for Lapointe has not yet swallowed his parking ticket.
I wish to put a question to the Minister of Justice. I would like to ask him, as a result of the speech delivered yesterday by a member of the provincial cabinet, Mr. Marcel Masse, of Quebec, stating that he would ensure through constitutional provisions the power of
June 23, 1967

Quebec to negotiate in the field of external affairs, if he can tell the house whether there have been some negotiations with the provincial government to that effect and how the government intends to react following such a statement?


Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the text of the speech referred to by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. If his report is correct-and I have no reason to doubt it-I am happy to note, on behalf of the government the admission that if the province of Quebec were to operate on the international level, this would require an amendment to the constitution, that is to say the present constitution does not allow such activities.
I have not received any representations asking for such an amendment, Mr. Speaker. If I do, I shall look carefully into them and I shall be glad, at the same time, to suggest to the provincial governments that the federal government would readily take over several matters coming under provincial jurisdiction as the central government is in a better position to deal with them.



CANADA-U.S. MINISTERIAL MEETING-LIQUIDITY IN RESERVES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of his statement on the joint United States-Canada ministerial meeting and on liquidity in reserves. I am wondering if this is a special reserve set up as to the balance of payments between Canada and the United States. Is it something to bolster the International Monetary Fund, and is it in accordance with the principles set forth under that fund?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt if this question is in order at this time.



CANADA-U.S. MINISTERIAL MEETING-RELAXATION OF IMPORT QUOTAS ON CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on the report he gave this morning. Was there any indication given by the representatives from the United States that increased imports
Inquiries of the Ministry from Canada would be possible by eliminating or relaxing their import quotas, especially as they affect agricultural products?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, we did, for example, have quite a lot to say about the import restrictions on cheddar cheese. The Minister of Agriculture made quite a case of that, and our counterparts in the United States have agreed to give that item favourable consideration. We discussed the broad sweep of agricultural products and the desire on both sides to have free trade. We also discussed closer consultations in order to prevent disturbing each other's market unduly, for example, by the early marketing of products that come on to the Canadian market before the appropriate season in Canada. There were other problems of that character, all of which were reviewed on a very friendly and constructive basis.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. It concerns the proposed national council of education. Could the hon. lady advise the house whether she and her government are ready and willing in every way to support this proposed national council of education?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Well, Mr. Speaker, the proposal to set up a national office has been by the provincial governments only, and up to this date no approach has been made to the federal government. We believe, however, there is much to be gained from such an office, and will be very happy and eager to assist in any way we can.



HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
MEDICARE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE AS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can assure the house that the medicare program will carry on as planned in spite of statements made by doctors at the annual meeting of the C.M.A., and the fact that Dr. Dalgleish, who became famous at the time of the advent of medicare in Saskatchewan, is to take office as president on July 1, 1968?
1874	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the question as asked is much too general in scope and should be placed on the order paper.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. In view of the rejection by the three prairie province premiers of the Carter commission recommendations, will the government undertake to place those recommendations before a joint parliamentary committee before any action is taken by the Minister of Finance on any part of that report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand that these three premiers have rejected all the recommendations of the Carter commission. I listened to their spokesman, the premier of Manitoba, on television last night, and I received a telegram this morning from him on behalf of the three to the effect that they view with concern the apparent haste with which the federal government proposes to implement the recommendations. I do not know where they got any indication that there was going to be any undue haste.


An hon. Member:: Just imagine that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps they assumed, and this would be a normal assumption, that there might be haste because this government always acts quickly on these matters.


Michael Starr: That was during the 60 days.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If they have any view that we are going to act with undue haste on this matter, there is no ground for such fears.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for housing. In view of the probable increase in N.H.A. mortgage rates from 7 to 7J per cent, and in view of the serious decline in housing starts so far this year, does the government

DEBATES	June 23, 1967
intend to change the formula of determining N.H.A. rates to encourage an increase in housing starts to meet the housing crisis today.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place the premise on which the question is based is completely wrong. There has been an appreciable increase in housing starts this year, notwithstanding the fact that housing starts were at a low level during the first quarter. We are already well ahead of last year and the increase in starts is continuing. So far as the interest rate level on N.H.A. or guaranteed loans is concerned, this in my opinion, represents one of the factors that has contributed to the substantial increase in starts during recent weeks.


John Gilbert: Will the Minister of Labour agree to refer the estimates of C.M.H.C. to the standing committee on housing, urban development and public works?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, Mr. Speaker.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, I should like to address my question to the acting minister. Has the minister caused an investigation to be made into the recent fatal accident at the forestry department research laboratory to determine government liability, if any?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that investigation is going on. I will bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the minister and he may have something to say about this on Monday.



SUGGESTED SURVEY OF ELEVATOR SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I should direct this question to Your Honour or to the Minister of Public Works, but I hope you will not consider it to be a theoretical one. When this house takes recess will Your Honour or the Minister of Public Works, whoever has jurisdiction, have an investigation and survey made in
June 23. 1967

respect of the elevator system in this house? I think most hon. members and the staff of the house would agree that during the week many hours of valuable time are lost because of this system, and that something should be done to determine how to improve it.
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the hon. member's question.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or, in his absence, which I regret sincerely, to his parliamentary secretary. Since that hon. gentleman does not appear to be in the house perhaps I should address it to anyone who is acting on his behalf. Twice during the past week I have been assured by the parliamentary assistant that everything is wonderful in Greece, so wonderful in fact that a Greek shepherd does not want to return to that country because everything is so beautiful there. May I ask whether that is the same Greece which on Wednesday of this week published an act which gives the army-backed government the power to sack university professors at will, and is it the same Greece which has not to date restored the freedom of the press?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In my opinion this is not a question, it is a speech. The hon. member knows that the rules do not permit members to make speeches at this time, however short they may be.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, this question is of some urgency. I would like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether the Greek shepherd is being deported this evening in order to make room for a Greek flying in here next Thursday evening?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the house leader
Inquiries of the Ministry and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will speak to one or other of his colleagues, asking them to promote an organization meeting of the joint committee on immigration, so that the committee can make plans to report on the various suggestions as to changes in immigration laws which were made by the committee last session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.



CENTENNIAL TELEVISION SERIES ON PROCESS OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he can tell us what progress if any has been made on the C.B.C.'s intention as a centennial series to film the working of parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I speak subject to correction, but I think this matter at the moment is in the hands of the house leaders for discussion with Your Honour.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Can the minister tell us whether he received recently the report of the Canada Labour Relations Board concerning the natural bargaining units and does he intend to release that report soon?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have received no such report.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. I should like to ask that hon. gentleman what encouraging news he may have this morning for the 1,100 men,
[Stage Direction]
June 23, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry and their families, who have been laid off at the Sydney steel plant in the last few months. What action does the government contemplate to assist these people who have problems only the unemployed can appreciate?
Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisier of Indusiry):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister undertook that the government would make a statement on this matter early next week.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to what definitely is an urgent matter. It is based on three phone calls I have had recently from Vancouver. Is the Minister of Fisheries still willing to use his good offices to bring the fishermen's strike on the Pacific coast to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, my position in this regard has not changed. The latest word I received just this morning would indicate that there is still hope of a settlement. I hope this settlement will take place before Monday of next week.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Mines, Energy and Resources whether he is prepared to make an interim report on the negotiations that are taking place between the cities of Ottawa, Hull and his department concerning water pollution?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I failed to understand the question.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion this question is repetitious of questions asked yesterday. At that time I suggested they might be placed on the order paper.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the government undertake as an immediate federal government centennial project the placing of appropriate markers at either the birth places or the grave sites of all the fathers of our confederation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to look into that matter.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture, and it has to do with the highly vaunted task force that we have been told about. Can the minister say whether he has a target date for the establishment of this group, and whether it will be before the middle of this year?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have seen many people concerned with the task force and are hoping to make an appointment very shortly.

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


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of Labour for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, vote No. 1. Vote No. 1 will be found at page 256 of the bluebook. The details are listed on page 258.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,972,000.
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, in presenting the estimates of the Department of Labour for consideration by the committee today, I am very pleased to be able to do so in a climate that is much more tranquil, much less volatile than that which permeated my introductory remarks when my estimates came before the committee about this time last year. Though the present condition may prove to be merely a lull before a new escalation of activity in the
June 23, 1967

federal industrial relations field, I must say that this lull has proven most valuable both to me and to my department. It has provided us with a badly needed breathing spell, because the first major strike broke out within a matter of days of my taking office and that atmosphere continued right up until midnight December 31, 1966. However, I think we have been able to use this breathing spell to advantage and put it to good use in realigning our thinking and our program directions.
I believe that my department's ability to cope with problems has increased and that we are now in a position to make a much more positive contribution to improving the environment of the ever-changing Canadian work world than we were a year or so ago. I think it is quite safe to say that all, who are wise enough to learn, did learn a great deal from our industrial relations experiences of 1966, which the record will show was the most difficult year in the history of Canadian labour relations, starting off with 35 work stoppages on January 1, either strikes or lay-offs then in progress, and 594 additional stoppages occurring during the remainder of the year. The stoppages, I might say, which occurred in industries under federal jurisdiction drew most attention and, perhaps naturally, made a very wide impact on the country.
Even though these particular stoppages represented only 7 per cent of the total number, they accounted for 20 per cent of the time loss during the year. It is not my intention today to go into a detailed accounting of the myriad complex and interrelated factors which underlined the difficult year 1966. This I have done on several occasions both in and out of the house. But there are a few major aspects of the 1966 industrial climate that in my opinion bear restating.
When you have a period of great general industrial prosperity reaching its peak, coincident with a number of two and three year old major collective bargaining agreements coming up for re-negotiation, it should not be surprising to anyone to find vigorous industrial relations activity. When you add to this an almost non-existent unemployment situation, and that was the situation in 1966-indeed, we had a great shortage of skilled workers in many essential fields-the industrial barometer would certainly tend to rise even more rapidly.
Is it in any way peculiar, therefore, that with all these signs of continuing prosperity around them, the unions, who as they saw it had fallen two or three years behind during
Supply-Labour
their collective bargaining negotiations, demanded what they said was a more equitable share of this new prosperity? I might ask this question: Is there not more or less general agreement in Canada and in the democratic countries of the world today that the employee should benefit in relation to the economic success of the venture in which he has invested his skills, in the same way as other types of investors benefit, the owners and the managers? Certainly the managers benefit when they do a good job, and expect substantial increases for their efforts. I feel the same way about employees. It is a question of degree, I suggest, in each case. But rather than go further into the climate of 1966 I would like to deal briefly with some of the lessons that have been learned and some of the misconceptions that have become evident out of that period of severe testing.
After many immediate outcries-and for a period of several months last year we were getting them several times a week, sometimes several times a day-proposals and counterproposals throughout the whole year, and after a calm re-examination in the interim, it is still evident that the basic concepts underlying free collective bargaining in Canada and other true democratic countries remain beyond serious challenge. Any system devised for the sharing of economic benefits between the employer and the employee must be compatible with the basic social and economic tenets of the society in which it is to work. Freedom to choose, freedom to accept or reject, indeed even freedom to be wrong, is a basic value in Canadian life. Thus any system for sharing the munificence of that life which does not contain those freedoms is both incompatible and unworkable.
Yet such group freedom can never be total within an active, organized society. Its scope must be limited, as we saw on one or two occasions in this house last year. This group freedom must be limited to an extent acceptable to society. In Canada this society is a self-disciplining one, a democratic one retaining the ultimate right, if necessary, to limit group freedoms by its judgment in applying a comprehensive and final totality of all factors. This in turn places the clear responsibility for self-discipline on the individual and on particular groups within the society.
[DOT] (12 noon)
From the experiences of 1966 it has become shatteringly clear that those in positions of influence, not only in labour and industry but

June 23, 1967
Supply-Labour
also in government, must make every possible effort to contribute to and build a new environment within which a free and responsible collective bargaining system can flourish. If suitable conditions are not prepared for the encouragement of these new attitudes, how can the industrial relations community expect to deal with other crucial matters concerning the future which were borne upon us by some of the experiences of last year?
Mr. Chairman, I must say that there is ample evidence that the labour force in Canada, now over 7.5 million strong, is rapidly beginning to change its basic composition. It is already beginning to alter materially its industrial occupational and geographic structure. There is a steady and great shifting from the traditional goods producing industries to the rapidly expanding service industries which are characteristic of today's bountiful society.
There is also an influx of youth with more education and with a new and different set of values, with no fears of unemployment, no history of any industrial depression and with a highly developed sense of mobility. It is evident that the provisions of collective bargaining will continue to be extended to an ever-increasing number and diversity of citizens including white collar and professional persons. There is every indication that the growth of union membership in Canada will most likely maintain its recent level of between 6 per cent and 7 per cent per annum and indeed might well escalate more rapidly over the next few years. In this connection the house will recall that by its own action this parliament has added 200,000 members to the collective bargaining and union community in the form of the federal civil service. The impact of technological change will continue to be a growing concern to both management and labour in the resolution of the problems caused by its impacts on employees and efficiency.
Another factor that must be taken into consideration for labour relations is that during the first quarter of 1967 immigration rose by 50 per cent compared with the same period last year, which in itself was the second highest immigration year in Canada's history. It is reasonable to assume, based on our past experience, that these welcome new citizens who have entered the labour force will bring with them attitudes and concepts from their own native lands. An increasing number of the men who are active in the labour field come from other lands and bring with them the benefit of their experience.

Another interesting factor is that during the fiscal year 1966-67 the number of people working as employees in the non-farm sector of the economy increased by nearly 5.5 per cent. This was the fourth successive year of increases in excess of 5 per cent, a remarkable record considering that population growth rates have averaged less than 3 per cent annually. In the process of making these large increases in their work forces, employers have absorbed the more readily available labour. The surplus situation which existed a few years ago in 1958, 1959, 1961, has virtually disappeared in most areas in Canada, although, regrettably, there are one or two areas where the situation today is not good.
Another method of attempting to comprehend the Canadian labour situation lies through examination of the more general statistical measures, that is, of the developments in the labour field. These general figures show clearly that in the last year there were very large increases in employment and in the size of the labour force, with relative stability of the unemployment rate throughout the whole period. That rate is now just under 4 per cent, but for some time it was approximately 3.3 per cent.
The weekly pay of most workers in Canada also substantially increased during 1966. It seems probable that the industrial composite figure of average weekly wages and salaries, the most general measure we have of average weekly earnings in Canada, will in the future consistently exceed $100 weekly. Labour income has gained very substantially because gains in this figure are determined by the sizes of increases in employment and in average weekly earnings.
As I have said, the important job for the immediate future is to learn from the happenings of last year in an attempt to determine the extent to which change could be made to advantage. Thus, it is in this environment of spectacular movement and changes, in the industrial theatre to some of which I have referred, that our new and reorganized Department of Labour has set its course for the future.
Hon. members will recall that some concern was expressed in the house last year that as a result of the redistribution of certain functions between the Department of Labour and the Department of Manpower and Immigration the former might have a tendency to fade away. I can assure the house that nothing is farther from the truth and that one
June 23, 1967

minister could not have handled the two jobs last year.
The Department of Labour is now re-examining its position vis-a-vis the pressing realities of today's world of work and is setting about its clearly defined objectives with enthusiasm and with all the resources at its disposal. The ongoing objective of this new Department of Labour is to improve continuously the environment in which Canadians work in such vital areas as their remuneration, their employment standards, their safety, their employee-employer relationships and their individual human rights.
The major structural reorganization of the department to meet these new goals has, for the most part, been completed over the past year. Under the deputy minister its three main programs, labour relations, labour standards and benefits and research and development, are headed by two assistant deputy ministers and a director general of high calibre and great experience, all of them with both labour and industrial backgrounds. I might say that I think we have also been fortunate in having attracted to the department other senior program officers who bring with them not only great skill in their specialties but also the benefits of new and different viewpoint from the outside. Recruitment of more such men and women of experience will continue and will in fact be stepped up.
Last year at estimate time I pointed out that one of the most significant new developments in the whole labour relations field was the passage by this house of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. In the administration of this new code, along with the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, much has been accomplished, although much still remains to be done. We are making encouraging progress.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
As I said in December last, the enactment of the Canada Labour (Safety) Code by parliament at that time was also an important achievement. Up until December 1966, there had not been a statute of general application to industries and undertakings under federal jurisdiction having as its primary purpose the ensuring of safe working conditions for all employees. No reference could be made to the effective date of the new legislation until the legislation had been passed, although a great deal of planning and thinking had been done. I might say, however, that my department has undertaken an entirely new and vital
Supply-Labour
role, that of safeguarding the health and wellbeing of a large segment of the Canadian working force. Considerable planning and other preparatory work is already under way with the provinces and industry with a view, I might say, to having the legislation proclaimed and in full force and effect before the end of this year.
My department also administers both the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act and the Female Employees Equal Pay Act. These two acts, which are similar to legislation in the provinces, cover all businesses and undertakings within federal jurisdiction and the department is in the process of implementing a broad-based educational program to provide a leadership role for all jurisdictions.
In the international field Canada currently is studying three important international instruments adopted some five months ago by the general assembly of the United Nations. These include the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, the covenant on civil and political rights, and an optional protocol to the covenant on civil and political rights.
Next year has been designated international year for human rights and officials of my department have attended the planning conference for Canadian participation and subsequent meetings.
I should like to say a word about the conciliation and arbitration branch of the department which was of prime importance during the year 1966 and is likely to be in the months ahead. This branch administers the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. The principles involved in the act, I might say, are designed to develop maximum initiative by labour and management in the regulation of their own affairs, that is, without government intervention, consistent, of course, with government intervention if and when this becomes necessary in the interests of the public. In the reorganization of the industrial relations branch which took place in 1966, the department established the employee representation branch to serve as the administrative agency of the Canada Labour Relations Board.
Directly related to our responsibility to assist in the improvement of the labour relations environment is the department's labour-management consultation program. This program seeks to encourage joint consultation with a view to lessening crises and conflicts which sometimes lead to unnecessary work stoppages. Our work has been rewarded by a

