1968-11-21

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs-Mr. Clermont.
[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on regional development-Mr. Morison.
[Stage Direction]
First report, in French and in English, of standing committee on transport and communications-Mr. Blouin.
[Note: Text of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Guy Crossman (Weslmorland-Kenl) moved: that the first and second reports of the standing committee on fisheries and forestry, presented to the house on Tuesday, October 29 and Tuesday, November 19, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the whereabouts of the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) has been the subject of some comment both on and off the printed record in this house in the last couple of days. I am happy to assure hon. members that the minister's absence has in no way reduced the effectiveness of his department. Indeed, with the assistance of the agencies for which the Solicitor General is responsible I am pleased to report that I have tracked him down, and I find that a day or two ago in Houston, Texas, he delivered a major speech to the North American Judges Association.
Because of the very great interest of the members of this house in what the Solicitor General is doing I could read the speech he 29180-190i
made on the basis of the time taken to deliver it, which was 45 minutes. Alternatively, the speech could be found in the minister's office.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I thought members on this side of the house had made it perfectly clear that the whereabouts of the Solicitor General were not of concern to us, indeed that he was about the only minister about whom we did not wonder where he was most of the time. I do not know what has provoked this explanation by the Prime Minister of the absence of the minister, whose absence does not require any explanation to the house.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: It was the Prime Minister who did not know where he was.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is a little surprising, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister would feel it necessary to track down the minister. In view of the Solicitor General's discourse in Texas I am wondering whether it is possible that he has gone down there to express the concern of the government of Canada at the civil riots and the possibility of civil disorder in the United States.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to take the time of the house to add anything more on this matter, but it seems to me that what the Prime Minister has done is most remarkable. And the language he used, if I may point this out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of the house, was not of the most respectful to a member of his cabinet. If the Prime Minister was merely cracking a joke, then I think I could join him, though I do not quite see the humour; but if he was doing something else to the Solicitor General, then it does not seem to me very charitable.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Temiscamingue):: Just a word, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the right hon. Prime Minister has just stated that the absence of the Solicitor General will in no way affect the administration or reduce the effectiveness of the services rendered by this department to the house and the country, I simply want to ask him why a solicitor general was appointed, when it is proved by the right hon. Prime Minister himself that there is no need for one?
3004	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



TABLING OF LETTER FROM JAPANESE AMBASSADOR TO CANADA WITH REGARD TO QUOTAS

Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house, I should like to table a copy of the letter dated November 18 from the Japanese Ambassador, informing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) of the restraints being applied by the Japanese Government on exports of certain products to Canada during 1968. These restraints are being applied by the Japanese government following consultations between representatives of the Japanese and Canadian governments.
If the house approves, I propose that the Ambassador's letter be printed as an appendix to today's Votes and Proceedings.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In past years, Japan's restraint levels have been increased by a modest amount to permit orderly expansion of Japan's exports to Canada. Early this year, in consulting with the Canadian producers concerned, as we do each year, the government was informed that Canadian textile markets were seriously depressed. Investigations established that many sectors of the Canadian textile and garment industries are indeed experiencing difficult times. I am glad to be able to say that the Japanese government, recognizing these difficulties, has agreed to increases for 1968 that are, generally speaking, smaller than has been the case in recent years.
I should add that there have also been discussions with the Japanese authorities regarding the level of their exports to Canada of polyester/cotton fabrics. As honourable members will see, these fabrics are not included in the list of products subject to specific levels of restraint. However, I have been advised that the Japanese government intends to keep a close watch on the level of exports of these goods to Canada. We are keeping this particular matter under constant review.
DEBATES	November 21. 1968



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT-NARCOTIC CONTROL ACT-CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENTS RESPECTING CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICES, RESTRICTED DRUGS, ETC.

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-15 (from the Senate), to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Secretary of State but in view of its importance I wish to direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is it now the policy of the Public Service Commission that a knowledge of both official languages will be a requirement for appointment to executive and administrative categories in the public service by the year 1970, and by the year 1975 in respect of promotions within the service?
I ask this question in view of the Prime Minister's own earlier remarks regarding a willingness to learn the second official language as the case may be, as contrasted to an actual facility in that language.
Mr. Robert Stanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to inquire from the Public Service Commission concerning the matter raised by the hon. gentleman.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question related to this question and arising from questions asked in the house on October 23 and on a subsequent date by myself and the hon. member for Peace River. Could the Prime Minister tell the house what decision he has reached with regard to a request from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada for a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss Bill No. C-120?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I have not yet had a report on this. I shall find out what the status is.

November 21, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister how the Canadian delegation, on instructions from his government, voted on the Italian resolution to send the question of the admission of China to the United Nations to a study committee.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: As I understand the question it is as to how we voted. We abstained on that question. We felt that the establishment of a committee was a tactic which would result in delay in action on the matter. Because we want to be in a position on this question, as on others, and to be able to act freely if as a result of our review that is what we decide to do, we preferred to abstain rather than submit the whole question to a committee as suggested by the Italian resolution. That resolution would, perhaps, have the effect of delaying our own possible actions.


David Lewis: In view of the Prime Minister's frequent reiteration of his hope that he may be able to establish diplomatic relations with Peking, and that mainland China might be admitted to the United Nations, is our abstention on this resolution this year not something which may be misunderstood in view of the fact that last year we supported a similar resolution?


Mr. Trudeau:: Precisely because we supported this resolution for the past two years we have abstained this year to mark an orientation of this government away from a path which might be interpreted as a path of delay in the United Nations, and in order to clear ourselves for any action we might wish to take.


David Lewis: Would the Prime Minister
inform the house whether in doing so the Canadian representatives made clear to the United Nations Canada's intention and hope that mainland China would be admitted to the United Nations under proper conditions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This was made clear two years ago by Hon. Paul Martin in his speech to the United Nations. It was repeated again this year by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, everyone learned yesterday that the Quebec government is about to change the name of the legislature to that of National Assembly of the province of Quebec. According to the Prime Minister, is there any constitutional objection to this new name and could he tell us his reaction to this report?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: As to my reaction, Mr. Speaker-and that may spare me the trouble of answering the first part of the question, which is a legal question-I think that the province of Quebec considers doing what it has a right to do under the constitution, that is amend its own provincial constitution, with the exception of the office of lieutenant governor.
As far as the name is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is cause for alarm. The province of Ontario has also changed the name of its legislature by calling it the parliament of Ontario. The name of the members of the Ontario provincial legislature have also been changed, I believe, and they are now members of the provincial parliament. Therefore, those matters do not worry me very much; what concerns me though is what this change means.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Since two provinces seem already to be contemplating changes in their legislature or their legislative council, does the federal government intend to make changes in the Senate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, considerable changes are now under way in that place, under the distinguished leadership of the former Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), but as far as definite proposals are concerned, I think that will have to wait until the next federal-provincial conference, when that matter can be discussed.


Mr. Gerard Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the name of National Assembly, does the Prime Minister not feel that such a step is the consecration of what many Canadians think, that there is only one nation in Canada, namely the Canadian nation?

November 21, 1368
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
I know that the Prime Minister is not very much concerned by the term "Assemblee nationale", but from the international point of view, from now on should the federal members from Quebec not be called "international members?"



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
'On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hast-ings):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement by the secretary of the Treasury Board to the Canadian Tax Foundation this week that "the federal government has tended to neglect studies of whether money spent on its programs is being used as effectively as possible, or whether even the programs are needed-", will the Prime Minister indicate whether the government intends to take steps to correct this situation so it may better control its already very large expenditures?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I note that the quotation referred to the past; that the government had in the past neglected-. I presume the gentleman was referring to what might have happened from five to ten years ago; but as to what is happening now, these examinations are under way as I have already said in the house.


George Harris Hees: Is the right hon. Prime Minister not aware that in his statement the secretary of the Treasury Board was using the present tense in describing the situation that exists today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
It was reported this morning that the Minister of Transport and some of his officials have met with the president of the Q.F.L., Mr. Louis Laberge. I would like to ask him

whether he has some comments to make and what were the subjects discussed with the labour leader?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: I was not in attendance at any such meeting, Mr. Speaker. I will have to take note of the question and find out who, if any, of my officials met with the gentleman. I was busily occupied elsewhere. I am not sure if there was such a meeting. If there was I missed something.


Martial Asselin: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, concerning the Air Canada base at Winnipeg and Montreal.
A parliamentary committee made up of Liberal members from Quebec and Manitoba issued a press release saying they had-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should ask his question.


Martial Asselin: -arrived at an honourable compromise. I should like to ask the minister if he can tell us today which honourable compromise his department has to offer Manitoba and Quebec members with respect to the Air Canada base?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. When may the house expect a reply to starred question No. 616, which has been on the order paper since October 30? I ask this question because the answer to most parts of the starred question is a simple yes or no. The minister's estimates are before the transport committee, and we must have a reply to the question in order to intelligently ask questions in the committee.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I hope soon, Mr. Speaker. The estimates of the Department of Transport will be considered tomorrow by the committee of the whole house, and I would be glad at that time to discuss this question with my hon. friend if he would like to do so.
November 21, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question regarding the matter I previously brought to his attention, in connection with the 160,000 residents of the borough of Etobicoke, the town of Mis-sissagua, and Chinguacousy. There has been a declaration by the Department of Transport that interference with residential development should be avoided. Therefore I ask the minister, has it been brought to his attention that if this expansion of the airport is proceeded with there are dozens of schools in that area which will require soundproofing at a cost of more than $200,000? In the borough of Etobicoke it has cost the board of education $624,600 to soundproof three schools to meet present levels of noise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question should be for the purpose of seeking information, rather than giving information to the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, you have to tell these ministers. However, this minister is not one of those. Would the minister say now that there is some hope for these people, under the circumstances I have pointed out, and others, of the government proceeding with a second airport, as has been the course followed in Montreal?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I indicated on a previous occasion that at the time the announcement was made last summer the major expansion of the Toronto international airport to the west would be conditional upon the proper land use zoning by the municipalities involved, and with the co-operation of the provincial government to the extent that it was required. Since that time a number of meetings have taken place at the technical level to determine the answer to this question. They are still continuing. I understand that there are one or two more still to be held. The information which is being produced there by interested parties is being accumulated to be made available to me. I hope to be in a position to take a look at it very shortly, and to determine at that time whether the basis upon which this proposition was first made is realizable.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the minister also say that in addition to technical considerations, the human element, the rights of human beings in that area, will be fully considered and that their representations will be considered?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Very much so, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity to say that these have been very forcefully brought to my attention over a period of weeks by the Toronto Liberal members of parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -before my right hon. friend really involved himself in this question. I can assure him that in addition to the aspects related directly to transportation and economics, the very legitimate-


Mr. Nielsen:: Political?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No-the very legitimate concerns of the people of that district in so far as their quality of life is concerned will be very much taken into account.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister not know that the reason I brought it before the house was that these members, whatever representations they may have made, made them silently?


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. When he is trying to arrive at a decision on this very serious and important question of the Malton airport, would he give serious consideration to the possibilities of the Wellington-Waterloo airport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do so if my hon. friend could give me an assurance that as that growing metropolitan area continues to expand, there would be no objections to the noise resulting from airport expansion in that place.



QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION IN EASTERN TOWNSHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andre Foriin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer again to international airport and direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Would the hon. minister tell us whether agreements were entered into between the Quebec government and the Ottawa government in this respect and, if so, are the negotiations completed?

November 21, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, but I hope they will be soon.


André-Gilles Fortin: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) made a statement early this week indicating the negotiation of those agreements was completed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must ask a question.


André-Gilles Fortin: Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. minister whether he is aware of the statement made by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres indicating that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question, as
asked, is out of order.



WINNIPEG-REPORTED LACK OF HANGAR SPACE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of very urgent requirements this winter for aircraft hangar space at the Winnipeg international airport by a number of local and regional aircraft operators, will the minister make a thorough examination into the possibility of providing hangar space for these operators in the armed forces hangars which apparently are not being used to their full capacity by the armed forces?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making representations to the minister rather than asking a question. I assume the representations have been noted.