June 23, 1967
Supply-Labour
noticeable upturn of interest on the part of the progressive industries and unions. I believe it would interest hon. members to know that currently 2,158 labour-management committees are in active operation across Canada, covering a total of more than 631,000 employees.
It was the clear realization that the issues to be resolved in the future will be of increasing complexity which led to the government's decision to establish the task force to which reference has been made of late more than once in this chamber. However, I think we were wise-and I am sure hon. members will agree that it was far better to do this than to take serious steps during a period of continuing crises like we had in 1966-to establish a task force of very able men with a competent group of advisers to study the problems and major issues patiently, capably and comprehensively until satisfactory proposals are arrived at. My department is assisting and will of course continue to assist and co-operate with the task force.
I should now like to refer briefly to what has come out of the Freedman inquiry. The recognition in the Freedman report of the fact that essentially no plan can be accepted which would slow down the rate of technological advancement or the freedom of discovery, of course, is the immediate problem to be solved by the railways and the brotherhoods. In this specific area of direct federal interest I should like to say quite frankly that in my opinion, and certainly in the opinion of the officials of my department who have been following the matter very carefully, both the railway union involved and the C.N.R. management are entitled to very great credit for their recent demonstration of responsibility in coping with the dislocations as a result of technological advancement. In essence it has now been mutually agreed by the railway and the unions-and this is incorporated in an agreement-that in those cases where technological advancement would require the relocation of employees, the company will give the unions not less than 90 days' notice thereof and not less than 60 days' notice where relocation is not expected. In so notifying, the company will also include all pertinent details for the information of the union. Here is a concrete example of how the two industrial partners are honestly trying to work out an improved mechanism to meet the new conditions of today.
I think this underlines a very important point. Most changes, technological and otherwise, are of a manageable proportion, but

each has its own particular characteristics and requirements. Technological changes often involve a relatively small number of people. This sort of problem does not lend itself to imposed governmental solutions which, by their very nature, must be comprehensive and general. Wherever and whenever possible the government role should be restricted, in my opinion, to assisting the private sector to make its own adjustments. That is exactly what the unions and the railways have done in the matter of run-throughs.
In line with the pressing need to take progressive steps to improve generally the efficiency of the collective bargaining process, the department is energetically studying the feasibility of setting up facilities for the training of more potential conciliators and mediators. That in my opinion, also is a forwardlooking step. It is obvious in the industrial relations area that when you have highly trained and experienced negotiators to represent the union and highly trained and experienced negotiators to represent the company, each having very strong views, in order to be effective the mediators and conciliators assigned by the government ought to have some professional and training background so that they can bring the highest level of skill to bear objectively and realistically on the complex problems involved.
Hon. members will recall that the Department of Labour was host to-in a large measure its meetings took place in this chamber-the regional I.L.O. conference in September 1966, which was attended by over 250 representatives of unions, employer organizations and governments. This regional I.L.O. conference, the first ever to have been held in Canada, provided an excellent opportunity for the exchange of views of important matters which confront various countries in the labour field.
I might say that in addition to what it is doing in the field of inquiry and in the field of the training program for mediators and conciliators, the department is also expanding its labour councellor service abroad in order to improve the flow of labour information from overseas.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I should like to deal briefly now, Mr. Chairman, with the specific votes. The committee is being asked to approve $12,811,000 for the Department of Labour, of which $3,426,000 is for statutory items. Attention is directed to the new vote structure which is
June 23. 1967

being used this year. This form of presentation is an endeavour to meet the Glassco commission recommendation that the estimates be prepared in such a form that the votes will more clearly describe the purposes of the expenditures. I hope that we have achieved this by dividing the activities of the Department of Labour into the three rather distinct programs of activity to which I have referred-labour relations, labour standards and benefits, research and development, with a fourth for departmental administration to encompass general over-all support services.
As was pointed out by your predecessor in the chair, sir, the various activities which are covered under each vote appear on pages 258 to 273 of the blue book. It will be noted that there is an over-all increase over last year of roughly $1,539,000, of which $1,024,700 or roughly two thirds is under vote 10, labour standards and benefits. This increase is concerned primarily with the administrative costs associated with the new Canada Labour (Safety) Code passed by parliament in December, 1966. A further substantial increase is associated with the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. The enforcement of this legislation involves more staff resources and an increase in the salary allocation. This becomes necessary if we are to make certain that the provisions of the act are lived up to.
In conclusion may I say that I hope the proclamation of the new labour safety code before the end of this year and the application of the principles of the code to government services will result not only in a saving of dollars but in a saving of human suffering also.
The man-year establishment for the department for 1967 will be 850 persons compared with 669 in 1966-67. The total payroll cost will be under $5 million for the fiscal year.


Mr. Aiken:: May I ask the minister a question? Does he intend to deal with his responsibilities under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation separately?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think it would be more convenient, if the committee is agreeable, to deal first with the Department of Labour estimates, then with the Unemployment Insurance Commission estimates and then with the estimates of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Gilles Grégoire: May I also ask a question?

May I also put a question to the minister? I should like to ask the Minister of
Supply-Labour
Labour (Mr. Nicholson) whether he also intends to state his views concerning the dispute between the Canada Labour Relations Board and the C.N.T.U., with regard to natural bargaining units. Does the minister intend to state his views on that subject?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think the hon. member knows, as do other hon. members, that parliament by an act has delegated certain judicial responsibilities to a tribunal, the Canada Labour Relations Board. That board is carrying on its functions. The government should not and does not dictate to this board which carries on its own work. Unless and until parliament changes the act, that board must discharge its responsibilities as it thinks proper.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Hamilton West-I beg your pardon, the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Mr. Lambert:: Perhaps that little slip may be permitted as we have an expanded football league, with Hamilton and Ottawa. Perhaps the schedule is a little off.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The chairman has had too much sun.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That may be so. I apologize to the committee for the absence of my colleagues, the hon. members for Ontario and Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes. They would normally be taking an active part in this debate. As you know, sir, we have a leadership convention looming. The hon. member for Ontario is a candidate and he had pre-existing engagements. The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes is a convention cochairman, and the convention committee is now in Vancouver. Perhaps the hon. lady who is now Secretary of State will recall that her party went through this necessary procedure. The representatives of her party made remarks similar to mine when they were holding a leadership convention. Undoubtedly it will happen again that her party will hold another convention. This is one of the facts of political life and of party organization, and it is part and parcel of government. Anybody who wishes to ignore it is merely putting his head in the sand.
The year 1967, so far as labour relations that come under federal jurisdiction are concerned, has been more peaceful than the year 1966. I do not know that Canada can stand too many years such as 1966 following too closely. We have reached the month of June, of course, but it may be that the latter part of

June 23, 1967
Supply-Labour
the year will not be as peaceful as the first half has been. Whether the first half of the year has been peaceful because those coming under federal jurisdiction have been imbued with the sentiments of the centennial year I do not know. Their colleagues who operate under provincial jurisdiction do not share those sentiments in some provinces where, unfortunately, we are experiencing a continual turmoil in labour relations. My simple comment on that score is that this continuing striking at the slightest pretence, this wildcat striking, boils down essentially to holding up the public to ransom. We saw last year that people were becoming more than fed up with being held up to ransom. I am not addressing these remarks specifically to management or labour but rather to both, and I say to governments in certain jurisdictions that the public patience is being sorely tried by this continuing disruption. The public pays for it.
There will be ever-increasing demands for compulsory arbitration. Settlements will be imposed. In saying this I admit that compulsory arbitration is not the end that should be sought because imposed settlements are not necessarily the best to deal with the situation. Whether from the point of view of the employees or the employers, an imposed settlement is always fraught with difficulties. The public of Canada, as in the United States, has come to the point of losing patience with those who in many instances are selfishly motivated and whose motives are not directly connected with the just demands of employees.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
We have seen some nonsenses perpetrated in this country in this connection, nonsenses which occur because certain persons are power hungry. Because of the tie between the general membership of the unions and those who direct those unions, the men have no choice but to follow the instructions of their officers, and out they go. Still, it is the public which suffers. I think it is time wise persons in management, in labour and in the government recognized the storm signals that are appearing. At present the general public is quite prepared to allow for complete freedom of negotiation and for assisted negotiation in cases where government mediators are at hand. All this would be wiped away and compulsory arbitration, with all its rigidity, would be imposed if public sympathy were lost.
We see protests against injunctions. There may be some abuse of this process but on the other hand there are abuses on the union

side, mass picketing, for example, by persons who are not really connected with the labour dispute. This is using a massive club against persons who also have rights. Management has rights as well as labour. If there is abuse by either side this will, of course, bring restrictions.
I personally cannot condone criticism of the courts or the personal criticism directed against judges, who understand the law, just because some people feel they are being restrained by the law from following their natural inclinations and that the law therefore is bad and they should be able to break it with impunity. This is nonsense. The law applies in this field as it does in criminal matters and no man can decide whether the law is good or bad on the basis of whether he is being constrained from doing something he would like to do. The robber or the murderer may not consider that the Criminal Code is right, but then he does not assert that the law is bad because it prevents him from committing a hold-up or a murder. The example I use may be extreme. Someone may suggest it is wrong to use the comparison between the Criminal Code and an injunction in a labour dispute, but I believe a parallel does exist in the argument. I do not think the action taken by certain individuals and groups with regard to injunctions is to be praised or even condoned. They dislike them. They are free to object to the principle, but they are not free to break the law as part of their objection.
The hon. member for Lapointe raised a question in connection with the Canada Labour Relations Board and the C.N.T.U. There is a difference of opinion. I cannot accept all the arguments that are advanced by the C.N.T.U. I come from a province where people have just as much right as anybody else in this country. But the result of what is proposed would be the utmost fragmentation of labour negotiations. We might as well set up ten Canada labour relations boards under the act if certain arguments were to be accepted. Admittedly some adjustments could be made, and I think they should be made. There is the question of language to be considered when it comes to representations made before the board. I would certainly ask the minister to direct his attention to this aspect.
In his reply the minister used the argument: there is an act, there is a board, and the government will not interfere. But if there are grievances, and I think there are legitimate grievances, it is incumbent on the
June 23, 1967

government to propose the necessary amendments to the legislation which would modify the constitution of the board and its procedures, not merely adopt the attitude of Pontius Pilate and wash its hands of the problem. That will not dispel it.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a question of privilege, with all due respect to the hon. gentleman I do not think he could have heard the question which was put to me. I was replying to a specific question put to me by an hon. member. I certainly do not disagree with the hon. gentleman's expression of opinion right now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would like the minister to have advanced that statement as an argument, not as a question of privilege. I did not suggest that the minister was seeking to emulate Pontius Pilate at all in his reply. What I had in mind was a general attitude. Not all hon. members who are present here are fully conscious of the details and the background of the quarrel and they will continue to be uninformed unless they are given some explanation of the problems which have arisen and the difficulties which are encountered in connection with this issue. I am not asking the minister to make a pronouncement as to who is right or who is wrong. But certainly he should bring us up to date by telling us what difficulties have arisen in connection with the Canada Labour Relations Board.
I wish to turn now to consideration of another matter, the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. I recall that during the passage of that bill I and many of my hon. friends, as well as some hon. members on the government side, raised certain very valid objections to what seemed to be a dogmatic and stubborn approach by the then minister to the application on a general basis of the 40-hour week and the question of whether permits for overtime could be obtained in the case of emergency. I indicated to the minister that there were some industries to which this rigid limitation of hours of work within a week could not possibly be applied unless they were to be loaded with most fantastic costs and most difficult situations.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
There was some recognition of this difficulty by provision in the act for deferments, but the axe was intended to fall some day. The minister never replied with respect to the problems of the oil and gas industry and related supply industries, where for example at the present time, in the Rainbow lake and Zama lake areas of northwestern Alberta, development is taking place very close to the
Supply-Labour
boundaries of British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. As long as these firms operate in the province of Alberta they do not come under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, but immediately their operations cross provincial boundaries, whether in the trucking of pipe or conveyance of goods or even in the case of workers moving across boundaries from their camps to drilling sites, then the code does apply.
I defy the minister or any of his officials to indicate how the code will apply to a firm moving in crews to drill sites or to exploration sites say in wintertime when the crews may have to travel for seven to ten hours from their camps. These men work a long stint when they get to the sites and then come out for relief. The same thing applies when moving in loads of drill pipe. The truckloads go in, are delivered, and then trucks must be brought out. It is often impossible to accomplish all this in a 40-hour or 48-hour stint.
Besides, many men will not undertake these jobs unless they are guaranteed 60 to 70 hours work. It is isolated work; otherwise these men work under good conditions. In addition, their lives are predicated on a certain higher standard of living earned during a part of the year, and they refuse to work unless they can be guaranteed long hours and consequently higher pay.
The minister knows as well as I do the conditions that applied to the Peace river dam construction and the high wages that were being paid. Throughout western Canada representatives of the contracting firms and of the British Columbia government went around guaranteeing hours of work far in excess of those specified in the act simply because of the isolated nature of the work and the fact that the men could not move their families to live near them. The oil development in Alberta, in northeastern British Columbia and in the Northwest Territories is becoming farther and farther removed from the centres of population. It is ludicrous to say that families will follow these developments in all circumstances because of the absence of schools, hospitals and other reasons. The men who go out to do this work in wintertime-the drilling must take place during the winter months because of muskeg conditions-are going to insist upon these long hours of work at high wage rates and no legislation is going to force them to work less. Therefore I think there must be a degree of flexibility which is not now apparent.

June 23, 1967
Supply-Labour
I want to hear from the minister in this regard. Remember, once a firm starts working in an interprovincial area and is caught by the labour standards act it cannot allocate its crews so far as scales of pay and working hours are concerned in that particular work and then have different standards for the rest of its employees who may be doing work strictly within one province. In this context I am thinking of some of the more extensive operations of heavy trucking firms in Alberta who haul drill rigs, pipe, bunkhouses and other kinds of equipment. Are they going to have certain of their personnel covered by Alberta legislation and the remainder who cross provincial boundaries covered by other regulations under the federal act? How could a firm maintain equitable management-employee relations in such circumstances?
Many operators in the oil industry have approached me with respect to the difficult conditions under which they are being asked to operate. These are impossible conditions. As I said, it seems to me that the labour standards act was designed for nice cozy factory operations in central Canada but so far as our development industries farther afield are concerned, which may be caught by this act, somebody was out to lunch, so to speak, and it should not apply.
We must also remember that the products of these industries go into a very competitive market. The cost of production of commodities has become a very serious problem to Canada. Not only have we got higher transportation costs. Higher costs have been imposed on the trucking industry as a result of this act, but there are higher costs elsewhere. For what benefit? The men involved want to work longer but they are not permitted to do so. Thus we are driving up costs to the point where some people are saying it is not worth the candle. Judgment must be exercised in regard to some of the standards that we may set. If the product will not be sold at the end of the line then it is useless to say that our people will be employed. Canadian business is not in existence merely for the purpose of stockpiling.
I want to ask some questions with regard to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but since the minister indicated, and I agree with what he said, that we should defer questions on it until a later point today, I will content myself by indicating one area to which I hope he will address his remarks. I refer to the provision under the National Housing Act whereby the corporation may make loans to companies or individuals who

hold blocks of C.M.H.C. mortgages. I ask, on what terms? It would appear as though the costs of these loans may be as high as those of loan factors. Certain difficulties have arisen as a result of this type of financing. I would like to have some elaboration on that point.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour gave the committee an interesting sermon a few minutes ago. He spelled out his belief that both labour and management have the fullest freedom to pursue their legitimate interests in a free society. It is a belief with which we all agree. I only wish that the speeches the minister made across the country throughout the last year had contained the same argument. I am going to deal with that point in a few moments, but I think I would be remiss if I did not comment on the interesting remarks of the first speaker for the official opposition, the hon. member for Edmonton West.
The hon. member for Edmonton West made a speech in which on every issue with which he dealt and which divides labour and management he wound up on the side of management. He came out for compulsory arbitration.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I did not.


David Orlikow: He is shaking his head that he did not but if one reads his speech in Hansard one will see that the context in which it was given would so indicate.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, it is fair that I should rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is absolutely misquoting me. I did not say I was in favour of compulsory arbitration. I said there was a danger that we were heading toward it and that there were some very grave inequities in respect of compulsory arbitration. I certainly did not advocate it.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I could hardly misquote the hon. member because I did not quote him at all. The hon. member who talks, as he has just done again, about the fact that we are moving toward compulsory arbitration did not say that he disapproves of it. I think the record will speak for itself, and I drew the inference that he was not opposed to compulsory arbitration.
Similarly, the hon. member spoke about the need for respect for our laws. I got the impression that only labour people on occasion ignore the laws. We did not hear about the cases of large companies and others in this
June 23, 1967

country which have been guilty of firing people because they have participated in union activities or in organizing unions. This is a practice which is contrary to the law.
We did not hear the hon. member express any opinion about the use of ex parte injunctions which are granted against labour unions without representatives of those unions being present. We did hear an argument from the hon. member regarding the difficulties in enforcing the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and the 40-hour week provision. In my opinion, where there is a division between management and labour in respect of these matters the hon. member has taken the side of management. I think the record will show that to be so.
I do want to talk about what I think has been an unfortunate practice of the minister in the last few months, if not in the last year. The minister has been making a series of speeches across the country and I will deal with two examples in which he indicated, as did the hon. member for Edmonton West, that because of labour difficulties and strikes we may be moving toward some form of compulsory arbitration. The minister made a speech on June 17,	1967 in Vancouver to the
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and I should like to read one sentence from that speech. He said:
There is abundant evidence-and not only in the Freedman report-that our present laws and procedures are not adequate to deal with all of today's industrial relations problems.
If they are not adequate I should like to ask what the implication is if not that we may be moving toward a form of compulsory arbitration.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. There are any number of alternatives that arise from that part of my remarks. There is no reference there to compulsory arbitration. If the hon. member will only be fair enough to read the whole speech it will be seen that there is no such reference.


David Orlikow: There may be a number of alternatives, but I think it is the responsibility of the minister, if he is not in favour of compulsory arbitration or any form of it, to spell that out at some point.
In May the minister made a speech in Ottawa to the Ontario Mechanical Contractors Association. In anticipation of the minister getting up again to say that I am inferring things which he did not mean, I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in 27053-120
Supply-Labour
Canadian Transport, the official publication of one of the large Canadian unions, the C.B. of R.T. I will read a couple of paragraphs to indicate how that union assessed the minister's speech. They refer to it in this way:
It took the form of strong criticism of strikes, and a veiled warning, that unless a better method of settling industrial disputes was found, government intervention and the imposition of compulsory arbitration on a much broader scale were inevitable.
That is how the editor of this union publication assessed the minister's speech. The editorial goes on to quote from the minister's speech and states:
He argued that, when unions resort to strikes, they "emphasize their own inadequacies.. .their inability to persuade."
He added that "there must be a better way-there has to be a better way I"
A strike is a difficult thing for everybody but it is more difficult for the worker who, for every day he is on strike, does not get paid. Despite what some members may think, workers do not easily decide to go on strike and they are not coerced to go on strike. If there have been more strikes in the last year or two than in earlier years we have to ask ourselves why. Why do workers take the ultimate step of going on strike? I think the reasons are very obvious to anyone who reads the financial sections of daily newspapers or the Financial Post. They will realize that the workers who go on strike can read the annual financial reports and know that for the last two or three years the profits of companies large and small, but particularly large corporations, have been increasing at a tremendous rate. The workers take the very simple view that when there is an increase in productivity and profits they are entitled to their fair share.
Workers also take the view that when there are technological changes and automation they have a right not to featherbed or to be paid for doing nothing but to be consulted and to sit down with management to ensure that the effects of automation and technological change will be implemented in a fair way. A few years ago there was a stoppage in the operations of our railways which led to the government appointing Mr. Justice Freedman to look into the matter and make recommendations. We received an excellent report but where is that report now? It is gathering dust in the files of the labour department.
Numerous requests have been made by labour organizations for government action through legislation. They have been met with

June 23, 1967
Supply-Labour
the very bland answer that these questions are being studied. If the workers get tired of that answer and resort to strike action on occasion we ought not to be surprised. What surprises me is that the minister and his department do not seem to understand the situation and in my opinion are becoming, unduly alarmed about strikes, which I believe are an integral part of the democratic right of workers in a democratic society. May I call it one o'clock.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Isabelle):: Order. It being one o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of Labour, vote No. 1.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, in my remarks just before the lunch break I expressed the opinion that the number of strikes we had in Canada last year was not, if one considers the reasons for them, in my opinion very serious. I said that the government and others who are implying the possibility of changes in labour legislation and the possibility of compulsory arbitration are misreading the signs and misunderstanding the reasons for the strikes. They are really not getting at the root of the problem.
One of the reactions of the government has been the appointment of a task force to study labour-management relations. The Minister of Labour on December 2, 1966, as can be found at page 10646 of Hansard, referred to this task force and its purposes in the following terms:
-the Prime Minister has set up a task force to study the problems and to make recommendations on what, if any, changes should be made in the existing procedures.
I want to put on the record now, so there will be no misunderstanding now or in the future, that I personally-and I know I speak for a rather substantial number of people who are much more intimately involved with labour-management relationships than I am and who are concerned with leadership in the labour movement-am disturbed about the task force, its personnel, the tremendous scope of the work it proposes to do, the length of time the task force will inevitably take, the 
expense that will be entailed, and the lack of what I consider to be any practical results.
Let me give my reasons for saying this and outline what I see as the difficulties. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to make this statement publicly so there will be no misunderstanding. I am speaking for myself but I know others feel as I do. I am very sceptical about the chairman of the task force, Dean Woods. Dean Woods has been heading a joint labour-management committee studying the problems of labour and management in the province of Manitoba. This study has been carried on for some three years. For three years or more the labour movement in Manitoba has been concerned about the problem of injunctions. It has been concerned about the problem of its legal status as a result of legislation that made labour unions legal entities which could be sued. It has been concerned about the fact that workers are still being fired for helping to organize unions in the province. It has been concerned about the existing legislation and the administration of the act in Manitoba, because the labour movement has no recourse under the law to prevent these practices. This is the fact in the province of Manitoba, although the labour relations act obviously makes these unfair labour practices.
When the labour movement has complained to the provincial government over the last three years the answer of Premier Roblin or the provincial minister of labour has been: We cannot do anything about this matter because the Woods committee is studying it. The fact is that in three years there has been no report from this committee.
In case members of the committee think I am alone in my view I want to quote one paragraph from a speech made by the president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, Mr. R. J. Henderson, at the annual meeting of the federation on June 3 this year. I quote from his speech as reported in the Winnipeg Tribune of June 3:
In my opinion the Woods Committee (Manitoba's survey of labour relations and labour standards legislation under Dean Harry D. Woods of McGill University) is simply being used as a smokescreen by the government as an excuse for failing to introduce amendments we require in the labour laws.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I believe, and I know it has already been said privately if not publicly, that this task force will not report for 18 months. There may be some preliminary reports in the fall
June 23, 1367

but these certainly will not be based on detailed studies. It seems obvious to me that if we are in trouble, as the government seems to think we are, we should not have to wait 18 months before we get down to work. I suggest to the Minister of Labour that there are difficulties in the railway industry which may lead to a work stoppage long before 18 months have gone by. This is one of the complaints I have.
My second complaint is that the task force has undertaken to study almost any and every subject which might be of interest not just to the labour movement or to management but to every professor in Canada who wants to do a study and get paid for it. I have seen a preliminary list of these studies. The task force is proposing to do close to 100 studies, most of which have nothing at all to do with labour-management relationships in the federal jurisdiction. I want the members of the committee to realize that the bilingual and bicultural commission only did 130 studies. So I am suggesting that we are undertaking a study which will come close in magnitude to the size of that undertaken by the B and B commission, in my opinion will cost close to $2 million before we are through and will not be completed in time to be of practical use.
Another matter about which I should like to complain very strenuously is the inability to get information as to what the task force is going to do. I know they have not completed all their plans but a large number of the contracts with the people who are doing the studies have already been made. What is the reason for the secrecy? I have been told by some of the people connected with the task force that it is not thought necessary to make the plans of the task force public. I wish to tell the minister so he can tell the members of the task force that in my view this is a public force and that when they are doing a study as important as this one is supposed to be and are spending the amount of money I have mentioned, it is the public's right to know what studies are being undertaken, who is doing them and so forth.
Let us consider some of these studies. A number of qualified people have undertaken to do studies but I question the validity of some of them. I wonder what they have to do with labour-management relationships and I question the reason for making them. Let me go over a few of them. Apparently there is a study on the relationship between trade unions in Canada and trade unions in the United 27053-1201
Supply-Labour
States. This is a very interesting subject inasmuch as Canadian trade unions are closely and intimately connected with United States trade unions. I have no objection to that study but I suggest that at the same time there should be a study on the relationship between management and ownership in Canada and the United States. If we are going to study the relationship between the United Auto Workers Union in Canada and the United Auto Workers Union in the United States, then surely we should also have a study of the relationship between the Ford Motor Company in the United States and the Ford Motor Company in Canada, a wholly owned subsidiary. Yet to my knowledge such a study is not being done.
It is proposed that there be a study of the use of violence in labour disputes. Have we had a great deal of violence in labour disputes in Canada? I do not think so. However, if such has been the case, what were the causes and how often are management representatives involved in violence? In cases where picket lines have been formed, how often does the manager of a plant drive his car through the picket line so that strikers on picket duty are injured? I am not saying we should not undertake such a study but I question the reasons for it and I suspect there may be an element of bias in it.
Among the list of studies proposed, until I and I suppose several other people made private representations, there was one called "unions and political action". I have no objection to that sort of study but I question what this subject has to do with union-management relationships. I suggest that if it does have anything to do with union-management relationships it would be just as useful and perhaps more interesting to have a study on management and political action. How involved is management in politics in Canada? Unions give money to political parties and to candidates. We make no bones about it. A large number of unions give money to the New Democratic party, and the records are open. How much money is given by management to political parties, which companies do it and to what parties do they give it?
A great deal of information on this subject has been gathered by the committee which studied election expenses. I know that the title of this study has disappeared from the list but that has not convinced me that such a study will not be undertaken under a different title. When I see that kind of study proposed I cannot help coming to that conclusion, and I want to tell the Minister of Labour

June 23. 1967
Supply-Labour
that a good deal of the information I have received came from people who are much more directly concerned in the day to day operations of the labour movement than I am.
There is to be a study on federal conciliation procedures in the railway industry to be undertaken by the Department of Labour itself. I do not want to be critical of the Department of Labour because I know it has some very excellent people, but one can hardly expect them to do a very objective study of the work of conciliation under their jurisdiction. We have found 75 or 80 academics to do other studies and surely we could have found an academic to do that study.
Then there is to be a study of the wage criteria in the public service. Why do a study on that subject when for the first time we have passed legislation which allows the salaries of public servants to be negotiated through collective bargaining? This study is to be undertaken by the Department of Finance. I suggest that the Department of Finance cannot be very objective. Its job is to try to reduce the financial burden of the federal government. How can we get an objective study from that department?
Here is a task force which was characterized by someone today as "a proxy royal commission", which it is said will take 18 months to complete its work but which I suggest will need much closer to 28 months, which is going to spend a couple of million dollars, and whose work in my opinion will be largely useless. I suggest to the minister and the government that they should take a look at such problems as the one on which Mr. Justice Freedman reported and then bring in legislation which can be discussed and enacted here without waiting for the task force to do a job which I do not think it will be able to do.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I want to deal with one more matter which the minister mentioned, namely, the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. The minister said many nice things about it today. It seems to me that if ever a political snow job was done in this country, if ever a cynical piece of legislation was proposed and enacted by any government, it is this piece of legislation. Let us look at it. If we exclude federal civil servants, 80 per cent of the employees in Canada who come under the jurisdiction of the federal government work on the railways. Through collective bargaining they were able long ago to have their wages brought up above the $1.25 minimum which this code
[Mr. OrlikowJ
established. I will give the government this much credit. The passage of this code activated some of the provinces to the point where they increased the miserably low minimum wage rate under the provincial laws. To that extent there has been an improvement, but the minimum wage per hour provision certainly did not have much effect on the employees who come under federal jurisdiction.
I do not intend to quote from the act but the act spells out that workers should not work more than five days a week and eight hours a day for a work week of 40 hours.
Let us look at some of the things the former minister of labour had to say in the speech he made on October 13, 1964. When speaking of that bill he said:
It is a notable event in the history of the labour department and in the evolution of labour legislation in Canada. In so far as the federal government is concerned, it breaks new ground because for the first time the federal parliament is being asked to enact standards in several important fields hitherto unoccupied

Then at page 8999 he continued:
The standards we proposed for the code are a minimum wage rate of $1.25 an hour, a standard eight hour day and 40-hour week, overtime hours-
And so on. I believe that bill was passed on March 31, 1965 and was proclaimed on July 1, 1965. Next week it will be two years since the bill was proclaimed. What do we find? We find that there is a provision in the act which seemed to most people, and I take to the government, to be very reasonable and understandable. We had spoken in terms of there being a transitional period and therefore the government was given the right to defer for 18 months the enforcement of the 40-hour week provision. Well, the deferment has not been for 18 months. The deferment has affected thousands of companies which employ tens of thousands of workers. That provision in the act, which I maintain is its only important provision, is a dead issue because the government is still studying the applications for deferment by the companies which are involved. They have been studying them for more than two years. Repeatedly we have asked the minister when the studies will be completed. I do not know whether it will be this year, next year or five or ten years from now. When the minister and the department finally make a decision, if they ever do, then the companies will get 18 months.
In respect of the applications for deferment I should like to quote from a table which the minister provided to us. It covers applications up to February 15, 1967. There may have
June 23, 1987

been some changes since that time and they may have settled some cases, but I suggest that the number has been pretty small. Under the heading "air transport" we find there are 184 companies which have applied for deferment and that 177 deferment orders have been issued. Under the heading "flour mills" we find there were 784 applications for deferment and 716 applications for suspension. The table shows 1,500 deferment orders and the date August 1, 1967. I do not know whether they are deferred until August 1, 1967 or whether they will be settled on August 1, 1967. The government certainly is not living up to the 40-hour week provision. We find that 374 grain elevators applied for deferment. The table shows that 348 were given deferment orders until August 1, 1967. It also shows that 2,634 highway transport companies applied for deferment, that 35 applied for suspension and that there are 2,645 in respect of which the applications are under review.
It is time the minister told us how long these applications will be under review. Under the heading "radio and T.V. broadcasting" we find that 40 companies asked for deferment, that two asked for suspension and that there were 34 deferment orders. Under the heading "shipping companies" we find that 129 companies asked for deferment, that 31 asked for suspension and that in 157 cases discussions are being held between employers and the unions. How can the unions succeed in getting the companies to live up to the act when the minister will not enforce it? This table shows that there are similar situations in respect of the stevedoring and longshoring companies and in respect of the telephone, telegraph and cable systems.
What I am endeavouring to point out is that literally thousands of companies have asked for deferment in respect of Which the deferment has not been processed. The government spent money to publish full page advertisement. It did not contain a picture of the former minister but it did contain a drawing which looked remarkably like the former minister of labour. This advertisement extolled the virtues of the act and told the people of Canada how much they would get as a result of this act which this wonderful government had passed.
In respect of the one provision of the act which meant anything to them, tens of thousands of workers have not received anything and will not unless the minister and the department get down to the job they are supposed to do. This is a sad situation for the
Supply-Labour
tens of thousands of workers who are concerned. These are the people who are entitled to the 40-hour week because of the law which has been passed by this parliament but they are not receiving the benefit of this because the law is being ignored and its application deferred. Whatever the reasons may have been for the deferments, such as the transitional period and so on, I suggest that the minister and his department should get on with the job now after two years have gone by and clean up these applications. A final date should be set so that these workers who were given such rosy promises by the government will be able to get the benefits of the law which this government proposed and to which this parliament agreed.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to speak very long on the estimates of the Department of Labour.
However, I should like to bring to the attention of the house the fact that there is, now, in the Department of Labour a problem which I think should be corrected. Earlier in this sitting I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) to set out the views of his department concerning the C.N.T.U. applications to the Canada Labour Relations Board regarding natural units and the splitting of national units into natural units. The minister answered that the Canada Labour Relations Board was created by an act of parliament and that it must not be interfered with.
Mr. Chairman, to this I will answer that it is very well to create a board such as the Canada Labour Relations Board by an act of parliament, but if, as time goes by, after a few years, shortcomings or weaknesses are found in the operation of the said board, well, then it behoves parliament to amend the act and the minister to introduce the necessary amending legislation.
The minister says that the Canada Labour Relations Board is governed by an act of parliament. I agree. The minister also says that if something is wrong with the Canada Labour Relations Board, an act of parliament is required to right this wrong. But it should be said also that it is the minister who must bring in the necessary amendments to that act which has now proved highly deficient and requires many changes.
Everybody knows that the C.L.R.B. is made up of nine members, namely four delegates from management, four from labour and the