Robert Simpson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked the minister to look into the possibility of providing hangar space for these operators.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask him whether the government of France has made representations to the Canadian government for assistance in the defence of the franc; and

if so, what has been the reply of the Canadian government?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such representations that might have been made to my government by the government of France. As to our reply, I can only say that this is a hypothetical question.


Max Saltsman: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the government is prepared to take initiative in view of the serious difficulties in which the French government finds itself. Is it prepared to take a charitable initiative and offer its assistance to the French government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Does the hon. member mean something like proclaiming "Vive le franc fibre"?


Mr. Knowles (Winipeg Norlh Centre):: Touche.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Max Saltsman: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Aside from the Prime Minister taking that kind of initiative, which might or might not be welcomed in France, I was wondering whether the Prime Minister can inform the house when the Minister of Finance will be returning, and whether the minister will be prepared to make a full statement on his representations in Europe.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister had expected to come back here after a day, but he is staying on because the discussions are continuing. I can only add that in matters such as these the position of the European currencies is of concern to all of us. I indicated yesterday that there is no reason for worry about the Canadian dollar-it is in a better position than it has been in a long while-but we do not take the position that what happens to European currencies is of no concern to us. We approach this matter very seriously, and we do not want to make any gesture or any statement which might prejudge the outcome of these very delicate problems.
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, would the right hon. Prime Minister not agree that for the government of Canada to make any such statement as "Vive le franc fibre" would be an unwarranted intrusion in the affairs of France?


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the right hon. Prime
November 21. 1968	COMMONS
Minister would consider relieving the pressure on the French franc by accepting the undertakings in the cultural field that France has made to New Brunswick, Manitoba and some other places?



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the report of the International Joint Commission on pollution in the St. Mary's river, does the minister plan to take any action against the shipowners who are polluting this river by dumping waste into it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member might not consider the possibility of discussing that question at the time of adjournment.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO ACTION RESPECTING OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: My question is for the Prime Minister. On November 4 I asked a question concerning offshore mineral rights, and in his reply the Prime Minister referred to the fact that the anniversary date of the decision of the Supreme Court was very near. That has passed, it having been November 7. He also said:

I hope that on or around that anniversary certain proposals will have been made to the provinces.
I wonder if any such proposals have yet been made, and if not, when we might expect a statement.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am planning to be in a position to make such a statement after next weeks' cabinet meeting. This is my expectation, and I hope I will be able to adhere to my plan.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister indicate whether consideration is being
DEBATES	3009
Inquiries of the Ministry given to the appointment of a representative from either the federation of agriculture or the national farmers' union to the steering committee that is now planning the agricultural congress to be held in Ottawa early next spring?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the question should be placed on the order paper. If, however, it is considered sufficiently urgent to be debated now it can be brought up at the time of adjournment.



INQUIRY AS TO RETURN OF DEFENCE MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister when the Minister of National Defence will have completed the duties he is carrying out at the present time, and when we may expect to see him back in his place in the house.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: He is supposed to be in the house next Monday and the days following.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. About two weeks ago the right hon. gentleman told the house that he would make an announcement concerning the presidency of Air Canada within two weeks at the most. That time has now about expired and I was wondering if the right hon. Prime Minister could make the announcement now.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce that I hope the announcement will be made Tuesday by the board of Air Canada which, under the statute, is empowered to make the announcement. I am looking forward to that announcement with great expectation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the board of Air Canada is making the appointment, or whether the government of Canada is making it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me for an interpretation of the

November 21, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry statute, and as such, I suggest, the question is not in order.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the undertaking that was given by his predecessor, that the Department of Labour would act upon the recommendations of the Freedman report, can the minister tell us what his department has done along these lines with respect to the impending lay-offs at Windsor?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: The estimates of the labour department will be before the house at the end of the question period, but I might reassure the hon. gentleman that any doubts I had on the philosophy of the Freedman commission report were dissipated by the action of the Ford Company, and I will strongly recommend to my colleagues some legal action along the lines of the Freedman report.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development arising from the intention of the federal crown corporation known as Devco-and I would like to make this clear as the minister does not seem to understand it-to impose compulsory retirement at the age of 60 in the Cape Breton coal industry. Is it the policy of the government in this case to follow collective bargaining in that industry as it relates to retirement and pension programs?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: I understand that negotiations with the unions are still continuing on this subject.


Donald MacInnis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister had the report available on his desk for quite some time before it was tabled, did he not study it, and does he not see the ambiguity in the report with regard to the actions taken by Devco?


Jean Marchand: Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems very clear to me.


Donald MacInnis: I have a further supplementary question. In view of the very considerable experience the minister has had in the labour field, does he not recognize a violation of a general agreement when he sees one?



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of yesterday's announcement of a rise in the price of milk to Ontario consumers, will the minister consider ways and means of protecting the further erosion of the nutritional levels of low income consumers?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could he tell us what has happened to the ship that he arranged to be brought and anchored in the river during the election campaign, in front of the Lauzon shipyards, to have major repairs done to it and thus to give work to hundreds of families at Lauzon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should place his question on the order paper.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Has it been discarded or saved for the next election?

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western
Nova): I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister has made a thorough investigation as to-excuse my language-where in the hell the member for Burnaby-Seymour is, and where in the hell the minister is, can he now answer my question?


George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Prime Minis-
November 21, 1968

ter. Does the government expect in the near future to make an announcement regarding the employment of Mr. James Tucker, in view of the fact that all other defeated Liberal members of the last parliament have been given cushy jobs?



HEROIN-REPORTED STATEMENT AS TO DISTRIBUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the alarming statement by an R.C.M.P. spokesman that the hippy world has become an important distribution centre for heroin, a dangerous and rapidly habit forming drug, would the minister inform the house if this matter is now being given his consideration?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Yes indeed, sir.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister. In view of recent developments in world monetary affairs and the strength of the Canadian dollar as referred to by the Prime Minister, will the government now give consideration to a floating exchange rate, or a modified form of a floating exchange rate?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Heavens no, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then will the Prime Minister give me the assurance that in future when he boasts of the strength of the Canadian dollar he will be sure to touch wood?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question with regard to the monetary crisis in Europe.
Can the right hon. Prime Minister tell us whether, as we heard yesterday, Japan has decided to supply or guarantee a billion dollars to France to support the franc?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear that.
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE



REQUEST FOR INCREASED APPOINTMENTS OF FRENCH CANADIANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Yesterday, in Hull, Mr. Yves Labonte, commissioner of the Public Service Commission of Canada, called for a massive ingress of French-speaking people in the public service. I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he shares this opinion and, if so, whether this will be possible in the near future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question, as put, is out of order.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: My question is for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. In view of the great interest in Prince Edward Island, I wonder whether the minister could tell us how soon we might expect this comprehensive development plan of the government of Canada to be signed?


Jean Marchand: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is also for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Is the government phasing out the P.F.R.A. program and, if so, what alternative scheme is planned to fill the growing demand for regional development?


Jean Marchand: We are not phasing out the program, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-ABILITY TO MEET EXPORT COMMITMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio

November 21, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry from Saskatchewan. On November 7 last, in reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, he promised to inquire into the fulfilling of export commitments by the Canadian Wheat Board. Can he now state whether these commitments are being filled on schedule, and can he further say whether the Canadian Wheat Board is presently negotiating with the Soviet union about taking up its option under the long term sales agreement with that country?
Kon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio): I will not reply to the latter part of the question, Mr. Speaker, on the grounds previously stated by myself and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The commitments of the wheat board and deliveries of wheat are being fulfilled. The movement of grain from elevators to the terminals is up very significantly over last year, to the extent of 47 per cent in the period from October 1 to November 7.
Right Kon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert): I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan. In view of his very optimistic statement as to the shipments of wheat to terminals, can he explain why it is that the 3 bushel quota still applies generally? At the same time will he inform us whether, if I may use a police expression, he has tracked down the number of Canadian freight cars in the United States that might be brought back to Canada?


Mr. Lang (Saskaloon-Humboldi):: I am sure the quota is being opened in as orderly a fashion as possible, with damp grain being given special consideration. The figures I quoted concerning increased loadings of box cars for grain at 47 per cent compares, in the same period, to an increase in the loadings of cars toward the United States to the extent of 23.2 per cent. The railroads therefore seem to be increasing their loadings in all directions at the same time.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the minister a supplementary question, still using the police term of "tracking down". Has the wheat board tracked down the number of freight cars in the United States that might be made available in Canada if pressure were applied to United States railroads?


Daniel Aiken Lang: I have some difficulty in answering. The wheat board considers the railroads are co-operating fully with them with regard to the movement of grain.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question on the subject of co-operation. I ask whether there has been any endeavour to find out the number of box cars in the United States which should be back in Canada but are kept there by United States railroads because it is cheaper to pay the fee on them than endeavour to secure other cars. Does the minister not have an answer to that?


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: have a supplementary question. Is the Minister without Portfolio aware that a great deal of difficulty exists in western Canada because the elevators are plugged with damp grain, and there are not sufficient cars available to move it?



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister had time over the week end to study the report on National Harbours Board decentralization, as he indicated he would; and could he table that report so it could be referred to the transport committee?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a confession to make, Mr. Speaker.


Donald MacInnis: I have been waiting for it for a long time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not manage to get all the way through it on the week end, but I still feel it should be referred to the transport committee. I hope to be able to confirm that to my hon. friend very soon.



EXPO 70-GUARANTEE OF PAYMENT OF CANADIAN PERFORMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainfe-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but, in his absence, I shall put it to the right hon. Prime Minister, in view of its importance. I should like first to advise the Prime Minister of the assignment in bankruptcy made by Mr. Samuel Gesser, the impressario now responsible for-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot give information and he should ask a question.
November 21, 1968


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister what steps he intends to take so that the costs of performances and exhibitions which will take place at the Canadian pavilion in Osaka at Expo '70 will be guaranteed by the government, in view of the fact that Mr. Samuel Gesser has been declared bankrupt and that the said Samuel Gesser has now been placed in charge, by the Canadian government, of the recreational activities of the Canadian pavilion in Osaka?


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


Georges-J. Valade: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the urgency of the matter and the fact that Mr. Gesser, business director who was declared bankrupt yesterday, is responsible for the recreational activities at the Canadian pavilion in Osaka, could the minister give us the assurance that measures will be taken so as to ensure that the artists will be paid?



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Transport. I understood he would be here for the question period, though I do not see him now. I will direct it to his parliamentary assistant. Since it now appears that the standing committee on transport and communications will not resume its hearings in the Atlantic provinces before spring, will the minister, the acting minister or the parliamentary assistant please undertake to guarantee that the freeze on freight rates will be continued until a complete study of the problem has been made?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to take that question as notice.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While the Minister without Portfolio is checking the answer to the previous question with the Minister of Transport, will he also see whether the minister has any confession to make about the Digby-Saint John Ferry, since an announcement on that is long overdue?
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



REPORTED INTENTION TO ESTABLISH OUTSIDE ADVISORY GROUPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On November 8 last I asked him a question concerning the establishment of regional desks and a body of 150 extraparliamentary advisers. The Prime Minister said that he would inquire into the matter. Has he done so, and can he give the house his answer?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have inquired into it. What was it the hon. member wanted to know?


John Edward Broadbent: An answer to my original question, Mr. Speaker.
[Later: ]


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister obviously has a bad memory when it comes to looking into matters, may I help him by reading the original question he failed to answer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must point out to hon. members that the question period has expired. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby should raise his point tomorrow. I shall make sure he is recognized tomorrow early in the question period.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF TWO PRICE SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I directed a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or to the Minister of Agriculture. At that time the Prime Minister advised me that those ministers would be in the house on the following Wednesday. May I now direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In the light of the clear-cut call by delegates who attended the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan wheat pool for a two price system for wheat, will the government give favourable consideration to this request or some other acceptable alternative?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a question that has been discussed on the Canadian grain scene

November 21. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry for a number of years and the government has given some consideration to it, and is continuing to give consideration to it.