June 23, 1967
Supply-Labour
chairman appointed by the cabinet. Of the four labour delegates, three are appointed by international unions or by the C.C.L. and one by the C.N.T.U. It can readily be seen that there is some disproportion when a dispute must be settled between the two bodies, namely the C.C.L. and the C.N.T.U. The number of votes is unevenly distributed.
This prompts us to suggest a first change to the minister and I feel he should take the matter into consideration. As a matter of fact, when a dispute arises between unions, the decision should not be left to a body made up of three members on one side and one on the other, because, unavoidably, or in most cases at least, the chairman and the four delegates from management form a majority on the C.L.R.B. and carry the vote. Now, as the C.N.T.U. has only one member and the C.C.L. have three, whenever there is a dispute between the two labour unions, the Canadian Congress of Labour necessarily has an advantage over the C.N.T.U.
In the end, those who have to decide on affiliation to a union are not the three delegates of the C.C.L. nor the delegate of the C.N.T.U. but the workers involved in this union dispute and the workers must have the right to choose freely the union to which they will belong.
In the present case, that is the case of national negotiation units, it is not the worker who can pick the union with which he wants to affiliate, it is the Canada Labour Relations Board that dictates his choice of a union. In this case, the choice is dictated by the C.C.L., because the C.C.L. has three delegates whereas the C.N.T.U. has only one representative on the Canada Labour Relations Board.
A second change required in view of these observations, Mr. Chairman, is that when a strictly internal dispute within the labour movement is involved, the employers are also asked to vote on this dispute, because within the Canada Labour Relations Board there are four delegates from the employers and four from the employees, or union members, and the chairman. In such a case, the employers delegates are asked to vote or to help the board to reach a decision when strictly a union dispute is involved, a dispute concerning two labour unions. Obviously, there is a second weakness there and the Minister of Labour could improve this or make a change.
A third amendment which, to my mind, should be made in the present legislation on the Canada Labour Relations Board-the C.N.T.U. brought it up recently-is that the
[Mr. Gregoire.l
chairman-the one who listens to both sides of the discussion-is not always in a position to understand the arguments introduced by certain groups when these arguments are presented in a language he cannot understand. Obviously, there is simultaneous interpretation of these discussions, at least in the majority of cases, but this does not enable the chairman, who is more or less the judge on these matters, to understand fully the scope of all the arguments that may be brought forward.
That is why I suggest to the Minister of Labour that he amend the act on the Canada Labour Relations Board so that its chairman may be perfectly bilingual, and therefore able to converse in English or in French with those who come before the board.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, there is also the fact, which I want to point out to the minister, that the Canada Labour Relations Board is now studying the case of C.B.C. employees in connection with the splitting up of national units into natural units.
All C.B.C. employees are now members of the same union. Regardless of whether they work in British Columbia, Newfoundland, Quebec or Ontario, or whether they speak English or French, they belong to the same union.
The C.B.C. employees in Montreal want their own union because they no longer wish to belong to an international union that never looked after their interests in the past. They want their own union for the employees of the French network of the C.B.C.
That request is absolutely justified, because the C.B.C. saw fit to divide its radio and television network into the French and the English networks. And yet, today, the employees of both networks are compelled to belong to the same union, while the employees of the French network would like to have their own union.
Well, I wonder why they should be refused that since it then becomes a natural unit of negotiation.
And the refusal of that right is the more serious that it would constitute a grave precedent in labour relations for the future.
We will soon have unions of bank employees. Those employees will not come under provincial labour relations boards, but under the Canada Labour Relations Board. Then, if the same policy is adopted, Quebec bank employees, either from the Bank of Montreal,
June 23. 1967

the Royal Bank of Canada or the Toronto-Dominion Bank, will not be entitled to their own union, because of the precedent and the rules established by the Canada Labour Relations Board. They will have to be members of the same union-they will inevitably be in minority-as bank employees of other provinces, even though they do not want this. But they want their own union all this will inevitably go against the freedom of union because this freedom also means that every worker will be free to choose his union within a unit of negotiation.
I speak of precedents that this might create in the case of bank employees, but the same precedent could be created-in fact, it exists-for railway employees. There is a refusal to divide two units of negotiation. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) that a great number of railway employees in the various brotherhoods want to change unions so as to have their own union here, in Quebec.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
We are receiving scores of letters of protest from railroad employees. As a matter of fact, I mentioned it to the C.N.R. management when their report was studied two or three years ago and they told me that they did not want to split the national negotiation units.
The freedom to choose their own labour union is refused only to a group of C.N.R. and C.P.R. employees in Quebec.
Many other sectors in the labour field find themselves in the same situation, where the employees are not really free to choose but are obliged to abide by the decision of the majority from other provinces.
Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Labour should take those remarks into consideration and should make the necessary amendments to the Canada Labour Relations Board Act in order to give satisfaction to those who are denied freedom to choose their own unions.
Of course, there is no question of splitting the negotiation units endlessly. When the employees of a natural negotiation unit, those of the French network for instance, are concerned, it does not affect the whole matter adversely or prevent the signing of labour agreements with the C.B.C. There is no duplication because the French network is separate from the English network.
It could be the same in banks operations, where employees, in accordance with labour legislation, come under federal jurisdiction. It
Supply-Labour
is the same for railway employees, national transport employees, etc.
Therefore, I believe that the minister should amend a law which, after having been tried, now tends to impose and has even imposed on a rather large group of employees a union they did not want, denying them membership in the union of their choice.
Inevitably, when there is a vote between an international union and a union which, until now, remains almost exclusively within the province of Quebec, of course, the employees of nine other provinces are more numerous-whether they work for the C.B.C., the railways or the bank-than those of Quebec alone.
Then, the nine other provinces are compelling or forcing the Quebec workers to accept the union they have chosen, thus denying Quebec employees the right to choose their own union.
Then I believe that amendments must be made to the act. I think the minister should ask the advice of the interested parties about these amendments and then present them to parliament, so that they can be passed as soon as possible.
So far as this particular case is concerned, for several weeks now, I have been asking the minister whether he has received the report of the Canada Labour Relations Board concerning the C.N.T.U. request to represent the employees of the French-speaking network of the C.B.C. The minister told me today, on the orders of the day, that he has not yet received this report. However, I think that certain details-it may only be a rumour -have come out about this report. It was also mentioned that the Canada Labour Relations Board produced an equality of voices on a vote-four against four. This may seem strange, since the board is made up of nine members, the ninth being the C.N.T.U. which, some time earlier, decided not to attend the meetings of the board.
If that is the case, the best advice I can give the C.N.T.U. leaders is to register their vote at least on this occasion, which would give a majority of five against four in favour of their request to be allowed to represent the employees of the French network of the C.B.C.
According to certain newspapers, the vote now stands at four in favour and four against. The C.N.T.U. would merely have to attend another meeting and ask for a new vote to obtain satisfaction in this respect. And even if

June 23, 1967
Supply-Labour
the C.N.T.U. acts in that way, it does not mean that the protest it has registered for some time now against the operation and the regulations of the C.L.R.B. would not be valid. Those protests would still be valid and it will be up to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) to bring about the necessary amendments to rectify the situation.
Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether or not he intends, since he states that parliament alone can change the legislation in that respect, to bring forward soon the necessary amendments to rectify the situation I have just referred to.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to ask the minister for some information. My first question is: How much does the minister estimate the average capital per worker invested in industry today to be? In other words, how much capital does it take to put a labourer into productivity? My second question relates to training and retraining. Has the department any figures which would indicate the additional cost of making a man's work effective through technical and vocational training, in which I include training within the plant in various industries?
I notice that this year the earnings of Canadian corporations are down. There are no doubt many reasons for this, including higher labour costs. There is no indication of a decline in the amount of goods produced. Indeed, most plants show an increase. Has the minister any suggestions for increasing productivity in Canada. I mention this because today, both with regard to our sales abroad and our sales at home, we are faced with greatly increased competition from other countries.
Finally, I should like to ask the minister if he is yet in a position to tell us how the changes brought about as a result of the GATT arrangements are likely to affect the Canadian production picture.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to hold up the minister's estimates for long. I listened carefully to the hon. gentleman's remarks this morning and there are a few comments I should like to place on record.
Despite his optimistic predictions I am of the opinion that all is not well in the labour field across Canada. The present uncertainty is due in no small measure to the actions taken by this government, or perhaps I should say to the lack of action on the part of this

government. I would qualify this statement by adding that the Minister of Labour is one of my favourite ministers and I do not attach too much of the blame to him. I blame the government as a whole.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
When the Minister of Finance introduced his budget recently we heard him predict a $740 million deficit for Canada in the next 12 months. This can only lead to one thing -inflation and higher and higher prices to the Canadian consumer. In the months ahead the Canadian housewife will find her bag of groceries containing less and less while she pays more and more. In consequence the demands made by labour for higher wages are bound to increase.
It is true we have had a high level of employment. But at the same time we have had increasing unemployment in certain areas. Here I specifically refer to the Atlantic provinces where, despite all the efforts being made by our provincial leaders, we find ourselves still unable to raise our level of employment up to the national level so it will be in proper ratio with the rest of Canada.
In addition, we have had rising inflation and a trade deficit. It seems to me that the new economics practised by this government have fallen short of their objective. The devaluation of the dollar during the Conservative administration, which I was proud and pleased to serve, and tax and credit policies designed to keep the economy moving ahead on an even keel produced the longest business expansion in Canada's peacetime history. But these policies of carefully based restraint have evidently not solved our fundamental problems and ills.
For instance, why have wage rates continued to rise while unemployment is still increasing? Why is it that labour costs per unit of production are going up when industry has just completed a three-year period of heavy capital investment? Why is it that so many products used in household operations have been marked up in price when, theoretically, competitive pressures should promote efficiency and serve as a leveling factor in our pricing structure? These developments suggest that the work force is not sufficiently mobile and does not yet have sufficient skills to make productivity rise faster than wages.
There is a rather peculiar fact about the present situation. Corporate profits have held up well, which indicates that price increases can be passed on to consumers with some
June 23. 1967

ease. This fact encourages management to agree more or less readily to labour demands for higher wages. Thus the whole inflationary spiral continues. Coupled with this is the almost relentless rise in government spending at all levels, which I believe is a major force behind recent price increases and is an open admission that today politics take priority over economic common sense.
At the present time management and labour in many industries are living in a state of fear or, conversely, in anticipation, depending on their knowledge of the outcome of the Kennedy round talks. We were informed this morning by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the agreements reached in the Kennedy round discussions will be helpful to the fishing industry as there will be some reduction in the tariff on the fish we process and ship to the United States. But while this will be helpful to the fishing industry-and I can assure the minister that industry is desperately in need of help-I cannot help but wonder what concession was given to secure this reduction in the fish tariff.
It seems to me that individual leaders in unions and management will have to get their operations into fighting trim to withstand the competition that will be unleashed by the tearing down of tariffs resulting from the Kennedy round negotiations. Canadians in the labour and management fields will have to compete with the growing output of other industrial nations. I would like to hear from the minister whether his department has made any special plans to help Canadian labour and management cope with the new problems we will have to face as a result of the Kennedy round agreements.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief, first, because I would not like to repeat everything which has been said up to now, and also because I will have to leave the house in the next few minutes.
1 have noticed, like many others, ever since I have been in this house, that the Department of Labour is not always a bed of roses. In fact, it is perhaps one of the departments which might be the greatest source of problems for its incumbent. I heard the hon. member for Queens-Lunenberg (Mr. Crouse) say earlier that the Minister of Labour was his favourite minister, and I understand that several hon. members feel extremely sympathetic toward the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) precisely because of the multiplicity and the seriousness of the problems he has 27053-121
Supply-Labour
to settle and which are, most of the time, human problems which affect closely the members of our Canadian labour force. Obviously, those problems are not always easy.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the remarks made earlier by my colleague for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) with regard to the dispute still prevailing between the C.N.T.U. and the international unions with regard to natural bargaining units. I shall not repeat all his arguments. For once, I have nothing to say against the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe, since his comments were intelligent, objective and quite to the point, uttered on a tone which will have impressed everyone-since it was the tone of moderation- and the facts he stated speak for themselves.
The minister should take under special consideration this problem which will have even more serious repercussions than we can anticipate at the present time, in the labour world. Because it has-how would I put it -some separatist connotations, efforts should be made to remove the causes of discord.
Besides, after I heard that next year will be celebrated as the human rights year-if I understood correctly what the minister said-it does not seem natural to me that we should, on that occasion, deny some members of the labour force their freedom of representation within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to repeat everything that was said, but I think the hon. member for Lapointe summarized what many of us think, and I should like to join him in urging the Minister of Labour to consider this matter as one of somewhat special urgency.
When the minister says that if agencies are set up by the government to handle certain responsibilities, it is not conceivable that the government should intervene, I think that his argumentation is unsound, because just the same the government and parliament are the supreme authorities here and they would not delegate their powers to organizations which would become superior to the government.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
When such an important policy is involved, I think that the government should intervene; moreover, I understand that a cabinet committee has been set up to consider that question, but we have not yet heard about the results.
Mr. Chairman, I said earlier that I wanted to be brief. I simply wish to point out to the minister a matter which I find unthinkable in

June 23, 1967
Supply-Labour
Canada. I was unaware of it and I would never have imagined that a public company would tolerate such a state of affairs. I learned a few weeks ago that segregation exists in the Canadian Pacific Company. Among all those labour unions, it has been deemed advisable to tolerate a union of coloured workers comprising all non-white workers. Well, I never would have thought that, in our times, such segregation could now be tolerated in our country. I call the minister's attention to that matter and tell him that, if necessary, a piece of legislation should be passed so as to prevent such petty segregation in Canada. We are all shocked to see what is going on at present in the United States with regard to segregation and the utterly inhuman treatment to which coloured people are subjected. I would not want some foreigners to tell me one day, to my shame, that such things are also tolerated in Canada. I am sure the minister is well aware of all this. Perhaps it has not been properly impressed upon him that the situation is intolerable.
That is why I wish to draw his attention to the matter. In my opinion, and I think the great majority of hon. members in this house will agree with me, this is a blot on the escutcheon of Canada and the situation should not be tolerated, even if, as some might reply, the labour leaders themselves decided that all coloured people should belong to a single union in which there would be no whites. That is intolerable. That is another instance of the sort of segregation which was denounced in his house by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and others in the case of the C.N.T.U. and the international unions, only I think this is even worse and more apt to discredit Canada in the eyes of the rest of the country.
This being said, Mr. Chairman, I know that, contrary to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) stated a while ago, I believe in the task force established by the hon. minister. The situation is at least under study. It is being studied by people who are well informed on this matter. There may be some quibbling over the choice of the members, but should other people be chosen, I believe there would still be someone to find fault with them or to detect some tendencies that do not meet everybody's approval.
What counted here, I believe, was to do something. It is most urgent to do something, for this labour problem has become serious. Many causes have already been explained by my colleagues and I shall not refer to them here. There are numerous causes, but the
[Mr. Mongrain.1
problem has become exceedingly serious and it must be settled most urgently, because the whole economy of this country has been disrupted thereby, especially when we allow strikes in public services and try to solve our problem by putting it on the shoulders of the community, without any regard to the consequences they may have on the general economy.
Everyone realizes today, that in the end, those who pay the costs of strikes are still the workers. They are always the ones who get hurt.
Perhaps we might add that there are still too many labour leaders who are not aware of their responsibilities towards society and who launch strikes without first considering what they will mean to society or to the members of their unions, these workers whose interests they should protect.
I now wish to return to my main remark, and I emphasize my request to the minister to do everything in his power to take measures or to have a piece of legislation passed as quickly as possible in order to eliminate the segregation of coloured railway workers, because it is a stigma on the face of Canada.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, a good deal of the discussion so far on the estimates of the Department of Labour seems to have had a rather philosophical slant. As I listened to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, I thought that perhaps his remarks had caught the tone set by the minister in his introductory remarks when he referred to a lull after the more tumultuous events of a year ago. If I understood his words correctly, he said something about us now having time to catch our breath. Whether that is going to have anything to do with his approach to the estimates this year, I do not know. There is nothing wrong in attempting to philosophize in relation to our position, but I suggest that this is not a substitute for coming to grips with some of the real problems still before us. Nevertheless, I am going to be a bit philosophical myself inasmuch as the minister seems in the mood to indulge in this approach. When the minister refers to us having time to catch our breath I am somewhat concerned because perhaps what he is really saying is that parliament is going to lapse into that rather somnolent state which pervades the atmosphere of this house so often when we are dealing with problems of the working people of Canada.
June 23, 1967

The minister is perhaps mistaken when he says he feels there is a general recognition of the right and need of free collective bargaining in a free society. Let me suggest to the committee that this is a right which has been far from recognized. Most of the tumult and turmoil that engaged the attention of parliament within the last year or so had its origin in the fact that the right of collective bargaining and the rights of the working people as individuals have not been recognized by industries in the country which are opposed to such rights. All the evidence arising from those disputes and the kind of action that parliament took in those emergencies bears out the fact that there is a basic desire on the part of employers in this country to deny if possible the full and free rights of collective bargaining.
Reference has been made to a number of reports we have received. Perhaps I might make reference to the report made by Hon. C. Rhodes Smith in respect of the dispute on the west coast in the longshoring industry. As I read the evidence and arguments advanced before Mr. Justice Smith against the position which was being taken by the foremen involved, it seemed that the tenor of the employer's presentation was to deny the rights of those people to have free collective bargaining in the manner in which they sought to have it.
When one moves into this area one immediately becomes involved quite legitimately in philosophical questions. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, made reference to the task force. The minister and others have already made reference to the Freedman report. The question arises as to why we need all these studies, particularly the so-called task force study. I suggest that the only real reason the minister and his colleagues need this task force at the present time, after the experience of last year, is that they really do not know where they are going or they are deliberately indulging in stalling with a desire in fact to delay the recognition of the rights of free individuals in a free society and what the minister has described as the group right of collective bargaining.
This brings us right back to what I feel is a basic question in our society, namely, which has priority, the right of property or the right of person? This is a basic battle that has been going on at least since the industrial revolution which came about in a world where certain concepts of property rights were already well established and ingrained in the 27053-12U
Supply-Labour
outlook and philosophy of the people who were at the top of society,
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In my opinion we do not need a task force at this time. We have the knowledge and experience necessary so that parliament can come to grips with any changes in labour legislation that are required. This is particularly so if we have a clear concept of where we are going and if parliament is clearly prepared, as I am, to put the right of person before the right of property and to recognize what is perhaps axiomatic, that all wealth arises from the application of the mind and muscle of man through ability, training and experience. Without that application of human effort there is no wealth and there is no sustenance.
This is the crux of the question and this is why I was disturbed when the minister commenced his discussion of his estimates by saying that we now have time to catch our breath. In making that comment I can appreciate the minister's personal feeling about having a little time to catch his breath after the experience he had during the earlier months of his tenure in this portfolio. But what concerns me is that the Minister of Labour and his department are once again being shoved off to the periphery, as it were of the main operations of parliament. We are moving back to what seems to be our normal position where pronouncements like the one made today by the Minister of Trade and Commerce are much closer to the centre of attention.
If I may say so without any desire to give personal offence, I believe my contention in this connection is borne out by the tenor of the remarks I have listened to so far from speakers representing the official opposition. Their remarks have shown quite clearly a recognition on their part that property still is and still should have prior right over the rights of people.