Richard Russell Southam: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious market situation that now faces Canada with regard to short sales, does the minister not consider that it will be more appropriate than ever for the government now to give serious consideration to this matter.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government house leader. In view of the congestion that is being felt in the operation of our standing committees and in view of the great amount of work there is for them to do in the next little while, would the government house leader consider asking parliament to take one or two days off in the middle of next week so the committees may have those full days to meet and proceed with their work?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to consider the suggestion, but the hon. member and opposition house leaders might consider whether they are prepared to give up two of the present session's supply days for that purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that the question period has expired, but perhaps there might be consent for the hon. member for Peace River to ask a question.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government house leader what our business will be for next week, so we may have an opportunity to peer as far ahead into the future as possible.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Today, as the house knows, we shall be in committee of supply to deal with the estimates of the Department of Labour. Tomorrow we shall deal with the estimates of the Department of Transport. On Monday we shall call the estimates of the National Capital Commission. On Tuesday, on one of our supply days pursuant to the special order made by this house on November 6, we shall deal with the report of the committee on external affairs and national defence having to do with the question of Nigeria. On Wednesday we

shall return to the estimates of the Department of Public Works. It will be my intention to call the committee of supply again for Thursday and Friday of next week, the subject matter before the committee to be discussed with hon. gentlemen opposite. There is a possibility that we may deal with some of the estimates which have already been considered in committee, or perhaps we shall consider the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

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


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please.
House again in committee of supply on the revised estimates of the Department of Labour for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969. Vote No. 1 will be found at page 264 of the blue book, and the details thereof at page 266.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
1. General Administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,962,100.
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, this is the first occasion I have had to present the estimates of any department to this house. I welcome the opportunity not only of explaining what my department is doing but also of course, of listening to the observations and views of hon. members from other parties in the house as well as from my own party.
I point out at the beginning of my remarks that the estimates of the Unemployment Insurance Commission were referred to the standing committee and have been dealt with by that appropriate committee and accepted.
Earlier in the session, during the throne speech debate, I had an opportunity to express my philosophy and views on the collective bargaining system that prevails in Canada. I detailed the record of successes of that system in the areas under federal jurisdiction and pointed out that of the 100-odd cases that had been referred to the Department of Labour where strikes could possibly have ensued, there were strikes in only six cases, only two of those being of major consequence.
I would be misleading the house if I suggested that changes are not needed in the legislation concerning industrial relations. It is no longer sufficient to react to situations. Rather, we must anticipate them. We must
November 21, 1968

initiate and encourage a much greater degree of communication between labour and management. My department must make sure that labour and management appreciate that they are not natural enemies but, rather, natural partners. In the final analysis the private enterprise system which provides dividends for company shareholders also provides the jobs for our ever-growing labour force as well as the standard of living to which many of us have become accustomed.
There is much activity these days in the department, Mr. Chairman. In anticipation of the Woods Task Force report officials of the department are reviewing existing legislation, preparing new laws and evaluating new concepts in order that we may take advantage of this report and the enlightened approach I hope it will have to the labour problem of today.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that my department must lead; it must encourage labour and management to co-operate more fully. It is my belief that the time has come for the establishment of a new mediation service, a mediation branch composed of experts, experts supported by a proper team of researchers with a detailed knowledge of the industries coming within the federal sphere. I believe that this type of expertise will be of invaluable service to management and labour. These experts could introduce a degree of continued communication between management and labour that should reduce the areas of friction and supply the assistance needed to make collective bargaining more meaningful.
Until the Woods task force report is tabled, Mr. Chairman, hon. members can understand my reluctance to discuss at this time the many changes in detail that I believe are necessary if my department is to assume its full role in the just society of tomorrow.
I have had an opportunity while reviewing my department to acquaint myself with many of the problems facing Canada and Canadians today, problems that in some direct or indirect way concern or should concern the Department of Labour. I am concerned, for instance, about work stoppages and disputes that are prolonged far beyond the point where anyone stands to gain. I am concerned about the lack of communication within the trade union movement itself, as evidenced by the increasing number of cases where the general union membership has failed to ratify agreements entered into by its own leadership.
Supply-Labour
I am concerned that quite often this failure to ratify agreements is the direct result of the negotiating team presenting exorbitant and extravagant demands. The same union leaders then wonder why the rank and file reject the negotiated settlement after they have irresponsibly built up the anticipation of their membership.
I am not suggesting that exaggerated demands are the only reason for the rejection of negotiated settlements, but they certainly are a contributing factor. I think that in the main responsible union leaders will agree with me that they must communicate more effectively, more reasonably with their membership and impress upon them the fact that wage increases cannot consistently outstrip productivity without eventually bringing about a reduction in the standard of living. I am not at all surprised when the public expresses indignation on learning through the news media that a union is demanding a 15 or 20 per cent wage increase per year.
I am also concerned about the welfare of that third segment of Canadian society-not management, not the unions, but the unorganized worker and the senior citizen, people on fixed incomes, the blind, the crippled, the disabled, people who are not represented at the bargaining table. I often wonder when management divide up the profit between dividends and increased salaries whether they should not stop to think if some of these exorbitant or large profits should not reflect lower prices, whether there should not be a greater social awareness of the responsibility of organized labour as well as of management to the unorganized segment to which I have already alluded.
Ability to pay must not be the only criterion for settlement at the bargaining table. There is a growing social responsibility resting on both Canadian management and unions, and I suggest to them that they begin to demonstrate a greater consciousness of this responsibility.
I would like to speak very briefly on the work of conciliation boards. Over the years conciliation boards have served the public of Canada well in settling, or making recommendations which assist in the settlement of, labour disputes. They continue to serve and have done very effective work as recently as the current fiscal year. However, I am disturbed at a growing practice that seems to prevail, namely that when a conciliation board has failed to settle a dispute it then

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
submits a report containing no recommendations, in effect returning the issue to the protagonists with no guide lines or suggestions whatsoever, and which quite often reflects a minimum of effort by the board to resolve the dispute.
I am not unaware that this action is often requested by the parties, but regardless of arguments which may be advanced in favour of this tactic, it seems to me it reflects an abdication of responsibility on the part of the chairmen of such boards and the representatives of management and labour.
On the whole, Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the contribution made by conciliation boards, but I can foresee the day when the appointment of a board in labour disputes may become the exception rather than the rule. This will mean an expanded role for our conciliation officers and should impress upon the parties the necessity of reaching an accommodation at the conciliation officer stage.
Members might forgive me if I devote some time at this stage of my remarks to the question of automation, of technological change, and of the growing and pressing need for increased productivity in Canada.
There was a time, of course, when increased productivity was a simple matter: one supplied his help with a larger shovel or a bigger wheelbarrow. But today increased productivity is synonymous with technological change, with automation, with sophisticated methods of production. Because of our great reliance on exports to maintain our standard of living and to absorb our ever-growing labour force, we must accept and indeed seek out these advanced methods of production if we are to compete with such countries as West Germany, Japan, Sweden and the United States.
We talk about a just society. A just society, to this Liberal at any rate, means a society where medicare is a right and not a privilege, a society where decent housing is not a luxury but a necessity, a society with a decent standard of living for those less fortunate among us. I refuse to accept the concept that a country like Canada, with its tremendous assets, raw materials, highly skilled labour force and free enterprise system, cannot afford these things. To be unable to provide these things to our citizens can only be described as a failure of the system we endorse in this country. I suggest the free enterprise system is on trial in Canada and must measure up to the challenge of supplying these
[Mr. Mackasey.l
rights. The solution is not in the elimination of medicare or other social measures that have made Canada synonymous with an enlightened attitude toward its people, but in rallying our energies, our imagination and our confidence so that the programs can be paid for and carried forward by the fruits of increased productivity.
We must constantly remind ourselves that in many of the nations that we compete with the degree of co-operation that is now needed in Canada, but is lacking at the moment between labour and management, and the amount of planning that is needed not only between labour and management but with government as well, are already a way of life. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, in Japan it is almost a religious cult.
Canadian workers when trained and provided with equal opportunities, equal equipment, equally efficient management and equal markets can meet the production of any industrial worker in the world. But if increased productivity depends on our willingness to accept technological change-and I believe it does-then we must be prepared to face squarely the disruptive forces that technological change creates. Management, of course, accepts quite readily technological change, and why not? In most cases it means survival in an ever-increasingly competitive world. In many other instances it means a greater margin of profit.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
But the acceptance of technological change is still resisted and indeed feared by certain segments of our labour force. Upon reflection, Mr. Chairman, why not? Balanced against the realization that these changes are necessary is the realization by labour that all too often the disruptive forces of technological change are borne solely by the labour class. Why is it always the individual Canadian worker who must bear exclusively the terribly personal and disruptive effects that quite naturally stem from technological change? Surely this cannot be accepted as inevitable, as just, in this year of 1968. Canadian society and its government cannot be so passive, so unconcerned as to accept as part of the game this human disruption.
The Canada-United States auto pact is a perfect example of how management fails to understand its moral obligations to its workers. When close to 500 workers were notified last week-I think that fortunately the figures are now 388-that they were to be laid off by the Ford Motor Company in Windsor, they
November 21, 1383

were given precisely one week's notice, one week to adjust mentally to the impact of layoff, one week to seek out help and advice from the Unemployment Insurance Commission and from the manpower centres, to find out if they qualified for additional benefits or, in too many cases, if they qualified for any type of benefit. I believe that management cannot expect the respect of labour and the full co-operation that is needed unless it begins to assume the moral obligation that technological change and increased productivity involve. I think the time has come for the Minister of Labour to convince his colleagues that legislation defining and emphasizing management's responsibility to its employees in the area of technological change is long overdue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, the philosophy of Judge Freedman and others like Judge Laskin is clear and precise. There are ways and means of introducing negotiation on technical change without usurping management's right to manage. I am committed to such legislation and am waiting to see what the Woods task force may offer as a method of solution in this very senstitive but highly important area.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I may be allowed to turn to another area that comes under the Department of Labour and which is of growing concern to all Canadians. That is the problem of prejudice and discrimination in the working force of Canada. To me this is an intolerable situation, and we cannot excuse it on any grounds whatsoever. As long as it exists it means that we have Canadians who, in effect, have a special set of working conditions imposed upon them regardless of the laws we pass to equalize rewards and opportunities. A review of existing legislation in my department indicates to me that some substantial amendments are required, and this will be done after careful analysis of the recommendations of the royal commission on the status of women.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There are people in this country who have been discriminated against for so long that they have begun to discriminate against themselves, to limit their own aspirations because they cannot conceive that the better opportunities, the better way of life, could be for them also. This is a loss to Canada, a loss to our labour force which we can ill afford.
Supply-Labour
With the intent of fighting prejudice through positive action we have recently set up a branch in the department that intends to enforce as vigorously as possible the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act and to amend it so as to make it more effective. In the meantime officers of this branch have been touring Canada educating employers to the fact that the Department of Labour will not tolerate prejudice based on colour, religion or national origin. To make this campaign effective will require the full support of the unions of this country, as well as the full support of my cabinet colleagues and, I am sure, of all my colleagues in the house.
Above all, Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that the federal government and the crown corporations be model employers, examples for others throughout the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Now, Mr. Chairman, not being aware as precisely as I should of my role in this discussion of estimates I would conclude by reminding the committee once again that I will not be deterred from my determination to make the Department of Labour a reflection of the new spirit of co-operation and communication that is so badly needed in this country. I will not hesitate to arm it with the legislation it requires to make it an effective instrument, not of labour, not of management, but of the people of Canada, people who are entitled to maximum effort on the part of labour, of government and of management to seek the solutions to increased productivity, to industrial peace and to a just society.
Although most of my remarks today have concerned the department's role in industrial relations and fair employment practices, it will be obvious to hon. members, when we consider the details of the votes, that the department has many and diverse responsibilities and programs. These include the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, the Canada Labour (Safety) Code, the program of the women's bureau, the labour-management consultation program, the annuities branch, and an expanding program of economics and research, just to mention only a few. All of these elements will be caught up in the revitalization and re-positioning of the department to play its optimum role in today's society. To do what I believe must be done will require changes in the structure of the Department of Labour, both in Ottawa and in the various regions, to improve internal communications and flexibility of operations so that it