David Vaughan Pugh: Oh, fiddle.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That is the only conclusion I can draw from the tenor of the remarks made. The minister really has not made his own position clear. I believe him when he says he recognizes the idea of free collective bargaining in a free society. But he does not really come to grips with definitions of what is free collective bargaining, what is a free society and who is to have freedom for what.

June 23, 1967
Supply-Labour
I believe that this artificial equation, as it were, of the balance between the rights of management, as they are so often erroneously referred to, and labour is at the root of much of the misunderstanding and indecision with which we approach labour questions. I argue that if we were clearly prepared to give prior right to the needs and rights of people, some of these peripheral arguments about the balance of power in labour legislation and so on would fade into the background and we could view these questions in much better perspective.
The same indecision to which I have referred pervades not only this parliament but the actions taken by the governments of the provinces generally. I believe the fact that we are a federal state compounds the confusion and results in delay in effective action being taken.
Let me again make reference to another of the almost innumerable reports we have received in this field in recent years. I have in my hand a summary review of information related to the problems of wage and price disputes in the British Columbia fishing industry. This review was prepared by a federal-provincial committee. Its publication date is November, 1964. It was heralded at the time as being a far reaching document which would bring about a real change in the whole relationship of people in the fishing industry on the west coast of Canada. To use the well worn phrase used by the hon. member for Winnipeg North about the Freedman report, this review has been gathering dust ever since it was published. I have never heard one word, as far as I can remember, from the Minister of Fisheries about it, let alone from the Minister of Labour. So far as the British Columbia department of labour is concerned, they seem to have been very carefully sitting on their hands in respect of it ever since.
I do not need to go into detail with the Minister of Labour, coming as he does from a British Columbia constituency, to remind him that at the present time there is a rather unholy mess in the whole question of the rationale of action in the fishing industry on the British Columbia coast. We are still in the position where federal jurisdiction in this matter rests, as it has rested for many years, with the combines investigation branch of the federal government. Year after year we pass renewing legislation in this regard. I believe we renewed the legislation for a year and a half the last time, and it must be reaching the point of expiry.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think there is legislation in perpetuity now.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister says it is in perpetuity now. Perhaps the minister's philosophic approach gives us an opportunity of expressing our views as to the real questions we should be facing when we discuss the estimates of his department.
My reference to the report on the matter of wage and price disputes in the British Columbia fishing industry, and my awareness of the fact that there are in this situation overlapping areas of federal and provincial jurisdiction, led me to take a fresh look at the British North America Act and in particular sections 91 and 92 where the division is made between federal and provincial authority, that is, as between the parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the provinces. Reading those sections of the British North America Act again from the point of view of a consideration of the estimates of the Minister of Labour caused me to realize in a way I had never realized before that nowhere in either the federal or provincial powers as set out in the British North America act is reference made to the question of labour jurisdiction. This re-emphasizes the fact that uppermost in the minds of the people who framed the section and in the minds of those who were in positions of political leadership and power in that day was the idea that such questions were relatively unimportant, not important enough to be clearly defined in any sense of the word. That is my view.
I think one might develop an argument that section 91 (2), which assigns to the federal authority the regulation of trade and commerce, might be construed as meaning that the federal parliament has complete authority over all matters affecting labour relations, if one were to accept the thesis still accepted in the house of the balance of rights as between labour and management as if they were two equal and separate entities which should be dealt with in our laws in that way. I suggest that this theory categorizes working people as commodities in the field of trade and commerce. I also suggest this is to too great an extent the manner in which we approach labour legislation. In other words, we tend to look upon labour as a commodity, something to be dealt with in the field of trade and commerce. If one were to follow that principle through, of course, one might argue that constitutionally this parliament could regulate all matters relating to labour relations so far as employers in this country are concerned.
June 23, 19G7

[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
On the other hand, if you look at section 92 and read paragraph 13, to which reference is made so often, regarding provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights, the other side of the argument is revealed, namely that the provinces have a prior right in the labour field. Here again, I would remind the house that in paragraph 13 of section 92 the emphasis is on property, and civil rights is tacked on as an incidental item. I am inclined to agree with those who suggest that we need constitutional amendments, but I feel that the constitutional change which is perhaps of paramount importance will involve the rewriting of the constitution so as to put emphasis on such matters as labour relations.
In his statement, the minister made some reference to the work being done by his department in the field of human rights through such agencies as the I.L.O. I certainly agree with the minister that we have some very competent and, if I may say so without sounding condescending, well meaning people working in these fields in his department and in other branches of the government. I am not trying to downgrade the approach that is being taken by such bodies as the I.L.O. to raising the living standards and carrying on the process of education of people around the world, particularly with respect to the rights of individuals. However, this is a long and slow process. I suggest that it should not only be undertaken under the auspices of the
I.L.O. but that the Canadian government or the Canadian parliament should come to grips with it much more directly through some immediate action rather than by perpetuating the process of setting up commissions and task forces ad nauseam.
The remarks which the minister made with regard to the reorganization of his department and the mobilization of competent people in the three divisions which he enumerated were very interesting, but the administrative machinery and its improvement is not of such great importance. What we need in this parliament now are proposals which would give a real sense of direction to the people he has in his department and to those he said he will mobilize. It is not enough to have people making studies about studies about studies. It is not enough to have an administrative force at work administrating acts with regard to the protection of the labour force, which have not yet been applied to the full extent.
What some of us would like to hear from the minister before the estimates are passed is
Supply-Labour
a clearcut statement on the legislative proposals which he intends to place before parliament before this session is concluded. We want to know whether the minister and the government intend to bring forward legislation in the field of industrial relations and unemployment insurance, and an implementation of the principles enunciated in the Freedman report. In our view, these matters have been under study for quite long enough to permit the minister to make up his mind. We would like to know on which side of the fence the government proposes to sit, whether on the side of human rights or on the side of property, or will it try to straddle the fence as has been done so often by previous Liberal governments? These are the kinds of questions to which we want answers when dealing with these estimates. We do not expect the minister to say that starting on Monday morning he will bring forward these measures, but we would like to know what proposals the government intends to put forward when parliament reassembles in the fall. I do not know whether or not the Minister of Labour can answer all the questions concerning priorities. However, we had hoped that before the minister was asked to come before the house with his estimates he would have had some clearcut indication and direction from the Prime Minister or the house leader with regard to their intentions concerning this legislation.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I understand I have the floor at this time but I am prepared to yield to the hon. member for Oxford as I believe he is catching an earlier plane than I am. If it is agreeable to the house, I will yield to the hon. member for Oxford and speak after he has completed his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, first of all I wish to thank my friend, the hon. member for York-Humber, for his courtesy in this regard, although I do not think it was necessary. I do not believe either of us will speak at any great length, but I thank him very much and I appreciate his courtesy.
It was my understanding earlier today that the minister intended to deal first with the estimates of the Department of Labour, then with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, followed by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I think we would all agree with the logic of this approach. I

June 23. 1967
Supply-Labour
had hoped this afternoon to make some observations which relate indirectly, and sometimes perhaps directly, to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The reason I feel that I should do so at this time is that since the debate on the spending estimates of the government is now restricted to 30 days the minister's estimates may not be before the house again. So, I feel I should make these brief observations at this time.
We have been promised by successive governments for years that the Unemployment Insurance Act would be revised. I think every member of the house understands why a long time is needed to prepare a revision of this act. I do not think there is any federal act that has been the cause of more individual hardship, contention and problems than has this particular one. If anyone has doubts as to my observations, I think any member in this house would support my views. I do not suppose there has been a member in the house who has not had constant problems relating to the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and I do not think there is any federal act that is more in need of revision. The whole concept of the act seems to be misunderstood by a vast majority of the public. Many persons seem to think that unemployment insurance is some sort of pension fund, and if they have never drawn on it they are entitled to do so. This is something like fire insurance in respect of which you pay in and may never have to use it. Undoubtedly when the present act was established a situation existed in Canada where there was anything but full employment. Even during the last few years when we had almost total employment in many parts of the country, many strange things have come about and people have been obliged to make the contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. Under the strict interpretation of the act these people were never intended to pay into the fund. Certainly many professional people who come under the act will never collect the insurance. Nevertheless they are obliged to pay. I know I had to pay it myself on one occasion when I was a law student. This sort of anomaly must be corrected. The minister has told us that there will be a new act soon. I hope it will be very soon.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Despite the difficulties I believe the act has worked out very well, but there certainly is much need for improvement. I suppose if one wished to do so, one could spend many hours in the house reciting inequities, iniquities and
[Mr. Nesbitt.l
anomalies which appear in the present act. People have received unemployment insurance who should never have received it. On the other hand, there are many cases where people should have been paid unemployment insurance and were not. I am sure those who administer the act are aware of these problems. When administering a law one has to carry out the law and the regulations as they read; there is not much room for discretion. There is, however, one plea which I should like to make to the minister at this time. In view of the fact we are advised that the new act will be ready, we hope before long, and in view of the fact that the present act is enforced strictly, I would suggest that in some cases the enforcement of the new act might be a little less strict. At one time I acted as a crown attorney and I know, as I believe most of us know, that if every small bylaw or other law were enforced by the police officers there is not one person in this chamber or in the country who would not have had a conviction for some petty offence. For example, I might mention the speeding laws under the highway traffic act.
There are situations such as these in respect of which I believe discretion and common sense must be used in the enforcement of the law. Those persons who presently are charged with the responsibility of administering the Unemployment Insurance Act certainly are very enthusiastic. They are doing a wonderful job so far as enforcement of the act is concerned. They are providing a good deal of money for the fund which will be available for a rainy day. This is fine; but I think a great many inequities have resulted. I should like to ask the minister to use his good offices in this regard. I know that enforcement does not come directly under the responsibility of the minister, but I would hope that he would try to alleviate some of the difficulties.
There are two problems in particular which I should like to mention. One is the reign of terror which has been carried out in respect of the barbers of this country. I know that in some instances, in places such as Toronto and Montreal, there are hairdressers who employ people and pay them a salary. In these cases they pay into the unemployment insurance fund, and this is quite proper. However, in some cases the barber rents the premises and then sublets a chair to another barber. They each buy their own supplies. I know of a case- and this is quite general-where the officers arrived at the barber shop and said, "You have to pay unemployment insurance". On occasion I have advised barbers not to pay it
June 23, 1967

because they could not possibly come under the act. It they file a declaration of partnership, take the matter to court and have it settled, that is fine; but there are many people who do not want to go to court. They assume that it will cost a good deal of money to fight the government which has so much legal talent at its disposal. A lot of people pay unemployment insurance rather than fight; they are afraid to oppose the government. These people should never have to pay it at all. I know of some cases where they have refused to pay and did not hear anything further.
There is another situation in which many people in this country have been involved, including parliamentarians. This is a situation where a cattle auctioneer holds a sale and obtains help from other cattle dealers or farmers who come in for a few hours a week. In many cases they have been doing this for years. Now, it has been decided that these people should pay unemployment insurance. In cases where the money has not been collected, these people are being soaked-if I may use that expression-for arrears for a number of years. One such case is presently under appeal before the commission. It is quite clear that this is not a master and servant relationship. It was never intended that such people should pay into the unemployment insurance fund; they are not on the labour market and possibly never will be. These people in many instances are farm operators. There are many situations like this which are pure nonsense. I know there may be those who will say, "We have some colour of right to try to collect unemployment insurance". This should not be done and is not the intention.
In view of the fact that the act is to be revised, and in view of the fact that some of these anomalies are to be removed, I hope the minister will use his good offices to see that the enforcement of the act is a little less enthusiastic than it has been in the past. It has been said that ignorance of the law is no excuse. That maxim may have applied in the early days in England when there were not many laws and regulations. It was quite sensible in those days to assume that the public ought to be cognizant of the laws which existed. Nowadays, however, with the growth of the government in every field of life and with the many regulations which exist in respect of every department of government, how could the general public be expected to know about every obscure regulation which is published in the Canada Gazette. Who reads the
Supply-Labour
Canada Gazette? Why should people be dragged in by the officers and told that even though they did not know about a certain regulation they are going to be investigated and made to pay, even if it means bankruptcy. In this day and age, when the government is extending its influence into every walk of life, I hope that the minister, his colleagues, and others who are responsible will see that regulations which affect large numbers of citizens are posted up and advertised in all the newspapers and periodicals. Then, the members of the public will know what they are up against.
I believe we should adjust to the times. It is not good enough to say that ignorance of the law is no excuse. That might have been all right 100 years ago but it is not good enough today. All levels of government which pass regulations should ensure that the average person has a reasonable opportunity of being made aware of these regulations before they are enforced so that unnecessary hardship will not be imposed. I hope the minister and his colleagues will consider all these things which affect every one of us today.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The few remarks I wish to make this afternoon I had intended to express on the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. But as the hon. member for Oxford who preceded me remarked, you can never tell when estimates are to come before the house and when an opportunity will be given to you to express yourself. I have taken the opportunity under the heading of the Department of Labour to speak of working conditions in the veterans' hospitals of the Dominion of Canada which are directly under the jurisdiction of the federal government and not under any provincial departments of labour.
For some years past, I have been advocating that working conditions for nurses in the hospitals of the nation are lamentable and deplorable. I believe that the small number of girls coming forward as students of nursing shows the girls realize that nursing is not one of the great professions of this country so far as material gain is concerned. They are shunning nursing.
In the newspapers of yesterday and today there are long reports of statements about the nurse shortage in the country. One report, of yesterday is based on a statement made by the Ontario Hospitals Association before the Ontario committee on the healing arts which

June 23, 1967
Supply-Labour
is sitting throughout the province at the present time. Today we have many reports in the newspapers and on the radio because of an address given to the Canadian Medical Association manpower conference, which is being held in Montreal, by Doctor Helen K. Mus-sallem, executive director of the Canadian Nurses Association. Doctor Mussallem, in her comments before the Canadian Medical Association, emphasized that unless substandard salaries and working conditions in nursing are corrected there will be a much greater shortage of nurses in the immediate future than we have at the present time. Just now the shortage of nurses is such that hospital wards are being closed because no one can be found to staff them. I am thinking, in particular, of a large ward at the General and Marine Hospital in Owen Sound, Ontario. The announcement has been made that it will be closed completely because the Board of Governors cannot staff the institution to the point that all the beds in the institution can be handled.
This is not an isolated instance. There are many other centres where a lack of nurses has forced hospitals to close wings. Sometimes they have been unable to open new additions because of lack of nursing staff.
I maintain that if the pay being offered to the nurses was satisfactory, girls would come forward to take up nursing, as their mothers and grandmothers did before them.
Doctor Mussallem, in her remarks before the Canadian Medical Association yesterday, produced some figures that could do nothing but disturb anyone who turns them over in his mind. She pointed out, for instance, that recruitment to nursing schools has dropped steadily:
In 1940 about a quarter of all female high school graduates entered nursing. In 1966 this had declined from 25 per cent to 8 per cent. Unless drastic changes are made Canada can look forward to fewer than 5 per cent of high school girls entering nursing, Dr. Mussallem said-
Poor salaries and working conditions were tolerated when professional opportunities for women were limited but that era is past, she said. Teachers, for example, have jumped far ahead of nurses and in many areas where nursing recruitment has dropped teaching has gone up.
Anyone must realize that young girls in secondary school are intelligent; they survey the possibilities of a profitable career in the various avenues open to them in their teens. Certainly, anyone can witness the situation in nursing.

I have an instance in mind of a young girl I know well. She is a married woman, a member of the church I attend, a graduate in nursing of a hospital in Alberta. She nursed in Alberta for many years, married an R.C.A.F. man when they were both at Cold Lake, Alberta, and came east. For several years she nursed in Toronto; today she is working in a factory-working in a factory because of the regular hours of employment, eight to twelve, and one to five, with no work on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays, and no night work whatsoever. That girl is a professional; she is a graduate of a well qualified hospital school in Alberta.
I can think of another young girl who right now is working in the parliament buildings in the stenographer's pool for the Senate. Her people were born in Ottawa, moved to Vancouver and have been there for ten years. The girl thought she would like to be a nursing student here, in Ottawa, where her grandparents live. She came east to Ottawa and applied to enter a hospital training school for nurses. She was advised that she lacked one subject in her grade 13 paper and considered, for a while, taking one year's study to pick up that one subject in order to satisfy the demands of the hospital school. Friends of hers said: "You can make more money as a stenographer working for the government, in the parliament buildings, and you do not have to work Saturdays, Sundays, nights or holidays; you will work as a regular human being works and you will make as much money as a nurse makes as soon as you have taken a six months business training course."
The girl took the six months business training course in the city of Ottawa and she is now working in the secretaries' pool of the Senate-a would-be nurse lost to the profession because of the attractions that other occupations open to a girl had for her, and because she was told that she lacked one of her grade 13 subjects.
I know of another girl, but this one used to work in the florist business. Because weddings are numerous on Saturdays, florist shops are open on Saturdays. That is the busiest day of their week. No employee of a florist shop may have Saturday off because of the heavy volume of business that day. Girls who are qualified to work in florist shops are hard to find. Most girls want to work a five day week, from Monday to Friday; they want regular working hours from eight to twelve and one to five. The young girl to whom I refer now works for the Ontario government. She has no Saturday work. I merely cite the
June 23. 1967

instance of the florist shop to show that girls will work in an industry which gives them the most attractive working conditions which covers both pay and hours.
Now, we come to nursing in veterans hospitals. Two years ago the federal cabinet approved a shift differential for nurses in veterans hospitals. I was overjoyed at the progressive step which was taken by the cabinet and the Department of Veterans Affairs and on two occasions in this house I congratulated the present Minister of Veterans Affairs for his foresight in introducing shift differential rates of pay for nurses in veterans hospitals. I am sorry to say it took me about one year to learn what kind of treatment the federal cabinet was handing the nurses in veterans hospitals on shift differentials. I protested about this in the past and I protest now.
Shift differentials are an established method of payment for labour throughout the Dominion of Canada. Why it took so long to introduce shift differentials into the Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals I do not know-but it took years.
Now that we have the shift differentials it is ridiculous that the federal government pays only 8 cents an hour on the evening shift and 12 cents an hour on the night shift. These differentials are miserly, low and inadequate. They would never attract any nurses to a veterans hospital.
They have shift differentials in the province of Quebec and shift differentials in the province of Saskatchewan, and they are much higher than the Canadian government's. But the federal government pays only an 8 cents an hour shift differential for the evening shift and a 12 cents an hour differential on the night shift.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I wish to draw to the minister's attention the ridiculous situation which exists, because the Department of Veterans Affairs does not pay the evening shift differential on the eight hours work for the evening nor the night shift differential for the eight hours spent on the night shift. The federal government pays an additional eight cents an hour on the evening shift only from 6 p.m. to midnight, arguing that the time from four in the afternoon to 6 p.m. is part of day working hours and that the employee is therefore only entitled to day rates during that period. Then with regard to the night shift, the federal government says the nurses are working night hours only until 6 a.m.-the two hours after
Supply-Labour
that are day hours and the differential should be paid only in respect of the hours from midnight to 6 a.m.
I have been in business, Mr. Chairman, for more than 40 years. At one time we had as many as 17 unions in the organization with which I was connected. I had never heard of any employer who split the hours of a shift into day hours or evening hours, or night hours and day hours until the Department of Veterans Affairs came out with this pitiful scheme when it introduced shift differentials into nurses pay for the first time.
I made many inquiries of unions and labour leaders and none could tell me of any case where shift differentials were being paid by the hour rather than by whole shifts. I am sorry to say that in Britain, when I was there this past July with the veterans affairs committee, I ascertained that the British government pays the nurses employed in the hospitals of Britain on the same basis. I was disturbed to find a labour government in Britain approving a system whereby the hours of a shift are divided into day or evening hours, or night and day hours so that the differential rate would not apply to the complete eight hours of labour. I call upon the Minister of Labour of Canada, now that we are considering his estimates, to see that the shift differential is paid for the full eight hours of employment on each shift as is done in all other industries. It is a low enough shift differential to start with, but I maintain it should be paid for the full eight hours.
In Britain, though, I came up with one discovery which pleased me immensely. I ascertained that for about two years they have been paying a day premium rate of pay on Sundays in the hospitals of Britain. They pay one pound more on Sundays than on other days of the week. By paying this premium rate, they are able to attract for weekend employment persons who do not work in the nursing profession during the other days of the week but who are prepared to go back on Sundays for this extra pound which is known in labour circles as a day premium rate.
We shall never overcome the shortage of nurses until we offer rates of pay in the nursing profession which are sufficient to attract girls from other professions. Why would any girl choose to work at nursing on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays if she is to receive no more than she would earn as a stenographer working from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., five days a week? We all admit that man's work is from sun to sun and it is not right to

June 23, 1967
Supply-Labour
expect people to work at other hours than the hours of daylight for the same rates of pay as those who work day shift hours. It is not natural.
So, having established differential rates of pay in hospitals under federal jurisdiction to compensate for services which are provided during what are known in labour circles as unnatural hours, we should also establish day premium rates of pay whereby girls who work on Saturday, Sundays and holidays would be well compensated for working on those days when the great bulk of the labour force is not employed.
Consider the case of an employee in the printing trade in Toronto who under day premium rates of pay may be receiving three times the ordinary rate because he is working on a holiday. He receives this rate under the terms of the union agreement, and I do not quarrel with triple pay on a public holiday in certain circumstances. But it has always struck me as ridiculous that if this man is injured while at work on a public holiday he is rushed to a hospital where one hears complaints about a shortage of nurses because there are not enough nurses willing to work at a single rate of pay to provide the man with the care he needs. If the injured are working at triple rates of pay, why should not the nurses who are on duty to look after them on Sundays and holidays be paid on the same basis?
I believe every right thinking Canadian will be disturbed to read the figures presented yesterday by Dr. Mussallem before the Canadian Medical Association. She told the manpower conference in Montreal:
Recruitment to nursing schools has dropped steadily. In 1940 about a quarter of all female high school graduates entered nursing. In 1966 this had declined from 25 per cent to 8 per cent.
We have to change the substandard working conditions and pay of nurses before we can hope to attract young people into a profession which is steadily losing staff at the present time. I call on the Minister of Labour, who should be the leader in establishing suitable working conditions which could serve as a model to the rest of Canada, to see that in the veterans' hospitals of the dominion, for which the federal government is responsible, we establish rates of pay which will be attractive to young women and which will induce them to enter the nursing profession so that their services will be available in times of need, accident and injury.
[Mr. Cowan.3
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I shall not speak at length but I should like, on this occasion, to second the member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) who dealt with a topic in which we are greatly interested, namely unemployment insurance.
I too wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) to that point, since he intends to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. May I point out two or three specific aspects which are peculiar to our area and which probably cause all the present uneasiness in the administration of unemployment insurance.
I believe the first concern, when the act was passed, was to help the unemployed. However, the door was also opened to certain injustices and this, to the extent where one wonders today if the act, in its present form, is not more a system of penalties than one of assistance to the unemployed.
Mr. Chairman, the first point to which I should like to draw the attention of the minister is the reduction in the number of unemployment insurance offices which was probably undertaken by senior officials who looked at the whole of Canada but did not visit each region to find out the conditions there and, in particular, did not measure the distances involved.
Several offices were closed in my region as a result of this reform and the workers now have to travel 150 miles to see the office chief. That is good and even wonderful for these officials, for they do not have callers very often, but I assure you it does not at all suit the worker who is unemployed, without money, and told that, for this reason, he will not get any benefits for 4, 5 and even 6 weeks. That is the way it is usually put; he is told that, under the terms of a certain clause, he is penalized for 4 or 5 weeks. In most cases, I believe, the penalty is decided upon according to what I would call the verdict of the employer.
Most of the workers in my region are lumberjacks. This is a rather unusual job, but let us take for example the case of a lumberjack who agrees to work for a contractor. If the contractor has 200 or 300 lumberjacks working for him, he cannot treat them all equally. One lumberjack will make a normal salary, because he works on a good piece of land, while another will find inferior working conditions. If the second lumberjack works for a month or a month and a half making a small
June 23, 1967

salary, because he is not assigned to a good part of the bush or because the foreman does not happen to like him, he will get discouraged and finally leave his job. So he leaves his job which does not pay him enough to keep his family alive, and I have proof of this. So he is forced to leave his job to take a chance elsewhere. But, then, the contractor simply gives the reason for departure: job not terminated-work not terminated. I would like to call the attention of the minister particularly to these words: work not terminated. Then, when the man goes to the unemployment insurance office and has this report on his file, he is punished for a month or two, because he left a non-paying job which did not bring in sufficient wages to keep his family alive. He is punished for not having stayed on this ridiculous job.
I think that calling the minister's attention to this point will prompt him to review the Unemployment Insurance Act and to consider this paragraph which, in fact, gives complete authority and domination to the employer over his employee.
Most employers are fair and honest, but to avoid such injustice occurring too often because some employers want revenge on the worker, well, the next legislation will have to give more protection to the employee.
There is also the case of the farmer who goes in the bush during winter months. He works in the bush for two, three, four months and he is told that an amount is being deducted from his salary for his unemployment insurance. He is not even consulted about it. When spring comes, he cannot get any benefits. Why? Because that farmer has two, three, five or ten milch cows; he has an income, and that prevents him from getting benefits.
Mr. Chairman, I again call the attention of the hon. minister to this point. I think it is the inspectors who do not understand the meaning of the law. They do not know how to enforce it in the case of workers such as those. I suggest that in the case of that man, who had to work six months, perhaps seven in the bush, his main work is not that of taking care of his animals in the barn-since his sons and his wife are doing that-his main work is that of a lumberjack and he should therefore qualify.
For years already, since the coming into force of the Unemployment Insurance Act, we have been trying to do justice to those workers and the answer we get is: The law is the law. Well, the law is made to be interpreted.
Supply-Labour
In my opinion, some investigators stick too close to the law. It will have to be made clearer to ensure fairness to farmers on the part of those investigators. Farmers must be able to benefit by unemployment insurance when they cease lumber operations in the spring. If they cannot be covered by it, let them not be charged the unemployment insurance premium. I believe that the one who payS_no matter what interpretation you give to the act-has a right to draw benefits when misfortune strikes.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It is somewhat like fire insurance or any other type of insurance. If it were a private fire insurance company which did not want too honour claims when the premium had been paid, well the policy-holder would go to court and win his case. But since the government is involved, any excuse is contrived, any investigation is conducted and the investigator always has the last word. You will say perhaps: of course, but there is arbitration. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have suggested arbitration to several of them, but now when the subject of arbitration is brought up, I tell them: Do not go, it is useless. Following the investigation, the investigator's ruling is upheld and that is that.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that those few remarks about lumbermen and farmers will be well received by the minister and that the new amended legislation will do justice to those two groups of workers.
There is also the case of a son employed by his father. I had the opportunity to make inquiries and plead the case of some of them, for instance, a son who worked as a cheese-maker for three years for his father. The son did not own the cheese dairy at all, and he was denied the unemployment insurance precisely because his father was the owner. Well now, I think that there is still something to be done here. When a pater familias employs his son, or any other relative, these employees should be considered as mere workers and should be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Once again, since they were allowed to pay the dues, they must benefit from the protection of unemployment insurance.
These are the few observations I wanted to make. I do not want to extend the discussion. I am sure that the hon. minister will make a note of these few comments.


Mr. Pelletier:: Mr. Chairman, I will only take a few minutes to refer to the question raised by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
June 23, 1937
Supply-Labour
Gregoire) a few moments ago and a little later, by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain).
This concerns the problems of the Confederation of National Trade Unions with the Canada Labour Relations Board. And, for once, I fully agree with the hon. member for Lapointe. I am even surprised that he should have spoken as he did, in view of the separatist views which dominate the political action of the hon. member for Lapointe.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, if I shared his convictions, I would endeavour to prevent any change in the procedures followed by the C.L.R.B. for I am quite convinced that the present state of affairs within that federal agency, already stirs up great dissatisfaction with federal institutions, and will continue to do so, in an increasing number of Quebec workers. Now, it so happens that workers, as a group, have until now been the least influenced in Quebec by the separatist movement and the fever of constitutional change now disturbing our province.
However, if the C.L.R.B. procedures are not changed, Mr. Chairman, I greatly fear, and I am not the only one, that dissatisfaction will overcome our workers and that, because of readily corrected anomalies, we may witness the development in the working people of an atmosphere prone to degenerate later into political strikes and other demonstrations of all kinds, of no benefit to anyone.
I do not propose now to repeat the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). They are already well known by the parties concerned.
There is another one, however, which I *would like to place on record. It deals with the disparity of representation between the C.N.T.U. and the C.L.C. and with the effects of such disparity on C.L.R.B. decisions regarding union certification.
The C.L.C. has three representatives and the C.N.T.U. only one. So when it comes to certifying a union for which the two groups are competing, this disproportion becomes odious, notwithstanding the fact that four other representatives, those of the employers, also have their say.
In such a case, Mr. Chairman, the C.L.R.B. has duties which are nearly judicial and because it carries out responsibilities of that nature, it must guarantee the party seeking justice the same impartiality guaranteed by ordinary courts. Now the ordinary citizen has the right to obtain justice before the courts
EMr. Pelletier.]
and also every right to believe that he is getting it.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the C.N.T.U. workers have, on the contrary, serious reasons to distrust the C.L.R.B. in its present condition, not because of its members, but because of its very constitution, since the representatives of a rival union or those of employers do not appear suitable to judge impartially, and it seems to me extremely important that the chairman of the board should be called upon to decide alone when the C.N.T.U. and the C.L.C. are competing for certification.
Finally, if the rumour is true, if the C.L.R.B. has actually postponed for several months its decision concerning the C.B.C. employees in Montreal, I cannot exaggerate the danger of such action.
For months already, the board has been considering that problem. Another delay of several months might wear out the patience of those workers, which has proved very resilient until now but which seems on the point of giving out.
Of course, there is no question of urging the government to influence the decisions of the C.L.R.B. On the contrary, it is important to respect the independence of that body. But it is necessary also to realize the danger, and if an amendment to the act itself is needed to solve the problem, the minister must not hesitate to introduce in the house the amendments called for.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of having a few moments to say a word or two about the estimates of the Department of Labour. First of all, let me say I will not be making a philosophical dissertation. I think my remarks could more readily be associated with a bread and butter speech. Someone this afternoon said a lot of philosophical discussion was taking place. It is not my intention to partake in such a discussion. I will leave that to the professorial types.
Regrettably, I was not in the chamber, because of other duties, when the minister made his introductory statement. However, I presume it was an optimistic statement and that the minister referred to the unemployment rate and the situation throughout Canada. Unfortunately, we have a bad situation in the maritimes where the unemployment rate is twice the national average, according to the latest statistics. I hope today I will have the
June 23. 1967

sympathetic ear of the minister, and somehow l feel I will.
I must commend the minister for his activity. Since coming into this house he has served in several portfolios, and I am sure everyone will agree that he has done a very good job in any portfolio which he has held, and that he has been most co-operative at all times. He has been frank, fair and straightforward in all his dealings with members, and I speak from experience. That is why I expect to have a sympathetic ear today.
We have been discussing for several days in this house the problems confronting the maritime provinces, particularly Cape Breton Island on the eastern tip of Canada. Great problems exist there in respect of layoffs in the steel industry. During our discussion of these estimates I should think it appropriate to devote some time to this subject, because the greater the number of individuals laid off the more the government is going to have to pay out in unemployment insurance benefits, and this comes within the responsibility of the minister's department.
For several months we have observed a difficult situation at the steel plant in Sydney. This organization comes under the jurisdiction of Dosco, which comes under the jurisdiction of some other corporation, which again comes under the jurisdiction of the Hawker-Siddeley group which has its headquarters in London, England. It would appear that since this absentee management moved into the area ten years ago there has been nothing but a deterioration, not only of the steel industry there but of the coal industry in Nova Scotia. It is an unfortunate, sad and sorry thing that the employees of this corporation, their wives and children, and all those involved in the service trades who depend on this industry, should be at the mercy and whim of this corporation. The climate of fear and uncertainty in the steel industry has not only created hardship to the men and their families who are directly involved, it has been positively damaging to our over-all economic prospects.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Where there is doubt as to the future of such an industry as basic as steel is to the economy of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, and indeed to the maritimes in general, those who operate existing small businesses or industries are apt to be hesitant to expand. The psychological effect on prospective new industries can be very damaging. I hope that when the Cape Breton Development Corporation is
Supply-Labour
set up, and when it is considering bringing new industry into the area, it will realize that the present basic industries are in trouble.
Recently, the government of Canada approved grants totalling $3.7 million and the provincial government approved grants of $2 million for the modernization of dock and bulk handling facilities at the plant. At the time, government spokesmen said this financial assistance would make it possible for the company to invest additional capital in the modernization of the plant itself.
I should like at this point to place on the record a statement by the cabinet representative for Nova Scotia, or a portion of it because I see that I do not have time to read it all into the record. I quote from the Cape Breton Post of May 27, 1967. This article is headed, "MacEachen! Confidence In Steel Industry," and reads:
A vote of confidence in the city's steel industry was recorded here Friday when federal health minister Allan MacEachen released details of provincial-federal financing of the multi-million dollar pier project at the Sydney steel plant-
He said the grants were approved on the understanding that the company will make a similar expenditure.
Mr. MacEachen said the government grants are part of a government industry program to update Dosco's shipping facilities in Cape Breton and put the plant on a competitive footing with other steel production complexes.
He said the modernization program will provide security of employment for a large number of workers in the Sydney area. He also said that if long range forecasts are borne out, the improvements could substantially strengthen employment opportunities in the area.
Mr. MacEachen said the modernization program is an encouraging example of what can be done when government and private industry work together in a spirit of co-operation and mutual understanding.
He said the federal government's grant demonstrates that Ottawa has faith in the future of the area and that it is determined to do all that it can to ensure that it participates equitably in the general prosperity which the country is now experiencing.
I regret to say that we in the Atlantic provinces are not experiencing this so-called prosperity. The article quotes the minister as follows:
"The new and improved facilities should significantly reduce handling costs and improve the competitive position of the Sydney steel industry," he said.
"And with this government assistance, it is expected that additional company capital will be freed to completely modernize the Sydney steel plant itself and bring its operating costs closer to those of other Canadian steel companies."
Mr. MacEachen said that in terms of employment, he is "extremely optimistic" that these developments will be beneficial over the long term-