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
can respond better to public needs and priorities.
Above all, I want to bring the Department of Labour and its services as close as possible to the community it serves. I want to make it more sensitive to the needs of that community. And I want it to become more actively involved as a true partner of management, labour and the public interest.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is no room in the statute books of Canada for compulsory arbitration. I think we can achieve the type of industrial peace needed to make this country prosperous by co-operation among the government, labour and management. This is the dedication which I have and with which I shall approach my role as Minister of Labour.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I did not have the slightest intention of taking part in this discussion except that it seemed to me- and I hope the minister will accept this as not being offensive-that he has lectured everybody else and so he might not mind a slight lecture from me directed toward himself and his colleagues. If I understood him correctly he was rather critical of unions, at least of some trade unions, for asking too much in the way of wage increases. I think this is in part due to the inflation psychology in this country and the fear of the working men of what they will be faced with in connection with rising costs of living. I suggest it would be more helpful if members of the government, including this minister, would spend less time lecturing the public in this connection and do a little more themselves to bring inflation under control.
For example, since I have been in this house we have had optimistic statements of activity from ministers of the government, beginning last fall. Last winter, in the depth of the crisis in which the government found itself, the then prime minister gave some assurance on new measures that were being taken, but no action has followed. Since then we have been promised a white paper with regard to an anti-inflationary program and we are still waiting for it. In all seriousness I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that a lecture from the Minister of Labour is a pretty poor substitute for a constructive program from the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Leader of the Opposition not think it was a good idea for the minister to lecture his own colleagues as to the improvements

that ought to be made on that side of the house?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not think he spent enough time lecturing his own colleagues. I think he spent too much time lecturing the public and I am suggesting to him, and through him to his colleagues, that a little more by way of example on their part might be more productive than some of this lecturing that is going on.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I remind the Leader of the Opposition that since we are dealing with estimates I might spend a little time lecturing him before we are through.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Crouse:: A very arrogant Minister of Labour.
9 (3:50 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Well, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friends down here have so very little to applaud that I do not object to their reacting to that kind of bravado on behalf of the Minister of Labour. I am always delighted to receive any good wishes or anything else he may care to pass my way. However, I believe in all sincerity it is high time the government carried out some of its assurances concerning anti-inflationary programs rather than lecturing members of the public for reacting in the light of their own fears respecting continued inflation.
The minister spoke about the need to anticipate developments and the need for improved methods of achieving industrial peace. We will look forward to hearing about these, presumably following the Woods report and further reflection on the part of the minister. I for one will await them with very keen interest because again I say that we hear these things but see very little action.
The minister spoke of the importance of increased productivity. He stated that in a country like ours we ought to be able to finance enlightened social measures and that we must place the necessary emphasis on productivity in order to achieve these necessary measures. I agree with this unquestionably but I suggest to him, sir, through you, that when one talks about productivity one must not only lecture management and labour but must remember that it is also a question to a considerable degree of having an enlightened government policy. A continued increase in productivity, for example, requires an adequate standard of government services in the field of education throughout our various provinces. I suggest to him that the very hard
November 21, 1968



line he and his colleagues have adopted with regard to the provinces and the effect that this line, if maintained, will have on the services related to productivity which the provincial governments must provide in this country, will have a very unfortunate effect in respect of increasing productivity in Canada.
I suggest it is not merely free enterprise which is on trial in this regard; it is also the government of this country which is on trial. In order to achieve the necessary standard of government services throughout the country a degree of co-operation is required rather than a hard line which amounts almost to dictation from the federal government. It is necessary for the two levels of government to achieve some understanding in connection with priorities rather than have one level of government simply resort to lectures.
The minister spoke about discrimination. I certainly share his concern and disapproval of any discrimination which exists. Unfortunately it does exist in this country. He referred particularly to discrimination based on race, religion, creed or something of that sort. People in one part of the country may feel there is discrimination because they happen to live in a certain part of the country. I am sure the minister also has this in mind. I should like to suggest that discrimination cannot be eliminated simply by the passage of legislation to ban discrimination. If in this country we are to achieve the elimination of discrimination, which as I see it really amounts to achieving something like equality of opportunity, much more than anti-discriminatory legislation is required. I suggest we must have a very well oriented program working toward something like achievement of equality of opportunity involving education, the overcoming of traditional handicaps and the overcoming of discrimination, if you like, which results from poor housing. All these things have been mentioned by a good many Canadians.
I point out that discrimination of this kind certainly will not be overcome simply by any legislation the minister may have in mind. Again it is essential, if we are too make any real progress in respect of overcoming discrimination in this country, that the government be prepared to work out an effective system of co-operation with the provinces so that the government can work together with the provinces to overcome discrimination.
Before I sit down I should like to say that if the government continues to pursue the hard line it is taking, what we will see will not be the elimination of discrimination but
Supply-Labour
rather a vast increase in discrimination in this country.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the minister to his new portfolio and wish him well in his work. He gives every indication of being a man who is dedicated to the well-being particularly of the labouring people in this country and also, as he says, all Canadians. I only hope that the legislation he supports, both in the house and more particularly in cabinet, will lead to the realization of the principles in which he says-and I believe he does-he believes.
Earlier this afternoon he gave some indication that, from the point of view of those of us in this party at least, he is clearly moving in the right direction. I refer of course to his attitude in respect of the Freedman report. Having said that, I should like to take this opportunity to raise briefly two matters of policy orientation to which I should like the minister to give very careful consideration.
First I should like to say a few words about unemployment. I hope the Minister of Labour will concern himself with what is almost certain to be in store for us during the coming winter. If past and present trends continue we will experience one of the worst winters in recent years. It was not many years ago that economists considered a 3 per cent unemployment level as the absolute maximum for any advanced industrial society that wished to maintain any kind of civilized existence. At no time in the past three years, however, have we had a national unemployment level as low as 3 per cent. In the Atlantic provinces the lowest quarterly level was 5.8 per cent. That was in the spring of 1966. Again, considering the national average, if we begin with the first quarter of 1966 and look at the succeeding quarterly levels of unemployment we see a continuous increase, with not one quarterly decline, from 3.3 per cent in the winter of 1966 to 5.1 per cent for the third quarter of this year.
These figures are bad enough, but they are even more alarming when they are broken down into regions. For example, unemployment in the Atlantic provinces during this same period increased from 6.7 per cent to 8 per cent and in Quebec from 4.7 per cent to 6.5 per cent. Again we get a more precise picture of the deplorable level of unemployment for an advanced industrial society by looking at the peak winter months. In the Atlantic provinces in January, 1967, 9.9 per cent of the labour force was without work. In January, 1968, the figure was 10.9. Now, given

November 21, 1963
Supply-Labour
the increase of unemployment this year over last, it would not be unreasonable to forecast that unemployment in the Atlantic provinces will reach a level of 12 per cent or 13 per cent this coming January.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I could go on producing these alarming figures from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics but I think my point has been made. We in Canada are experiencing an alarming level of unemployment and the government, far from introducing programs aimed at alleviating the situation, is actually aggravating it. First, we received the announcement that the winter works program was to be abolished. Then we had the Minister of Finances' conservative chamber of commerce budget, the main effect of which will be to reduce even farther the level of employment. Not content with cutting back on government spending, the Minister of Finance imposed a new regressive tax. By reducing both government and private purchasing power the minister did just about all he could to maximize unemployment levels during the coming winter. I mention unemployment during the discussion of the labour department's estimates because it should be a major responsibility of the Minister of Labour and, of course, the minister of manpower to get their cabinet colleagues to do something about the alarming situation.
While I am on this matter, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister if he would produce for the house his department's unemployment forecast for the coming winter. I should like him to present figures for each of the provinces and for each of our major cities.
I should like to take this opportunity to say something about what is probably the central issue of an industrial society, namely, the relationship between capital and labour, between the few who own our industries and the many who work for them.
I think I may be saying something with which the minister will find himself in substantial agreement. It is clear that in Canada today it is as true as it ever was that when the worker faces his boss, whether in the form of owner or manager, he does not do so as an equal. The emergence and development of trade unions in Canada in the past decades have substantially improved the position of the worker. Provided he is a member of a union, he no longer can be fired at the whim of his employer; nor are his wages and supplementary benefits at the low level they would otherwise be. Notwithstanding these

tangible and important benefits, Canada's unionized workers, not to mention the majority who are not union members, are not and cannot be in a position of equality with their employers. If they were, each would have the same say in production decisions, in policies involving the allocation of capital, and in discussions concerning the nature and price of the product.
No serious student of industrial relations would claim that labour and management are on equal ground in these areas. Indeed, most people accept almost as a self-evident truth that they should not be equal in respect to these matters. Decisions about production, the allocation of capital, and the nature and price of the product, according to the prevailing ideology quite properly belong to the owners or their appointees, the managers. The men who own the shares, it is argued, not only have the final say about what goes on in the factory but, as well, it is proper that they do so. Unfortunately most people in Canada think this way.
So long as this situation and attitude prevail, Mr. Chairman, it is a mockery of reality to assert as many do that management and labour are partners in industry. Those who use the phrase imply that there is a state of equality between the two. Such a phrase is part of that political vocabulary whose purpose is not to elucidate reality but to obscure it. It is used by those who seek to persuade us that the basic structure of the existing economic order in Canada is a just one. We must not be taken in, Mr. Chairman. The central structure and its entailed power relations of our economic system are unequal; they are unjust.
In one sense the history of the trade union movement in Canada can be seen as an attempt by our workers to break down the barriers to equality. They have sought to make inroads on the so-called rights of management. They have sought to have more control over their own day to day fives. The most recent example of this struggle for equality is the attempt to have some say in the introduction of new technology and work practices in industry.
At present in Canada our workers are entirely dependent upon the whim of their employers. During the course of a signed contract management can introduce a new machine or an alternative practice whose effects might be devastating for the workers. Workers can do nothing about them from a legal point of view.
November 21, 1988

Why is this? The reason, Mr. Chairman, is that the main thrust of Canadian labour law makes it so. Most arbitrators in labour disputes have based their rulings on the residual rights theory of industrial relations. What this theory means is that an employer retains the rightful power to do whatever he wishes with his business enterprise except with regard to those rights he has specifically yielded to a union in a written contract. It also means that the trade unionist can do only what is precisely stipulated in the contract. Unless a union can indicate that the relevant contract forbids some activity, whether it be a re-arrangement of time schedules or the introduction of automated equipment, management can do what it wills. Unless the contract specifically permits the worker to do something, he can do nothing.
Obviously even the most ably led union is not clairvoyant. It is impossible to tell in advance what new production technique management might introduce during the duration of the contract. Not having this knowledge, no union can make the required specific contract demands in advance.
Furthermore, unlike the situation in other industrial nations, for example, in the United States and the United Kingdom, in Canada unions do not have the right to strike during the period covered by the contract. If during this period they object to some new practice, they must resort to arbitration. Most arbitrators, as I indicated-there are exceptions- rely on the residual rights theory. Consequently, as one labour expert, Mr. Ed Finn, observed recently, "99 times out of a hundred" the union loses in disputes in this area.
For many years now the unilateral power bestowed on the owners of industry by the residual rights principle has meant thousands of Canadian workers have been badly treated. They have lost seniority rights, their jobs, and on occasion even their community. Their lives, in short, have been profoundly and adversely affected by this principle. It is a remarkable fact that Canadian workers are feeling its impact and are beginning to demand a share in the decision-making process. All Canadians, whether in unions or not, should note and be proud of this fact. What workers are beginning to say is, we should as human beings have more control over our destiny and over day to day issues that affect our lives. Can anyone deny the moral legitimacy of that claim?
Three years ago Mr. Justice Freedman presented a report on labour relations to the
Supply-Labour
government of the day. As many of us know, his report arose out of an investigation into a wildcat strike by thousands of Canadian National Railways employees. The workers had been objecting to unilateral action by the management of Canadian National Railways. As we all know, and as successive Liberal ministers of labour have known for three years, Mr. Justice Freedman made some crucial and, I think, beneficial recommendations. Among these were, first, that the residual rights theory in arbitration matters be discarded; second, that management be obliged to negotiate all major work changes with the unions; and third, that unions be given the right to strike during the period of time covered by a contract.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It is a sad fact that the government which brought the Freedman report into being chose to ignore it, as have subsequent governments. It is even sadder that three successive ministers of labour have, at least hitherto, done nothing about it. The present Minister of Labour, in a speech delivered on October 8 in Toronto, expressed agreement with Mr. Justice Freedman, as he did earlier today. In that speech of last month he said it is "clear that big business today has a moral responsibility, before introducing technological changes, to make sure these changes cause the minimum of disruption, that they are revealed soon enough to make certain that employees have the time and opportunity to adjust to these changes." The Minister of Labour went on to say that he hoped "this moral obligation becomes more and more apparent to management."
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, where was the moral obligation of the Ford Motor Company which informed hundreds of workers just a few days ago that within a week they would no longer have a job? Is this any way to treat a working man? It does not matter at what level of society he is or what occupation he follows; this is no way to treat a human being. This is immoral behaviour, not moral responsibility. Are we in Canada to wait for the moral regeneration of the directors of the Ford Motor Company? We might just as well wait for the second coming, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Labour and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration are apparently genuinely quite angry with the Ford Motor Company with regard to this matter. I hope their anger is sufficient to lead to government action.