June 23. 1967
Supply-Labour
Mr. MacEachen said the announcement of federal government grants to the multi-million dollar project will not solve all the economic problems of the industrial area but "I am hopeful that it will help stabilize operations in the steel segment of the Cape Breton economy."
I am sure the cabinet representative from Nova Scotia made that statement in good faith. I am sure, also, that some weeks ago the premier of Nova Scotia made his statement in good faith regarding the future of steel. In spite of all that these two hon. gentlemen have said, many, many people in the area have been laid off work. They have been laid off at the plant since these statements were made and prior to their having been made. Over a period of some months between 1,100 and 1,200 workers have been laid off, and the situation is most serious and grave.
I believe we are entitled to know from the company what the amount of this additional investment will be, what its purpose is and when the program can get under way. If governments are prepared to apply over $5 million to the modernization of this plant as an indication of their confidence in the steel industry, it should be possible to give a projection in more specific terms on the long term future of the Sydney plant. I have already in this house and outside called for a study, investigation or inquiry, sponsored by the federal government, of this subject. The government already has sufficient information available to enable it to conclude such a study in a reasonably short period of time. The terms of reference should be very clear. Those appointed to carry out the study should be instructed that their job is to investigate the steel industry, specifically with a view to recommending ways in which the long term stability of the industry may be assured. This would encompass not only what marketing policies might be undertaken in co-operation with the federal government, but also what new industries related to steel might be established in Cape Breton Island. Also, we should know what the employment situation, in respect of year-round jobs, is going to be over a five or ten-year period.
I suggest, and I trust the minister is listening very carefully, that we should have a royal commission to investigate the steel industry in Nova Scotia. We had a royal commission studying the coal industry. We have had the Duncan commission. Since I am very young, I cannot recall whether that commission was concerned with coal or the economic prospects of the maritimes, but I think it dealt with coal or both. We have had the Rand
[Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) .3
commission on coal, the Carroll commission on coal, and the Donald commission on coal. We are dealing with the report of the Donald commission in respect of the legislation to establish the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
The long term objective of this industry is to widen and strengthen our economic base. An almost exclusive dependence on the ups and downs of one or two industries has been the historic weakness of the Cape Breton economy. It would appear that this government cannot get any information from the corporation as to what their present or future plans are, if any. It would appear that the government of Nova Scotia cannot get any information from this corporation as to what their plans are, present or future. It would appear that local municipal leaders and union leaders are unable to ascertain what this corporation will do in the future.
My time is limited, so therefore I urge the minister, who is a member of the cabinet and a maritimer, who met the delegation from Sydney and heard their briefs and representations in respect of the steel industry, to consider the suggestion I have made that a royal commission be appointed to study the steel industry of Nova Scotia. The minister should talk with his cabinet colleagues and give my suggestion every consideration, so that the people in Nova Scotia will know that perhaps something will be done in the future by this government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I suppose all I can do in less than a minute is to say that I have been waiting all day to make my speech but it looks as though I will have to save it for another day.


David Vaughan Pugh: There are 27 seconds to go.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I have no idea whether other hon. members wish to speak on these estimates, but if the hon. gentleman is not going to be long perhaps we could hear him. I am not suggesting that we proceed with the other two items on the agenda, but perhaps we might conclude the discussion on the estimates of the Department of Labour this afternoon if there are no others who wish to speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My speech was not going to be very long, but I know other hon. members wish to speak on these estimates and there are questions hon. members would like the minister to answer. Also, the hon. member for Brantford has a bill he would like to bring
June 23, 1967

forward at five o'clock. I am sure the Minister of Labour would not want to stand in his way. Perhaps I had better call it five o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the acting house leader whether he could give us a forecast of the business for the next few days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, last evening the house leader indicated that a supply motion would probably be called for Monday. But with the concurrence of the house leader, I have been having conversations with hon. gentlemen opposite and there is some prospect that arrangements can be worked out which would expedite the completion of this section of the session.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
These arrangements might make it unnecessary to have that debate on those two days. If these arrangements can be completed when my hon. friend, the house leader, is back here on Monday morning, and I think I can be modestly optimistic about the prospects, then we would go right on with the estimates of the Solicitor General followed by the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. If both should be completed, I am sure we could find some other estimates with which to deal.
In view of what I said, it would be preferable if I did not indicate any specific business for any day beyond Monday. However, I should like to express appreciation to hon. gentlemen opposite who, on this birthday of mine, have been most co-operative and to express restrained optimism that we may all achieve what I think all of us here and the country desire.


David Vaughan Pugh: You are mellowing with age, Jack.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister is 39 years old today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Like Jack Benny.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business listed on today's order paper, namely public bills.
Canada Elections Act CANADA ELECTIONS ACT



AMENDMENT TO REDUCE VOTING AGE

Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-5, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a good measure of personal satisfaction to move second reading of Bill C-5, to amend the Canada Elections Act in so far as it regulates the age of voters.
As we all know, the act at present requires voters in federal elections to be of the full age of 21 years, with the exception of those serving in the armed forces. This bill permits all those of the age of 18 years and over to vote.
I cannot but look back to when I myself was 18 years of age. I happened to be intensely interested in politics, more so than most of the young people of my age, and I am glad to say that I took part and helped in election campaigns at that age. The year before, when I was only 17 years of age, I worked very hard for the Liberal party in the riding where I lived. This was during the election of 1930 when our party was defeated pretty badly by the Conservative party under that redoubtable chieftain who became prime minister of Canada, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett.
Today, the situation is different in my opinion. Never before has such a large proportion of young people been so keenly interested in the government of this country. Never before has such a large proportion of Canada's young people been so well educated and informed in matters of public concern. Never before has such a large cross-section of young people been mentally equipped and actually ready to render a vote to help choose a suitable government for Canada.
There is one fine thing about our young people who are at present under the age of 21 years. They do not seem to be committed to any one particular political party. As a general rule, they are not partisans to any political organizations, in my opinion. One and all, they are interested only in voting intelligently after weighing the situation and the consequences of marking their ballot.
Some people have told me that if we give the franchise to this large body of minors -call them minors if you will-it will have only one major effect in the result of the next federal election, that is it will greatly increase the N.D.P. vote. That point of view is incorrect in my opinion. The N.D.P. will have to work awfully hard to win the votes of these young people. But this goes likewise for

June 23, 1967
Canada Elections Act
the Liberal party, and most certainly tor the Conservative party.
Each political party, and this includes all parties, will have to earn the votes of the young people of Canada the hard way. They will each be judged on the actual merits of their platforms and policies, as well as their behaviour in parliament.
No nonsense will be tolerated from any of our youth. The result is that, in my opinion, the passage of this bill of mine by this house, or its referral to a committee for study and then its subsequent passage, will have a salutary effect on the political affairs of this country, to the edification of the public, of parliament and our great institutions.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
For the information of the house I should like to point out that the following provinces have lowered the voting age: Alberta to the age of 19; British Columbia, 19; Newfoundland, 19; Saskatchewan, 18; Quebec, 18. The provinces of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are also planning similar legislation. The voting age in the Saskatchewan municipalities is 18. In Canada today, therefore, five provinces, representing more than half of the population of this country, have lowered the voting age.
In the last ten years the House of Commons has once defeated and twice talked out private members' bills which would give the franchise to Canadians over 18. In 1963, the Commons committee on privileges and elections gave unanimous approval to amendments to the elections act which would lower the age to 18.
Recent opinion polls have shown a considerable increase of people in favour of lowering the age. The September 1966 Gallup poll reported an increase in 1958 from 33 per cent to 48 per cent in favour of lowering the age.
It is widely felt that the services the youth of this age group contribute to society entitle them to assume the responsibility of the ballot. In times of peace these young people, to a considerable extent, attain responsible places in society. In times of war their service in our armed forces has been absolutely essential. They have faced the utmost privations and hardships and have rendered even the supreme sacrifice on behalf of our country. These young people pay income tax; they are responsible in criminal law for their acts. If they are able to do these things, then they are responsible enough to have their own ballots. Young people over the age of 18 play a large role in the economic field. Therefore, they

should have a vote in respect of the economic policies of this country.
The extension of the ballot to the youth of this country would be in keeping with the best principles of responsible government. A fundamental principle of our form of government is government by consent of the governed. Because the ballot in such a country essentially is a democratic right, it should be as widely available as it can properly be exercised. A large electorate promotes the realization of effective government; it better registers the popular will and provides a safeguard against disaffected elements which might otherwise work outside the law.
I am really rather proud to be the sponsor of this bill. I believe in our youth and its mighty potential. In taking the position I am taking I am being neither visionary nor idealistic; I am in no way detracting from the importance of any single age group among those who already are qualified to vote, nor am I detracting from their attitudes or opinions. I myself have appealed for the votes of the wage earners, the heads of families in my constituency who have my respect in an undiminished way, and I would have no hesitation in appealing for their votes again if I so wished. I need not add that the great body of our more senior citizens have my love and respect. They all helped to build this country and we owe them our affectionate regard. We salute them in all their future endeavours. Under this bill, however, to this great body of voters will be added the youth of our nation. These people, it is true, are young in years and experience, but they are fresh in outlook and are not tied down to traditional attitudes or points of view.
A balanced, highly rational and serious contribution by youth in the affairs of this country is, Mr. Speaker, something which is much needed in Canada. Here, when we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of confederation, I say, with all the force I can muster, let us add to the great electorate of this country the youth of Canada who are awaiting to take their part in public affairs and to lend their weight and youthful strength to the operation of government in Canada.
The bill which I sponsor today simply reduces the age requirement for all voters to 18 and over from the present requirement. The other sections, which have been examined by the law officers of the crown, substitute the words "18 years of age" for the words "21 years of age" where they appear in the act.
June 23, 19G7

Actually, this bill which I am sponsoring is Liberal party policy and has been for a number of years. I am simply making an attempt to bring this much proclaimed policy into effect.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, first may I congratulate the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) for having introduced this bill. I must say that I am entirely in agreement with everything he has said with the exception of his last little addition in which he said that this was Liberal policy. My only comment in that regard is, of course, that if it has been Liberal policy it must have been Liberal policy for some time, so why has it not been brought forward by the government or by the previous government when they had a very good opportunity to do so. The very fact that they have not introduced such a measure indicates that probably they are not prepared to do anything about it at this time. In other words, they are giving lip service to a private member's bill knowing full well that it will likely be talked out, even if they have to provide Liberal speakers prior to six o'clock tonight in order to talk it out.
As I have said, I am in complete agreement with the hon. member's bill. He cited authorities for this bill. I am completely aware of those authorities and I am in agreement with them. I should like to add that one of the greatest lifts I get comes from talking to these young people. This has been my experience for the past number of years. During my experience in the schools I found that even before they were 18 years of age they had a very good working knowledge of parliament. It has been my experience that during the question period they are able to carry on asking questions for at least an hour. These are very searching questions; they have to do with the "whys and wherefores" of parliament. They are very constructive questions. The type of questions these young people ask demonstrates that the thinking they are doing is very searching and that they are looking into the future. They know only too well that it is only a question of time before they will be doing all the things which must be done in order to run a country. They realize that they will be taking over just as youth during the past number of years of our existence always has taken over.
I should like to mention an experience I had in respect of a mock parliament which was held in a high school in the city of Penticton. It was an excellent parliament. I
Canada Elections Act
acted as Mr. Speaker. I enjoyed the whole thing tremendously. Of course, I was an excellent speaker. The point is that these boys and girls set up their parties; they set up a parliament. Each and every member had a seat and a desk. There were 265 members including the speaker.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
They prepared good questions for orders of the day and received good answers from the government of the day. They were courteously treated. Much time was spent on this and a good job done from start to finish. The debates were short because of the time limit which had to be imposed. Orders of the day went well, as did the three short debates, after each of which there was a vote.
I was struck by the amount of work done by the participants from each party in each debate. The speeches were excellent.
Those taking part in the debates did not know how long they would last, but I know that there were at least four or five other debates on current affairs-incidentally, they were well prepared and thought out. The only disappointment in the whole day was the disappointment of those who were prepared to go on with a further debate. I was told that afterwards.
I tell this little story because it shows that the young people of today-though one has only to look at the young people of previous years who were active in each party to realize that my remarks apply also to the past-are preparing themselves for the future. They do not take the slap-happy attitude that because they were born on this earth somebody else must look after them from the cradle to the grave. They want to participate actively in the affairs of the nation, in whatever cause they may be called.
The hon. member who introduced this bill has said that our young people pay income tax. That is a mundane, monetary subject. Of course they do if they earn money; and they are glad to do so. But there is a much more telling argument in favour of the hon. member's bill. In the last two world wars those of 18-some were even younger-went overseas. I believe they were given the vote when they were overseas. Whether they had the vote or not makes no difference; what matters is that they volunteered in the highest service of this country.
They took on all jobs which their leaders took on, and they performed them without looking for any reward or kudos. Some of

June 23, 1967
Canada Elections Act
them were only 18 years old when they went overseas. That will add to the arguments of the sponsor of the bill.
Before sitting down, may I say that no matter at what age we give the vote to our young people, the vote will give them a responsibility. Since this bill talks of 18 year olds I will confine my remarks to that age group. If our young people are given the responsibility of the vote, they will discharge that responsibility.


Edward Richard Schreyer: The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) will be happy to know that he has considerable support in this house for his bill. As one looks at the order paper one can see five, perhaps more, similar bills. It was the intention of the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald), the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) as well as my intention to try to sponsor in common a bill along the lines of this bill. That may be unnecessary should the present bill pass, and I hope that it will. I hope it will not be talked out in a deliberate way.
All members who are present I am sure have had occasion to think a good deal about the merits and possible demerits of extending the franchise to those below 21 years of age, to those who are 18 years old. I do not intend to reassert some of the compelling arguments about why the voting age should be reduced by three years. Other hon. members have spoken about the subject today and in previous years.
One or two arguments for reducing the voting age may be novel, but I wish to advance them. One is that as more and more young people have greater opportunities to further their education and more time for leisure activities, they are more and more being prevailed on by mass media because they represent a commercial market. As a result, a subculture, if I might call it that, is growing up and hardening which affects our young people. There is a growing tendency for the young people of the present day to hive into a subculture of their own.
There may be some positive features from such a development, yet I believe that responsible people do not wish such a tendency to develop unduly and wish to counteract it. One way to counteract such a tendency is to involve our young people more in the running and administering of our political society. Since I cannot put my ideas as eloquently as the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) put his ideas when he spoke in the 
throne speech debate, perhaps I might be permitted to quote some sentences from his address, to be found at page 24 of Hansard for May 9, 1967. He said:
More and more Canadians are becoming aware of this potential. Not many are clear yet as to how it can be achieved. But our young people in particular are convinced that the standard, routine methods are not the answer, nor do our present values bear any great relevance to the conception they have of national objectives. This, I suggest, is why many institutions, including this house, are held in something less than awe by the younger generation which now makes up such a large part of our population.
And here is the nub of this eloquent statement:
We ought not to ignore or dismiss as inconsequential the ideas of these young people, most of whom are committed to the future of their country. They believe in it. Our task is to involve them-
I repeat:
Our task is to involve them constructively in the nation-building process.
Hon. members who applauded that statement and sentiment ought to find it difficult to oppose the implementation of this bill. This bill would give concrete application to the sentiments that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo expressed a few weeks ago. His remarks were applauded in all parts of the house.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We must as far as we are able involve young people in the ordering of the affairs of their political society. This is one way of doing it. We all believe, I am sure, in the desirability of doing these things gradually, step by step. We allow young people to hold elective office at the age of 21, so it seems to me they should be allowed to vote to help decide who shall hold office at least a few years earlier.
It has been said that one good reason for accepting this bill is that in some of the provinces the electoral law has been changed to allow voting from the age of 18. References were made to Saskatchewan and Quebec which provide for voting from the age of 18. In Alberta and British Columbia, provisions for voting from the age of 19 have already been made. In Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick amendments to the act were passed last session. I know for a fact that one reason a resolution to similar effect failed to pass the Manitoba legislature was that it was
June 23, 1S67