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
If we had always taken the advice of our past and present ministers of labour we would never have passed a good deal of the social and labour legislation in this country. If moral exhortation worked we would never have needed trade unions in the first place; we would not now require minimum wage laws. The list could be extended almost without limit with regard to labour and social welfare measures. We simply cannot rely upon the good will of people to do what ought to be done.
The present Minister of Labour has been wrong to rely in the past upon the voluntary co-operation of industry. The fact that a few employers have agreed to negotiate work change clauses in their contracts with unions in no way counters the need for mandatory law in this area. It will take far too long for all our unionized workers to receive the right that justice requires if we wait for the will of all employers to be tested. If we do this, we will be waiting for a very long time.
I am near the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the most significant recommendation of the Freedman report is that workers be given the right to strike during the period of a contract. This right is long overdue. As I said, it now exists in most other industrial countries. It is important if the other right recommended in the Freedman report, the right to negotiate work changes during the contract, is to have any meaning. Unless workers have the right to strike during the course of the contract they will make almost no headway in negotiating work changes during the contract period. Therefore this is, if you like, the key recommendation; workers must have the right to strike during the period of a contract.
The decisive issue for Canadian labouring men and women in the years ahead is whether or not they are to cease being among the manipulated instruments in the productive process. They must not become the victims of technological change. Rather, we need laws that will allow them to continue their struggle for control of their own fate. The immediate implementation of the Freedman report would be a step in this direction.


Mr. Dionne:: Mr. Chairman, a great many matters come to mind in the course of this debate on the estimates of the Department of Labour, such as the working conditions of those lucky enough to hold a job during the present unemployment crisis, a proper balance between equitable salaries and the rising cost
[Mr. Broadbent.l
of living, the search for methods to allow the greatest possible number of workers to find suitable jobs, the necessity of keeping up with the evolution of modem techniques in the production of necessary goods with the least physical effort, and the role of the trade union movement in present-day society. Much could be said on many subjects which are all related to labour.
Unless one completely lacks a sense of observation, one must recognize that everything that has been done in the world has been done by labour, organized or not. The unfortunate thing today is that this whole army of workers is too often faced with problems of crisis, strikes, unemployment, automation or taxes, to mention only a few.
We seem to have forgotten that work is not the be-all and end-all of life, but rather a means of ensuring for the worker a decent standard of living and a normal stability thanks to the equitable division of responsibilities among everybody.
The direction of an important department such as the Department of Labour involves great responsibilities and requires the cooperation of impartial and competent advisers. I sincerely wish the present minister the health and clear-sightedness necessary to find the most appropriate solutions at the proper time.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We are too easily content with a good word here and there when work is being discussed, which leaves the impression that we accept it as a necessary evil of the human condition. Yet, work often contributes to shaping, and often, to saving man. Work gives him, with dignity, the freedom which ennobles him.
The working man usually pursues various goals. First of all, he wants to earn a living for himself and his family. He wishes to be independent, self-sufficient. He feels less of a man when he depends on others in a way that is not legitimate. Because man is reasonable, he derives a certain satisfaction from doing something for himself. The worker is proud to be someone, to accomplish something and to help others. He wants to have a place in the world. He is proud of being useful. Through his moral interest and brotherly help, he contributes to the expansion of civilization.
It is normal for a worker to aspire to belonging to a labour group that cares about his needs and favours the progress of society as a whole, working efficiently towards its various goals.
November 21, 1968

At the present time, the worker is struggling with a difficult situation. There are three possible solutions. The first is the capitalistic solution: benefits for the few, toil and sweat for the others. The second is the collectivist solution: benefits for the State, toil and sweat for all men. The third is the Christian solution: benefits for all, toiling by all. Sharing, that is what we need.
Business, formerly moral, has now been replaced by business morals. Indeed, a solution to labour problems and economic life as a whole is sought in the advice given to everyone: make as much money as possible, maximize profit at the lowest possible cost, to allow limitless competition.
This is what happens: The merchant sells at the highest possible price, while purchasing at the lowest, and he often earns three or four times more than the one who labours to produce.
Management tries to purchase raw materials at the lowest possible cost, and to pay the lowest possible salaries while trying to sell goods for the best possible price.
The worker often tries to work as little as possible and at times-which is unfortunate- as little as possible while trying to get the highest salary possible. This cannot go on. The class struggle is an egotistic struggle, and an autocratic, over-powerful state could not solve our problems. What is needed is an economic order inspired by social justice, having the same regard for business prosperity and fair wages, while taking the legitimate interests of the consumer and the seller into consideration.
In our modern world, virtually no one can produce alone all the goods needed for one's keep. Labour is partitioned to a degree, and increasingly specialized, which contributes to an abundant over-all production.
Would we be stupid enough, with all the modern means available to us, to proclaim ourselves unable to distribute our own production? Experience has shown that we have very good reasons to advocate the means which we know: the Social Credit. Though obviously not a panacea, it certainly is a step in the right way. If our politicians know of other means, let them apply them without delay because a great percentage of our people are tired of this succession of strikes, of battles between unions, of an inoperative labour legislation.
It is easy to see that our legislative system lacks flexibility in the field of labour management relations. Those long delays with regard
Supply-Labour
to negotiations and the renewal of collective agreements show without any doubt that the system is unhealthy and when many conflicts arise too many physicians who seem unable to agree on a cure gather around the sick bed.
I recall that Dr. Marius Barnard, the brother of the famous South African surgeon Christian Barnard, who had successfully completed a heart transplant operation, put it very aptly and briefly in those words: A new heart to change a heartless world.
We often find that we only react fleetingly to the many cases of misery resulting from job insecurity, insufficient income, the fear of tomorrow which is often the root of many disorders. We seem unable to abolish misery through a more equitable distribution of responsibility.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I will deal, if I have time to do so, with the problem of unemployment, the terms of the regulations of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the centralization of offices and other matters concerning the workers.
I would like to mention now the disastrous results of the ever increasing number of strikes which have become more popular than the miniskirt. Today some workers-even students, the workers of tomorrow-seem under the impression that to be hip they must stage their own little strike. They should stop however and think about the end result, even if they are hip. The helm must be kept steady, should a storm come up.
A few strikes here and there are nothing unusual. But when the industry or the services are paralysed so long and so often, something has gone seriously wrong.
This leads me to quote from an article which is worth thinking over. It was written by Father Yvan Morin and published in a newspaper of our area, Le Saint-Laurent, in February 1967, under the title "Have we all gone mad or are we totally immature?" It reads partly as follows:
Even today, strikes seem a necessary and legal means, but the fact that we have to resort frequently to that ultimate means is indicative of the climate of immaturity in which we live.
It is necessary and legal for policemen to carry a gun, but the day when they will use it casually will be a dark day indeed; either we will have become a nation of gangsters, or policemen will be irresponsible.
The proliferation of strikes reveals either a craving for economic dictatorship within the industrial world or unreasonable demands on the part of union members. We must realize that we all have rights and obligations, that we are all each other servants.
3C24

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
One of the major malaises today, stems from the fact that little store is set by government authority.
Is it then not worthy of respect? Do we no longer understand the meaning of authority? Anyhow, the government cannot boast of the part it has played in labour disputes-
Looking more closely at the situation, we find that there are various kinds of strikes which we may divide into four categories.
First, there are strikes that could be called "backlog" strikes, because of strained relations between employers and workers, and also because of the practice of always of waiting until the strike is called before taking a decision.
The second type of strikes are the prestige strikes; as a matter of fact, some people derive great satisfaction in proclaiming they have won a battle even at the expense of the workers.
The third class comprises political strikes; unfortunately some sectarians seem to gloat over long drawn-out strikes, quite obviously to embarrass political parties which have not always taken their suggestions to seriously.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In the fourth place, the necessary strikes, those that are spontaneously approved by the majority of workers, after all honest means of persuasion have been used up. If we had to put up with strikes of that type only, things would look much brighter.
The important thing is to locate the numerous causes of misunderstanding and to steer labour legislation towards the protection of the rights of the weak, of the small people, of the poor, of all those who need that protection most. Let us note, by the way, that complicated laws often breed confusion.
It is to the advantage of workers that present and future labour leaders should know about their rights and duties so as to preserve those rights and fulfill their duties.
The education of workers must be directed by union leaders conscious of their responsibilities, in a realistic spirit of understanding, working like partners for the development of the country. Their efforts must not be limited to those of simple pressure groups interested in their own material profits, to the prejudice of national, provincial or municipal interests.
It is normal for union leaders to fight in order that their members might receive a fair economic retribution; they must also keep in mind the interests and the needs of the whole country and use their authority with a vision of the future and for a social purpose.

Any responsible observer will admit that unions have sprung from a need which is still making itself felt. Having been a union member for several years, as well as the president of local 2817 of the Quebec Brotherhood of carpenters, woodworkers, lumbermen and sawmill employees for 10 years-from 1952 to 1962-I make no bones about saying that to my mind a strike is not the natural and easy way to smooth out difficulties in relations between management and labour. Only through a complete lack of imagination could one think that a series of mistakes can be cancelled by a new set of planned errors. The parties concerned should listen to reason and act like adults. In a democratic country, every citizen can state his views and can even hope that they will be respected; however, he should show sufficient understanding for the ideas of others.
People are struggling to obtain salary increases to catch up with the missing dollars without worrying too much where they come from, who controls them and how their value is determined. What is the use of earning $3 or more an hour if a dollar is only worth 35 cents?
This is a problem of the distribution of wealth, purchasing power, work and leisure time. Some order must be brought about in this inefficient financial system.
Let us imagine here a problem of distribution among children. There are two apples to be shared among ten children: the strongest one will win the fight and get the apples. In the case of two apples to be divided among ten children having some money, the highest bidder will win, provided he is under police protection. However, when there are fifteen apples and ten children, every child will have one and everybody will be satisfied.
This sums up the present crisis. We are acting like children.
The purchasing power must be re-established on the basis of demand and the value of wealth, while taking into account that energy consuming work is gradually replaced by machines. The worker craves for money in order to earn his living and that of his dependants. He should be treated fairly so that he does not have to walk around carrying slogan-bearing signs.
The present application of our labour legislation is lacking in flexibility and appears powerless to intervene in the increasing number of disastrous strikes affecting the country's economy. Therefore, we, of the Rallie-ment Creditiste, recommend that additional
November 21, 1968

powers be included in the labour legislation to implement the establishment of an impartial and "genuine labour tribunal" made up of representatives of labour, management and government.
This tribunal, made up of experts in the field of labour management relations, would have to have the proper powers and information to be able to:
(1)	Avoid interunion conflicts, by establishing a specific and clear procedure in order to determine, through secret ballot, under the supervision of two members from the tribunal, the right to representation of the workers by a union in good faith;
(2)	Determine a period of negotiations not exceeding 90 days, and establish severe penalties for those who do not observe the rules;
(3)	Make a proper assessment of the business or service returns, taking into account risks, monetary reserves required for the upkeep of the business, tax deductions and procedures resulting from taxation rules;
(4)	Determine, when needed, a job classification that would take into account the responsibilities of each class of workers, a salary range commensurate with the business or service potentialities and measured according to the cost of living index;
(5)	Require that all strike votes be taken by secret ballot, under the supervision of two members of the labour tribunal, and that the strike be deemed legal only if it has been accepted by 50 per cent plus 1 of the business' employees, and only after all other means of conciliation have been exhausted.
(6)	Guide negotiations in the field of public services in such a way as to determine salary adjustments on an hourly rate basis for all those whose salary is under $5,000 a year.
I have met so many railway employees, especially temporary gangs, who were greatly annoyed with the government's decision to have them return to work under practically unchanged conditions, while in their case particularly, they are low wage-earners who get an increase on a percentage basis, which does not suit them. And yet, it seems to me that it was so easy to understand the situation. I see the hon. minister is nodding. I trust that, in a similar situation, he will find the appropriate words to say at the right moment to try and improve this situation.
As to the co-operation between workers and employers, the government must inform people on the best methods existing to maintain harmonious relationship. A great deal of
Supply

Labour
practical work is already being done in this field and I strongly support the efforts of the department in this direction.
In many industries, it should also be possible to encourage through appropriate legislation employers who feel inclined to promote participation of employees to the company's benefits, by allowing them to become coowners or associates, which would create a climate of encouragement.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to point out a very important matter of concern to a great number of workers of my area who work in the United States. Unfortunately, no agreement has been reached as yet with four American states, especially those which are adjacent to our area, New Hampshire and more particularly, Maine. The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) should take into account the representations we have been making for a very long time.
I remember that, a few years ago, a member of the opposition even staked his seat in order to accelerate the settlement of this problem. I therefore think that it would be only fair that the thousands of Canadian workers who are employed in the United States-and who, in a way, by doing so alleviate the problem of unemployment at home-should benefit from an adequate formula. Such a formula must exist, and I think that if we really try, we shall find it. We shall then be able to give those people the opportunity of getting unemployment insurance benefits when they come back to Canada, once the lumbering operations are over.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There is also, nowadays, the famous problem of centralization of the offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In our area, in particular, pressures are exerted in that direction so as to avoid as much as possible this kind of centralization. This should bring abbout the results which we are expecting, because we would have the advantage, as we have had in the past, to meet understanding people. In fact, the enforcement of unemployment insurance regulations which change rather often, is a source of problems. I understand the difficulties faced by the civil servants and I know many of them who are very nice and who try to do their jobs as conscientiously as possible. However, the fact remains that in the light of the regulations arising from the existing legislation, methods are changed every year to the point where the workers cannot keep abreast of all those changes. Therefore, having submitted a

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
claim in proper form, they find it very difficult to get their benefits.
I am aware of this problem. In fact, hundreds of workers come to see me every year, especially during the unemployment season, asking me to help them find a solution. I think that it would be very important to look at this field most carefully.
Therefore, I rely on the co-operation of the minister to find the necessary solutions.


Mr. Thomas (Maisonneuve):: Mr. Chairman, the discussions on the estimates of each department give every Canadian the opportunity to get more interested in the economic affairs of Canada, and to allow more particularly the members to express their opinions on some subjects. As a member, I take a great interest in the expansion of the Canadian economy, and as a representative of the Montreal area and the working class, I am more particularly concerned with the growth of the Montreal harbour.
Indeed, Montreal has the greatest harbour in Canada. Therefore, it is possible to appreciate the importance of its commercial activities. The importance of Montreal harbour is related, in the first place, to its geographic position. This port plays a key role in the international trade of Canada and in the distribution of its imports, while it is a stopover for shipment of our products to foreign countries and for the distribution of our imports.
I take an active interest in Montreal harbour as an essential factor in the vitality of our economy, as an incentive for Montreal trade and as an employer of many residents of my riding. For these three reasons, I think it is essential that Montreal harbour, in its efforts to expand its activities, should arouse the interest of all members and be able to rely on their support.
However, conditions in Montreal harbour are not satisfactory. Indeed, it has been noted for some time that the harbour does not operate at full capacities. We can discuss the various factors that have led to such a situation, but I think there is one that is recognized by all, and that is labour relations which impair the efficiency of the harbour. This has, in fact, led to the work stoppage of 1966. The government then took a practical step to deal with these problems and instituted to this end the Picard commission of inquiry. The report of the commission contains many recommendations dealing with labour relations. It put the blame for this situation on the two parties involved.

It is not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to recall well-known facts, but I would merely point out the significant contribution of the government towards a meaningful solution.
Following the Picard report, the employers agreed to set up a guarantee fund to provide for a minimum of 35 paid hours per week to 2,157 employees.
I would like, Mr. Chairman, to emphasize the necessity of this work guarantee for the Montreal dockers. Under the old system, the employees depended on the goodwill of management, and there was no guarantee to the worker under any rational system for hiring and distribution of work. I know the workers in my riding and my area, and I know how they react. I know how important a factor security is in work motivation. Full productivity cannot be asked of the worker if he does not know what tomorrow will be like.
More recently still, Maxwell Cohen was commissioned to present a report on labour problems. This report contains a number of steps to be taken by employers, with a view to facilitating the adaptation of workers affected by automation.
A few weeks ago the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) gave the Union a cheque for $63,000 to provide for implementation of the recommendations of this report.
These various factors reflect the government's concern with respect to the labour disputes problem. I would like to point out here the very valuable contribution of our Minister of Labour.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal briefly with a last important point concerning the explanation of the present situation. Just like any business concern, the Montreal harbour must necessarily keep progressing, and I think that to survive any business must develop its potential to the utmost. However, I think that in a just society, progress must be shared among all citizens. And one of the most significant applications of progress is the introduction of new techniques in industry, and Montreal harbour is no exception to the rule.
I wish to point out the importance and the size of the problem created by the introduction of containers. This new transportation system makes possible increased efficiency in spite of reduced manpower.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I am quite aware that a number of dockers who are eager to retain their jobs do not welcome this prospect. We are facing here two somewhat conflicting situations.
November 21. 1968

On the one hand, employers will have to improve their equipment in order to meet competition, and, as I said, I fully agree with this view. I furthermore suggest that if Canada is anxious to stay abreast of international competition, her industries will have, willy nilly, to bring about new operating methods so as to reduce costs and meet successfully the competition from abroad.
On the other hand, I disagree with the idea of doing so at the expense of labour. Where this particular case is concerned, introducing containers will be a commanding factor, in my opinion, towards improved returns to the Montreal harbour. Indeed, important harbours are increasingly using this method for the shipment of commodities, as it costs much less than the traditional system.
But dockers must not suffer from the introduction of this new equipment. It is becoming universally recognized that when changes affect the workers, employers have a moral obligation toward their employees.
Technological progress must not take place without human progress. In the Montreal harbour, mechanization must not impede the dockers' progress, or labour-management relations.
I also think that a true dialogue is one of the essential conditions for the well-being of the workers, especially when such a change is involved. Such a dialogue must be initiated by the employer, since he is responsible for the change. He must be prepared to discuss the outcome of his action with his employees, through their union.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that it is impossible to hold responsible only one of the parties involved. I believe that the introduction of containers in Montreal harbour must come about through a common effort, as a sign of both technological and human progress.
On the other hand, employees must admit that progress is irreversible, and that any action to stop it brings unpleasant results for everyone.
At first glance, it seems absolutely incomprehensible that employees should want to brake progress. But it is enough to discuss with them and to put oneself in their place to understand that the workers often have no other choice. The majority of them have, just like us, family responsibilities. When they lose their job, they know that they lose their source of income which enables to provide for their needs and that they will have to overcome almost insuperable difficulties to return to the labour market.
29180-191}
Supply-Labour
Under those circumstances, how can an employee be asked to understand the necessity of progress? The only solution open to him is to hang on to his work which guarantees him a regular income. On the other hand, the employers must understand that phenomenon. The fate of human beings cannot be determined with statistical curves.
The only way to change the attitudes of employers and employees is to improve communications between them. Thus, we can achieve a situation where employees will understand the economic significance of change, and the employers will understand that the human factor must be taken into account in reaching economic decisions. Taking into account the present situation at the Montreal harbour, I am sure that communications need to be improved. As for me, I cannot admit that improvement in the Montreal harbour may mean loss of employment for some people living in my constituency or district.
I also intend to do the utmost to see that the interests of my fellow-citizens are brought to the attention of the house, and I believe that those named to represent the Canadian people should make it a point of honour to try and set things right.
Also I know that our minister of labour is fully conscious of the various factors at stake in the Montreal harbour; he has proved it on several occasions. In fact, the hon. minister never hesitated to fulfill his duty as Minister of Labour in all the disputes and conflicts which occurred since he accepted this position. Furthermore, events have shown that he had the right approach and that he is very popular with both the workers and the employers. On behalf of the workers, I wish to thank him for his devotion and for his efforts with regard to the settlement of labour disputes, he was far-sighted and fair-minded throughout.
In closing, I will say that my feelings for the hon. Minister of Labour are understandable because we both come from the labour class. We both started at the bottom and, today, we have the honour and privilege to sit in the Canadian parliament keeping in mind the motto of Quebec, our native province i "Je me souviens."
May Divine Providence give us health, lucidity and courage to carry on the task which we have undertaken so as not to deceive the hope and confidence placed in us. May it allow us also to see and participate to the fulfillment of our destiny.

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the minister on his appointment as Minister of Labour. Having regard to the report in the Labour Gazette for September and my own connections with labour, although I cannot aspire to the same heights as the minister and the hon. member for Mai-sonneuve I should like to go back to the time when I was attending college and worked in the coal mines in my area as well as with a pick and shovel for what I might call an upper Canada construction company. Since I have been elected to this house and in experiences in my own area I have certainly had many connections with labour, and I come from an area that employs a large amount of labour.
Although the minister is up to most challenges, what bothers me at this time is that the Department of Labour has been fragmented. Much of the guts has been taken out of it and given to other departments, including the department of manpower. Many of the functions that have been given to the Department of Manpower and Immigration I would prefer to see under the control of the present Minister of Labour, but since that is not the case we have to face the facts. This fragmentation has an unfortunate effect so far as labour is concerned. The various functions and duties relating to labour are now distributed between two departments. The powers and functions of the Department of Labour are [DOT]divided and the department is dangerously weakened.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Many of the relevant functions relating to labour, such as the vital function of maintaining mobility and the upgrading of skills in this age of technology, have been moved to the department of manpower. I hope the Department of Labour has not been downgraded by the government, although this seems to be the case. It has been suggested that the minister is the closest thing to a minister without portfolio, but we hope this is not the case. In the days and weeks ahead we will be watching him to see exactly what he intends to do.
Our duty at this time is to consider these [DOT]estimates in the light of general considerations applying to labour. Thus it is not a matter of considering only the dollars and cents expenditures of the department but of relating its expenditures to labour as a whole in order to ascertain what role the department is playing in the labour field. And again