thought desirable, in the interest of uniformity across the country before lowering the voting age to wait until the federal government decided to take action.
This is a logical position to take. The difficulty is that if the federal government is inclined to procrastinate unduly, the action which the province felt to be desirable would have to be delayed interminably. The majority sentiment in the Manitoba legislature, according to a vote which was held on this question of the voting age a few months ago, was that there should indeed be a reduction in the minimum voting age from 21 to 18. But the members still felt that the federal government should be prevailed upon to act first.
It is to be hoped, then, that before the passing of another year, certainly before the next election, this change will be made. We have an opportunity to act here and now in the form of the bill presented by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown). The remaining provinces will without doubt follow suit and we would then have in this country a uniform election law with regard to minimum voting age, the effect of which would be to give an opportunity for involvement for the young people today who in so many instances feel frustrated because they are unable to take part in any meaningful way in the nation-building process or in the political processes of our society.
I know that some elements in our society will be of the opinion, as they have been for a long time past, that to extend the franchise downward to the age of 18 would be to run the risk of political parties catering to the supposedly less stable elements -that the temptation would grow to buy or curry favour with less stable groups. While there are no doubt certain aspects of the behaviour of youth which may cause some adults to feel concerned, I and many others are getting the decided impression that by far the greater number of the young people of today are showing an impressive degree of maturity and good judgment. I believe they are giving evidence of a degree of seriousness and of a sense of commitment to ideals; they are showing they would like to become involved in helping to solve many of the human problems which exist in this country and in the world today. Since they have this desire for involvement and this sense of commitment, we should not withhold any longer the chance to have a say in the choosing of the government of our country, which is just as much their country.
Canada Elections Act
I would be very disappointed if with deliberate intent, or some murky or cloudy purpose, this bill does not receive endorsement.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) for having introduced this bill in the house. As the previous speaker mentioned, several members have given thought to this matter.
I feel that most young people are serious enough to judge political matters. I say, most of them, because I do not mean that 50 per cent of our young people have attained maturity. I took pleasure in conducting a small survey in my riding on this subject, and I think that hardly 50 per cent of the young people are really interested in politics or for that matter, are actually informed on political matters.
In fact, the replies I received were rather vague. Now, a percentage of 50 per cent is reasonable enough. At any rate, we notice the same situation with older people. Several elderly persons know absolutely nothing about politics, especially those who live in large cities. I have worked in rural municipalities and especially in larger centres and one notices that the greater majority of the people, even in cities, who are middle-aged, or are considered as such, know nothing about politics, do not even know who their member is. I can assure you that they know very little. I feel that we have here a group of young people who are reasonably conversant with public affairs and certainly deserve the attention of governments.
To my mind, the federal government would be acting fairly in enfranchising 18-year old youth. In fact, are they not taxed from age 18? When one is paying and forced to pay, one is entitled to get something in return.
Furthermore, the provinces show the lead in this matter. In fact, several provinces have already reduced the voting age. Why? For political reasons no doubt, because I think there might be a little bit of politics in this. In the province of Quebec, if the government did it for political reasons, it certainly was not lucky because it was defeated. But quite apart from the political point of view, it would be undoubtedly fair to 18-year old youth to give them the right to vote. I would even say that it is a matter of justice to enfranchise everyone who is taxed and to refuse the right to vote to those who are not taxable. And I mean taxable-

June 23, 1967
Canada Elections Act


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: Oh.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: -subject to taxation.
I must say what I mean by the words "subject to taxation", because I just heard the Postmaster General says: "Oh." It would be sheer logic that anybody be entitled to vote as long as he is subject to taxation by our governments.
I have another point to make on consideration of this bill to lower the voting age to 18 years. If our youth are to be given responsibilities, let them be given logical ones. If one can vote at 18, enter the armed forces at 18, and be liable, to taxation at 18, one attains one's majority at 18.


Mr. Habel:: This is a purely provincial matter.


Mr. Gaulhier:: I do not see why a young man should not reach his majority at 18, in all provinces.
The voting age is a provincial as well as federal matter. I do not know whether the question of minors is a matter for the provinces only, or whether it also falls under federal jurisdiction-I am not very well aware of the situation in other provinces-but if this has any influence on the question of minors, I think it is an interesting question which, of course, has nothing to do with the bill under consideration today.
Incidentally, I think that if you want to hire young people, you must lower to 18 the age when they can vote or attain their majority.
I regret that this bill was presented as a public bill, because we know what usually happens to a private members' public bills, that is a first class funeral due to the clock, but I hope-


Mr. Cofe (Longueuil):: You are participating therein.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: No, because I want to be brief. I am only expressing my point of view, but usually every public bill receives the same treatment. That is provided for in the standing orders.
However, I wish that this bill had been introduced by an hon. minister so that it would be discussed and put into effect as soon as possible in view of the coming election.


Mr. L. P. Neveu (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, it is with much pleasure that I avail myself of the privilege bestowed upon me to address myself to the members of this assembly in

order to deal with a matter of the utmost importance.
Indeed, in any democracy, the free expression of citizens, through the voting process, constitutes the cornerstone of our democratic system. By our throughts, our words and our actions we express our grievances to those who are elected to administer the affairs of the country our legislators.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 before us this afternoon, has to do with an important question: is it advisable to give the right to vote to our fellow-citizens, male and female, at the age of 18 years. Evidently, there are pros and cons to this issue which no doubt deserve due consideration.
I hope that my humble contribution will promote the surge of ideas in order that we may be enlightened to take the necessary measures for the benefit of the common good. With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I should like to state objectively my point of view concerning that very important question of enfranchising 18-year old youth.
I am one of those who feel that the sharing of responsibilities will prove more satisfactory in this modern world.
Needless to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that youth has always played a leading part in wartime, in difficult periods. There are unfortunately too many young people among the bravest on the battlefields, who have not been emancipated by being given full rights. As far as Canada is concerned their contribution proved to be of prime importance during the 1914-18 and 1939-45 world wars.
Every year, on remembrance day, we deem it our duty to lay wreaths on the graves of our young soldiers who died between the age of 18 and 21, as a tribute to their courage, their ability and their valour. We must consider objectively that if citizens shed their blood, they have the right to share in peacetime and in every circumstances, the sacred rights belonging to fully emancipated citizens.
In the industrial sector, and in war production, a great number of those young people, of both sexes, made a very important and very useful contribution.
In peacetime, our young people really join in the march towards the common good. Through education, they prepare themselves to play a constructive role to ensure our economic and social development. Several of them assume important responsibilities and even become heads of families. To a large extent, they contribute to the administration of the government by paying taxes; they also
June 23, 1967

render very valuable services to various companies.
Mr. Speaker, several qualities may be attributed to those young people. Allow me to mention a few:
1.	They have intuition and ideals;
2.	They have energy and a creative mind;
3.	They have untold resources of inborn qualities.
Our country, which is also one of the newer countries on the map of the world, needs all men of good will. I think we can prove to the world that we are broad-minded and that we mean to devote all our energies and talents to our economic and social emancipation.
Young people, because of their nature and idealism, have a definite talent for science and research. Research concerning the promotion of talent will play a major role in the second century of our country.
Competent authorities in the field of education are giving a greater importance than ever to a number of great qualities of youth. Responsibilities are being increasingly delegated to young leaders, young professors, in other words to dynamic people who dare to look ahead and think big.
Our young people can be very important, because they can bring people to collaborate and find advanced formulas.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It must also be recognized that those young people should have the right to speak up and be represented on the labour market. They have often been denied because their voice was not powerful enough in those sectors which appeal to them most. They want to valorize themselves by contributing to them.
The principle of majority is now recognized at 21 years of age only. You will grant me that maturity is more a matter of behaviour than of age. Another aspect must be considered. Indeed, many of our young people are allowed by civil and religious authorities to marry before they are 21 years old. That situation involves many inconveniences when the legal age of majority is 21. Let me give you a few examples to illustrate what I mean.
For instance: (1) the consent of parents or tutors must be obtained; (2) one is unable to make a will as citizens of age do, and (3) one is legally irresponsible yet assumes responsibilities.
Many think it desirable that the greatest possible number of active people of a country should make the decisions and that the responsibilities should be shared by all classes
Canada Elections Act
of citizens. The adults and particularly the young are anxious for a dialogue in our present world. But, for the dialogue to be practical, it is necessary that equal rights and responsibilities be shared by all parties concerned.
The best way to practice a well-ordered policy is to delegate responsibilities in an atmosphere of confidence.
I think that our youths should be trained not only to profit from a healthy body but to adopt a positive attitude, so that they may be psychologically prepared at the earliest possible time to take over from their elders. Because of our information and culture media, our youths are more advanced and better informed. Our youths are ready to produce and it is better to let them work with what they have within the framework of responsibilities instead of isolating them in their frustration. The desire to have an ideal is natural with them.
I have no doubt that if our youths were to share the right to vote, this would eventually improve the quality of the popular vote. Besides, our schools are starting to include in their training, important factors concerning citizenship, public affairs and subjects of interest to our citizens.
Young people nowadays take an increasing interest in politics and public affairs. They read more, participate in forums and meetings and seek really positive ways of communicating with their fellowmen.
It may be said that juvenile delinquency proves more frequent among the young until they reach 18 years of age, but, if one goes to the source, one finds that in most cases the young people were made prone to delinquency by adult delinquents. It must also be admitted that we must be objective and not place too much emphasis on the mistakes of young people, because they, in turn, will not fail to point out the mistakes of their elders.
Certain arguments are used by those who doubt that 18-year-olds are capable of voting. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the house, I do not have the time required to go over all those arguments, but there are some, and, if you will, I shall refer to only one of them which I think it is important to emphasize in order to understand the positive factors involved.
Some will say that our young people are often unstable, impulsive and that therefore they cannot naturally and psychologically express a really significant opinion on matters of some importance. But we must recognize

June 23, 1967
Canada Elections Act
that we have, of course, throughout our life, the qualities of our faults and the faults of our qualities.
However, before concluding my remarks I should like to say that I fully support that reduction by which our young people may be able to play a leading role and contribute to the common weal. I might undoubtedly take inspiration from that thought of Jean-Charles Harvey, and I should have liked to be able to emphasize a little the problems facing our young people in Quebec today as well as the part they want to play.
I think that we must take as a pattern a constructive dialogue so that the Quebec young people may associate themselves to those of other provinces, on a federal level, so that we may work closely with all the classes of our society.
We must hope for this, and young people today should meditate on this question. A great man once said that political genius, like any other, really consists in making rational use of the genius of others.
I believe in the intelligence of our youth. I am sure that, together with Canadians of every social class, our young people will find inspiration in Man and his World and build a future in which liberty, unity and fraternity
will reign, in a new world, in a strong and better Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in the moment before six o'clock I wonder whether I may have the unanimous consent of the house to send the subject matter of this bill to the committee on privileges and elections where it can receive further study. If I have that consent I should like to move:
That the motion for second reading of Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (Age of Voters) be deemed to have been withdrawn, and that the subject matter of the said bill be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for consideration of private members' business has expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
June 23, 1967


[Stage Direction]
MONTREAL, June 22, 1967-The eleventh meeting of the Joint Canada-United States Ministerial Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs was held in Montreal, June 20-22.
The Committee exchanged views on current economic developments. They reviewed the success achieved in both countries in moderating excessive demand pressures during the past year and noted that a more dynamic pace of extension of real output was expected in coming months. Recovery of the residential construction industry, an end to the inventory correction, modest expansion of private investment expenditures, higher Federal, State and local government purchases, and renewed vigor in consumer spending were cited as the major anticipated sources of strength in the United States out-look for the coming year. Similar forces were also expected to lead to stronger growth in Canada. The Committee emphasized the need for flexible and responsible fiscal policy in both countries during the coming months. They recognized the need for dealing with the problem of achieving greater stability in costs and prices, especially as the two economies resume rates of advance more in line with their potentials.
In a world of growing trade and development assistance, Committee members affirmed the intention of their governments to press for general agreement at the 1967 annual meeting of the Governors of the International Monetary Funds on the structure and major provisions of a contingency plan for the creation of a new international reserve asset. They stressed the need for an asset which monetary authorities could include in their reserves.
The Committee also reviewed the balance of payments prospects of the two countries. United States members reiterated the continued determination of the United States to make as much progress toward equilibrium in its worldwide balance of payments as the costs of Vietnam permit. The Committee discussed capital movements between the two
countries and took note of the benefits to both countries of existing arrangements relating to access by Canadian borrowers to the United States capital market.
The Committee welcomed the successful conclusion of the Kennedy Round of Trade negotiations which will provide an important stimulus to world trade as well as to trade between the United States and Canada. They discussed prospects for the future trade liberalization, noted that both countries are conducting studies on this matter and agreed to continue close consultations.
The Committee devoted special attention to the trade problems of the developing countries recognizing the importance of positive and constructive measures in support of efforts by the developing countries to accelerate their own economic development. This will be the main theme of the second United Nations conference on trade and development early next year.
The Committee was concerned about the failure of development aid to expand in line with the growing requirements of the developing countries. In this context early and substantially enlarged replenishment of International Development Association resources must have a high priority. The Committee welcomed the new multilateral food aid program agreed upon in the Kennedy Round which will help expand food aid and will result in a more equitable sharing of the cost. The amount and character of food assistance must be improved as well as the degree of self-help by the recipient nations.
The Committee recognized the importance of close and effective cooperation between the two countries in respect of wheat marketing policies, including wheat flour, particularly in the context of the new cereals agreement concluded in the Kennedy Round. They agreed to strengthen consultative arrangements concerning wheat marketing and food aid.
United States members reiterated their concern over those aspects of the Canadian Bank
[Stage Direction]
June 23, 1967
Act which in their view have the effect of discriminating retroactively against a bank in Canada owned in the United States. Canadian Ministers took a different view of the effect of the Bank Act, and stressed the importance of effective Canadian ownership of major financial institutions. They reiterated Canada's intention to encourage increased participation by Canadians in the ownership and control of Canadian industry while continuing to maintain hospitable climate for foreign investment.
Canadian members, also drew attention to the problem arising from the effect which certain United States laws and regulations may have upon Canadian companies, especially as regards securities regulations and foreign assets control but noted that good progress had been made in dealing with particular aspect of the problem. The Committee agreed on the desirability of an exchange of information in the securities field that would benefit investors in both countries.
The Committee examined results achieved under the Automotive Agreement of 1965. Despite fluctuations in demand and the continuing process of adjustment the industry is making progress in rationalization and efficiency, and trade in automotive products between the two countries has expanded substantially to the benefit of both producers and consumers. They noted that a comprehensive review of the Agreement was to begin later this year.
The Committee discussed energy relations between the two countries. They recognized the common interest in the orderly expansion of trade in energy resources and discussed the kinds of facilities which might be needed to serve efficiently the development of this trade. The Committee noted the recent decision of the Federal Power Commission which, in approving the transmission of natural gas to Eastern Canadian and border states customers, referred to the community of interest in this project and to its security advantages.
The Committee discussed a number of bilateral questions of current interest to the two countries. United States members urged that Canadian tourists returning to Canada from the United States be given duty-free allowances equivalent to those given Canadian tourists returning from overseas areas. They also requested that Canada accord official recognition to Bourbon whisky as a distinctive product of the United States.
Canadian Ministers referred to the desirability of expanding the area of free trade in agricultural machinery, tractors and equipment and it was agreed that this matter should be examined jointly with a view to working out mutually satisfactory arrangements. They also urged the elimination of the manufacturing clause in United States copyright legislation and the relaxation of restrictions on United States imports of aged Canadian Cheddar cheese. Canadian members drew attention to the problem created from time to time because of the cross border movement of relatively small quantities of agricultural products at depressed prices usually at or near the end of the marketing season. The Committee agreed that continued efforts would be made to work out acceptable solutions to these problems. Other topics discussed included trade in lead and zinc, and the St. John River Development.
The Committee expressed pleasure that agreement had been reached regarding winter maintenance for the Haines Cutoff portion of the Alaska highway and discussed possible improvement in the Alaska highway system.
The Committee took note of the studies at present being undertaken by the International Joint Commission, which, at the request of the two governments, is investigating a number of questions of economic and general public interest relating to boundary waters and pollution of air and water.
Meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee have in the past been held alternately in Ottawa and Washington. On the occasion of the centennial of Canada's Confederation, this meeting was held in Montreal which provided an opportunity for members of the Committee to visit Expo 67.
The United States Secretary of State, the Honourable Dean Rusk and the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs the Honourable Paul Martin were unable to participate in the meeting as planned because of the emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly. The United States was represented by Secretary of the Treasury the Honourable Henry H. Fowler (Chairman of the Delegation) United States Ambassador to Canada, the Honourable W. Walton Butter-worth; Secretary of Agriculture, the Honourable Orville L. Freeman; Secretary of Commerce, the Honourable Alexander B. Trobridge; Under Secretary of the Interior, Honourable Charles F. Luce; Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, the Honourable Gardner Ackley; Assistant
June 23, 1967
[Stage Direction]
Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, the Honourable Anthony M. Solomon.
The Canadian delegation was headed by the Honourable Robert H. Winters, Minister of Trade and Commerce; and included the Honourable Mitchell Sharp, Minister of Finance; the Honourable Charles M. Drury,
Minister of Industry; the Honourable Jean-Luc Pepin, Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources; the Honourable J. J. Greene, Minister of Agriculture; Mr. Louis Ras-minsky, Governor of the Bank of Canada; and Mr. A. E. Ritchie, Canadian Ambassador to the United States.
1919
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 26. 1967