we are forced to the conclusion that its role has become a minor one. From examination of the blue book I note that the department's functions are limited to collective bargaining and conciliation procedures in industries under federal control, and to research and labour standards. These are important functions, but in the area of a national labour department they are far from all-embracing.
When the original estimates were brought down last session, housing was a part of this department. It is now under the Minister of Transport. There was considerable curiosity about this move when it was first announced. Many people wondered what housing had to do with transport. This has now been explained, since the Minister of Transport has not stopped moving since he took over. But the shortage of housing is still very much part of the labour scene. For instance, housing is related to inflation and to unemployment. As I say, it is very much part of the labour scene considering the effect that housing and its cost have upon the standard of living of Canadian workers. That is why, in the general context of economic conditions as they relate to the situation of labour, we must look at the cost of living, the level of unemployment, the phasing out of training programs and the lack of housing. These are factors that strike at the very roots of labour freedom and mobility.
Dealing with unemployment, the submission of the Canadian Labour Congress to the cabinet last February stated:
Representing as we do, working people across this country, we cannot stress too strongly the gravity with which we view the current economic situation. Once again, it looks as though the burden of poor economic management will be borne by Canadian workers in the form of increasing joblessness.
One may not agree entirely with the C.L.C. at all times but one is forced to agree that present events have borne out its prediction of last February because there is increasing joblessness, as pointed out by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, brought about by government mismanagement, and the burden is being borne by Canadian workers.
Unemployment is a vital factor in labour conditions and labour mobility in this nation. Of course, in respect to an area such as mine, the Atlantic area, and other parts of the country, regional disparity must be mentioned. That is why we must consider the whole field in which labour operates, and one must use this opportunity to ascertain to wha1 extent the government's policies have been
November 21, 1968

effectively applied in the context of unemployment, the cost of living, housing and so on.
Where does one seek out labour policy in this government? Is it in the department of manpower? Is it in the Department of Labour or where is it? Policy is non-existent. Some might mention the Canada Labour Code. This is really a compendium of existing legislation which adds not one whit to the well-being of the working man. What will improve the well-being of the working man is a reduction in the persistently high level of unemployment which has remained at a seasonally adjusted rate of over 5 per cent, the provision of housing which labour can afford, a reduction in the pyramiding cost of living, removal of the iniquitous sales tax, and the restoration of a program of upgrading and training skilled workers. These are the things we must have in order to maintain the position of labour in a world of automated change. The government does not seem to be conscious of this.
I would like to go along with the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby in asking the minister to give a forecast, before this debate concludes, of what the unemployment figures will be this winter, using a computer or anything else. I am thinking especially of areas like Quebec and the Atlantic region. While unemployment in October was over 5 per cent at seasonally adjusted rates, unemployment in the Atlantic provinces was once again the highest in Canada, 5.2 per cent at actual rates not seasonally adjusted. This means that in spite of the government's pious promises and prophecies regional disparity, far from being overcome, is becoming more of a problem each day that the government remains in office.
I suggest that the government has completely neglected the challenge of technological change which is the major challenge facing labour in Canada. I heard what the minister said about the Freedman report, and I concur in that. I think it is a move in the right direction and we will watch it closely. This is just one matter which must be dealt with in order to help the labour force. In ordinary terms the situation can be put this way: We must get with it. Under this government we are not doing enough to help the labour force.
I do not intend to deal with the question of housing in any detail except in the context, as I have said, of labour policy. Last February the government received a memorandum
Supply-Labour
from the Canadian Labour Congress but it paid as much attention to it as it has paid to the various reports of the Economic Council of Canada. In that memorandum the C.L.C.
said:
We believe that all Canadians have a right to decent housing and that governments have an obligation to ensure that it is provided.
What has this government done in respect of housing? We shall have to wait for the Minister of Transport to get his feet back on the ground. The government should have been moving on the question of housing from the time it took office. It should have given a just housing policy to the country.
Canadians cannot afford to have houses at present rates. They cannot afford to buy homes taxed to the tune of about 12 per cent. Surely the government knows that this 12 per cent is pyramided through the whole cost of construction and comes out at the end closer to 20 per cent. The desperate need of Canadians for housing cannot become a matter of profit for lending institutions.
Again I suggest that Canadians must be provided with decent housing. The labour force must be provided with adequate housing. Among other things the government must do much more to provide low rental housing on a much larger scale. Surely the provision of decent housing is part of any consistent labour policy. If the government had any interest in Canadians who work for a living it would have moved long before now.
This afternoon my leader dealt with the matter of inflation. He showed how it cuts down the spending power of the dollar and makes labour unions and workers go after more wages because they require more money. I suggest to the minister that this is one of the most serious challenges of our time, a challenge the government has failed miserably to meet.
Inflation makes the poor poorer. As I said before, it emphasizes regional disparities because the less advanced regions feel the weight of inflation in the same way that the more advanced regions do, and sometimes more seriously because there is no corresponding increase in purchasing power and the disparity increases. In the five years that the government has been in power-


An hon. Member:: Six.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Since June 25, 1968.

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Howard Russell MacEwan: A Liberal government has been in power for the last five years since 1963. Many Canadians know this too well, especially those in the Atlantic provinces. The Minister of Agriculture is one of these just society ministers. He has put off the agricultural conference until next March. I believe he should have moved justly before now for the farmers of ths country. I shall go into this later when we have the agricultural estimates before us. In the five years since this government has been in power, whether the minister is aware of it or not labour has borne the brunt of the most serious inflation in peacetime history. Food prices alone, for example, during the period have risen by 25 per cent and housing costs have risen an equal amount. I could go further into this subject, but I should like to deal with the matter of conciliation.
I know that in his remarks the minister suggested there should be better mediation practices in this country, and so on. I have a suggestion for him which is based on the postal strike and other strikes which have taken place within the last few months. We also had a long drawn-out grain handlers strike in the course of which the Minister of Agriculture ran around blaming the companies and the Minister of Labour did not move until later. In his statement in the house, I believe in the throne speech debate, he stated why he acted as he did. He may have been correct, although I am not admitting it. However, the six weeks lost because of this disastrous performance have not been regained.
In respect of the postal strike the government allowed the Montpetit report to sit gathering dust for a few years. When the postal workers struck again the members of the government let it go on. My suggestion is that the government should set up a fully autonomous professionally trained conciliation and negotiation commission removed completely from the Treasury Board. That body should go to work a long time before a strike is imminent and not in the last days prior thereto. I believe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, when speaking on a private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, suggested that the present rights of the public service of Canada are now on trial. However, if something like this were done I think many potential strikes probably would not occur although under the legislation the employees are justifiably given this right.

I could go into what are essential services but I shall not do so at this time. The minister spoke of the Woods task force. We will be waiting to see what this task force brings forward. I was interested to read an item which appeared in the Canadian Chamber of Commerce Newsletter for the month of November. It states:
H. D. Woods, M.A., LL.D., Dean, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, McGill University, heads the minister's task force on labour relations. At the annual meeting he confined his remarks largely to the issues before the task force because "we are not yet in a position to present publicly any recommendations since our primary responsibility is to the government."
He pointed out that what is at stake is not whether strikes are to be permitted or not, but whether the whole system of the private decisionmaking for individuals, unions and employers is to be preserved and strengthened by policy and administrative reforms or to be emasculated by creeping public intervention which will involve more decisions by public bodies.
I shall not comment on this; I merely cite it for the record. Perhaps we will take note of it later. I have already spoken of the Freedman report. I believe it is a move in the right direction. I suggest there are many moves which should be made by the department and the minister in order to provide better labour legislation in this country.
Then there is the matter of the winter works program which was mentioned by a previous speaker. I do not believe this program should have been eliminated. What surprised me at the time it was dropped was the fact that when the principle was adopted the members of the Canadian Construction Association and others were not advised. The action taken by the government apparently was unilateral. I believe the winter works program was an excellent one. There was a suggestion by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I believe, that the vocational and adult training programs had taken the place of the winter works program. I doubt this very much. However, I do not downgrade adult or vocational training because I believe these are excellent programs. I know that in my own area these programs have been a Godsend in respect of training not only the younger but also the older people. I believe that the winter works program should be resumed.
I think my time is about up so I shall hurry along. The other day in the house the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as reported on page 2784 of Hansard, asked the Prime Minister about the rate of unemployment and what steps the government intend-
November 21, 1968

ed to take to combat unemployment in this country. The Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, we had quite lengthy statements on this matter during the budget debate, and we will have a chance to make others on the estimates next week. As you prophesy, I could make a lengthy answer to this question to indicate that this increase in labour force unemployment is due to many factors-
And so on. He said finally:
Actually, Mr. Speaker, I have a lengthy answer here.
Before this debate is over I hope the Prime Minister will enter it to give us this lengthy answer concerning the most pressing problem in this country, that of unemployment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do
you think he will?


Howard Russell MacEwan: I doubt it. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will have an opportunity later to back me up and perhaps we will be able to get the Prime Minister into the chamber. Members of this party will have other matters to raise. In the meantime I reiterate that I hope the Prime Minister will tell us what he and his government intend to do to combat unemployment in this country.


Mr. Gibson:: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the Minister of Labour for his masterful, scholarly and practical speech in which he has expressed the labour policy in clear, bold and humanitarian terms. Certainly labour and management today are struggling not only with problems between themselves as immediate parties but also with problems caused by the impact of the age of automation.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Representing as I do the great labour riding of Hamilton-Wentworth, which is largely urban and in which many thousands of our Canadian labour force reside, I am proud to participate in this debate. I am proud because the minister has correctly assessed the importance of automation as a vitally serious problem which requires immediate and continuous action.
I for one will never support the view that labour itself should bear the brunt of technological change. This is a false concept. We must take the initiative in this House of Commons in grappling with these serious problems which have been referred to by the experienced hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He has also on a number of occasions expressed worry and concern about those on fixed pension incomes who have been caught
Supply-Labour
in the inflation squeeze, that dastardly enemy of the Canadian nation.
Surely we cannot stand by and watch capable industrial workers being cast aside as a result of new industrial methods. Industrial workers are not machines; they are an integral part of the company and they must not be cast aside. We must urge management to co-operate more fully, and at greater depth, in planning, as part of their responsibility in respect of integrating the roles of those who are no longer immediately employed in the industrial climate of the day. We cannot deal with unemployment problems simply by carrying out studies, by indifference or by instituting capital cost projects. We cannot take the attitude that cost is a factor which can be considered without dealing with labour and automation. Perhaps the answer is that the government and management must both provide re-employment and retraining for the victims of technological change.
I speak as one who was fortunate enough after the last war to have had the benefit of the Liberal government's retraining program for veterans. This was one of the most magnificent pieces of legislation which ever appeared on the statute books. It is true that this took place after an enormous war and was immense in scope, but it is also true that thousands of young Canadians were integrated in the mainstream of Canadian life by reason of the forward-looking and visionary attitude of the then minister of labour which resulted in this practical legislation. That minister had to deal with a more drawn out and more complex labour structure.
The present Minister of Labour is a hardworking capable man. The legislative background on which he is building was formulated by the late Prime Minister Mackenzie King and carried forward by other ministers such as the late hon. member for Welland, Humphrey Mitchell. That policy was continued by him and by other men of his stature. These men were reinforced by-


George Harris Hees: Give us the names of some of the others who impressed you so much.


Colin David Gibson: What has been accomplished was not accomplished solely through the work of ministers of labour.


George Harris Hees: Jot down these names ahead of time. That's a good tip.


Colin David Gibson: Thank you, sir. These men have done their jobs and have gone down in history. This parliament has capable men on

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
both sides of the house. Many of them have far more experience than I. It is my feeling that all members of this house wish to grapple with these problems. We should not turn the other cheek and simply say, let these people eat cake. That is not the attitude of this parliament or the Canadian people.
Another problem of national interest became evident this summer. It resulted from a breakdown in negotiations. When there are strikes the consumer should be regarded as an integral element of negotiations and discussions. Perhaps we have reached the stage when the department of consumer affairs should be represented at least as an observer of what is going on during labour-management discussions. This may be to far-reaching and may strain things too much, but I believe it is a good idea which should be expressed.
National strikes cause tremendous crisis in our economy. They rock the boat to the greatest extent, just like the immediate results of a tempest. The medium of television provides us with a great communications system, and it seems to me there is great merit in having a representative of the consumer affairs department present at the deliberations of labour and management. Such a representative could point out to the labour and management representatives the effect of the positions they were taking on the economy. These men should go to management and point out the effect on our economy of their demands. They might also go to the labour negotiators and indicate the results of their demands for a certain increase in wages. They could show these people how the cost of living would be increased if they continue to hold out for their demands.
I do not hesitate in saying that it seems to me that in the past too much emphasis has been made on labour and how much a man is being paid. We should also consider management and price increases. If we have not the duty, at least we have the moral responsibility to make public the effects of enormous increases in prices. This is true also of the labour aspect of this matter. At this stage I do not advocate a prices review board, but I think we should keep this in mind. We should not shrug our shoulders and say it is completely impossible. This matter should be discussed in this chamber. We should turn our attention to the possibility of an economic prices review board as under the British system. I should like to ask the minister to comment on this.
[Mr. Gibson.1
We should not leave this ship without sails because when the sails go down the ship wallows around in the sea with no certain course. We must consider our economy. For many years the inflationary effect of high wages and high prices has confined the consumer in a straitjacket. We must protect the consumer. The people who elect members of parliament are consumers. Labourers and management staff are consumers.
Before concluding I must not refrain from expressing the view that many problems in labour-management relations are caused by a lack of a humanitarian approach in dealing with employees. This is not a narrow, partisan view. Many companies are progressive and interested in their employees' welfare. On the other hand, many employers are heartless and consider their employees as parts of the plant or fixed machinery. They consider their employees as a number of bodies to be sent here or there. They feel that the company is nothing more than a profit-making machine. These employers should realize their responsibilities in respect of the rights of employees. A great deal of good would result if more presidents of corporations would occasionally drop in at the homes of their workers. Perhaps many of them do. The humanitarian aspect of labour relations has not been fully exploited by management. This government has taken the initiative in this respect. Management should be encouraged to do more and go farther with this approach.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested and pleased to hear the minister say in his speech that as far as he is concerned the just society is one in which a decent standard of living is a right and not a privilege. I am sure we all agree with that. However, I believe we should examine the record of this government since it took office to see what it is doing to bring about that kind of society. We heard during the election campaign a great deal of talk by the Prime Minister about the just society, and all Canadians are interested to see just what the government has in mind regarding its concept of the just society. We want to find out what the government is doing to bring about the kind of just society in which the Minister of Labour says he believes, and in which I am sure we all believe.
I would like to speak for a few minutes about the question of poverty in this country and the minimum wages paid by industries
November 21, 1968

that come under federal or provincial jurisdiction. In August the Economic Council of Canada produced one of its numerous reports. In that report there was a chapter of 37 pages devoted to the subject of poverty in Canada. The economic council tells us that there are in this country no less than 4,200,000 people living in conditions of poverty. We are told also that most of these people are not unemployed and living on welfare but are working for minimal wages. We are told there are no particular areas in which poverty is concentrated, that it is spread all across the country and a great deal of it is found in large cities which are normally considered to be affluent societies.
In its chapter on poverty the Economic Council of Canada says that in the view of its members poverty in this country is no less than a national disgrace. When asked whether he agreed with this assessment, the Prime Minister said he did agree that poverty as it exists today in Canada is a national disgrace. I think every one of us would agree that in the just society we would like to see there is no place for poverty. We who would like to see this kind of just society develop agree that we must leave no step untaken, no stone unturned, to eradicate poverty as much as possible in our country. With this in mind, on September 13 I asked the Prime Minister the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister has stated that he agrees with the finding of the Economic Council of Canada that poverty in Canada is a national disgrace, and since the commission has reported that a great deal of this poverty occurs because people who are working are not receiving sufficient wages to enable them to bring up their families in decency and reasonable comfort, do the Prime Minister and the government intend in the very near future to increase the minimum wage as it applies to industries under federal jurisdiction, particularly as this would be an incentive or an example to the provincial governments?
The Prime Minister replied that the government did not intend to take that kind of action. Therefore I went a little farther and asked the Prime Minister what he intended to do to reduce or eradicate poverty in the just society that he intended to develop in this country. His answer was:
Our attack seeks to ensure that inflation will be curtailed in Canada. We believe this will be the best attack on the problem.
Let us consider what the government has done since the Prime Minister made that statement with regard to curtailing inflation. At the time he spoke, the figures of the
Supply-Labour
Dominion Bureau of Statistics show us that inflation in Canada had increased by 3.6 per cent over the previous 12 months. One month later we are told that inflation in Canada had increased by 3.8 per cent over the previous 12 months. Today we are told that inflation in Canada has increased by 4.2 per cent over the previous 12 months. So we can see that the people of this country, especially those living below the poverty level, are considerably worse off today than they were when the Prime minister gave me that answer in the house two months ago.
This gives hon. members an idea of just what this government is doing to control, remove or eradicate poverty, which we all agree we cannot allow to exist in a society we would call just. The Prime Minister told me on September 13 that the program the government considered to be the best way of dealing with poverty in this country was to curtail inflation. Is inflation being curtailed by this government? It is certainly not. It has increased in two monthly stages in the two months that have passed since the Prime Minister made that statement and outlined the government's policy in this respect. Therefore we can see that not only is the government doing nothing to control or reduce poverty in this country but since the Prime Minister gave me that answer it has become considerably worse and every indication is that it will continue to get worse month by month.
On November 13 I drew this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister. I pointed out that he had told me that the government's program for reducing poverty was to curtail inflation, and that it simply was not working. I asked the Prime Minister whether the government, in view of this fact, had any new plans for dealing with poverty in this country, which the Prime Minister had agreed is no less than a national disgrace. Once again the Prime Minister gave one of his slick answers. He said that of course the answer was in the budget and if we would examine the budget we would see what the government was doing to control inflation. If we examine the budget we see that it contains an increase in taxes over the next year of no less than $845 million. Every member of this house knows that an increase in taxes increases the cost of living because the goods we buy are made more expensive in that the taxes are added to the price of those goods, and the taxes that we pay out of our pockets increase the cost of living. That is inflation.

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
So we can see that next year inflation will continue, probably even more rapidly than it is increasing at the present time. Yet this Prime Minister, who made great speeches on the hustings about the just society which this country was going to have under a Liberal government, has proved that he has no intention of eradicating poverty or of curtailing or controlling inflation, which he said is the government's approach to eradicating poverty.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
So we see that this government refuses to do tf iee things that are necessary to control poverty. The first one is to set an example to the provinces, under whose jurisdiction most industries operate. If this government would increase minimum wages in industries under its jurisdiction, it would set an example to all provincial premiers. The government has refused to do that even though I pointed out to the Prime Minister that the last time minimum wages for industries that come under federal jurisdiction were raised was three years ago and the cost of living has increased 'by no less than 12 per cent since then. Yet the Prime Minister refuses to raise minimum wages and thus to set an example to the provincial governments across this country.
Second, the government has been requested an a number of occasions by myself and others to call together the provincial premiers, having set an example by raising minimum wages for industries under its jurisdiction, to point out the need for them to raise minimum wages for industries under their jurisdiction so that people who are living in poverty because they are working for inadequate minimum wages, in some cases as low as 80 cents an hour, can improve their standard of living. Yet the federal government refuses to do that. I have asked the Prime Minister, when he has all the premiers here to discuss financial and constitutional matters, to ask them to stay perhaps an extra half day to discuss what can be done to eradicate something which he admits is no less than a national disgrace. But he says he will not do it. They will be too busy talking about constitutional matters, all of which are very important but are not as important as taking steps to eradicate poverty among one-fifth of our population. This is the most important problem that can be dealt with today, but the Prime Minister refuses to do it.
The third thing he refuses to do is to curtail inflation. I asked a question today. I produced a quotation from a speech which the secretary of the Treasury Board made to the

Canadian Tax Foundation this week in which he said that this government neglects to examine the need for the programs it is pursuing. I asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to curtail inflation and the tremendous expenditure that is going on in this country, the government would not stop what the secretary of the Treasury Board says is being done. The Prime Minister simply laughed the whole thing off and said that the question dealt with something that had probably happened ten years ago. That is how seriously he took it in spite of the fact, may I point out, that the secretary of the Treasury Board had used the present tense, and if hon. members will read his speech they will see that. He was talking about what is going on now, not five or ten years ago. He told us what the government is doing and what it is not doing, but the Prime Minister is not interested; he could not care less. The Prime Minister talked glibly on the hustings about a just society because he wanted to win votes and to get a Liberal government elected. Now it turns out that what he was talking about was a sham, a farce and a hoax, that he simply talked about something that he had no intention of producing, namely, a just society.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Has the hon. member noticed what has happened to the Gallup poll since the election?


George Harris Hees: I am telling you about the kind of thing that is going to defeat the government four years from now. You just wait to find out. I take it that all the Liberal members in the house now are proud of the just society-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Thank you for the applause. As I said, they are proud of the just society which contains a built in poverty about which the Prime Minister intends to do nothing, as we know because he has said so.


Mr. Mongrain:: How does the hon. member know?


George Harris Hees: Because he has told the house so and because he has refused to do the various things we have asked him to do, to raise minimum wages and to curtail inflation. Inflation and poverty are increasing day by day before our very eyes, but you people do not care. You are in for four years. What do you care whether people starve? What do you care about people who live in poverty? What does the Prime Minister care about the fact that people are living in conditions which the Economic Council of Canada appointed by
November 21, 1968

this government describes as a national disgrace? You are proud of that. I hope that the people of Canada will learn from your attitude toward a just society which contains built in poverty that you are not going to do anything to eradicate, to cut back or to reduce poverty.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is the hon. member's opinion, and he is usually wrong.


George Harris Hees: Let the minister rise in his place when I sit down and tell me what the government is doing to eradicate poverty. I would also like to hear the Minister of Labour tell us what the government intends to do, but let him do so when I finish speaking. I will be very interested to hear the minister. In the meantime we have been given a further proof that the Prime Minister simply used the slogan "just society" to attract votes in an election. Once he got in he could not care less. He does not know anything about poverty; he has never experienced it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: His constituents are the kind of people who do not know anything about poverty. The Prime Minister's answers in the house have shown very clearly that he is not interested in the slightest degree in doing anything to eradicate something which he has agreed is no less than a national disgrace.

[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Lessard (Lac-Saini-Jean):: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of my remarks, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) for the courage he showed on at least two occasions in this house, that is recently when he took part in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne and today when he made his statement about his department's estimates.
I want to congratulate him bceause I feel that the position he took with regard to management and labour unions is open, frank, strong and new. I think that too often in the past the politicians and particularly the members of the cabinet have been afraid to state defintie policies.
Before going on to something else, I would like to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the members of his staff and the officials of his department for the help they give us so graciously and so quickly when we go to them with a problem. I refer
Supply-Labour
in particular to the opportunity I had recently of visiting the various branches of the Department of Labour, and I think that that was very instructive. In fact, it enabled me to see the facilities available to members in the various departments and especially in the field of labour.
Mr. Chairman, before making personal remarks, I would like to refer now to the remarks made earlier this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I was somewhat surprised to hear him criticize the Minister of Labour's intervention this afternoon. He used the word "lecturing" in a way difficult to interpret, but he seemed to insinuate that the minister was preachify-ing. I do not think that is the case. In his statement, the hon. minister merely stated facts and positions.
At this point, I should like to deal with the labour-management committee which should exist in every enterprise.
I, myself, worked in industry from the age of 18. I was able to see the advantages of maintaining harmony in an enterprise through those labour-management committees.
I think Alcan can be mentioned as an example, because it has had only one very short strike in 1941, and another which lasted four months, unfortunately, in 1957. Considering the fact that this company has been established in Canada since 1901 and, in Saguenay since 1925, it can be said that two strikes over a 40-year span, is no abuse, on the part of the workers as well as the union. It also proves that the company understands the nature of its responsibilities. At the very start, it set up a system of consultation within its plants, so that the grievances of the workers could be studied as soon as they were expresed. In fact that, to my mind, is the best way of preventing grievances, which are left pending, from assuming gigantic proportions which cause strikes when the time comes to negotiate collective agreements.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the employees of the Department of Labour and its Minister should intensify, even more if possible, their work with regard to publicity and contacts with the companies, so that labour-management committees might be adopted in all industries. By the way, I should specify that their creation should be required, not "suggested" but "required", in the various government sectors, because if we want to set a good example for private industry, we, in the

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
government, should at least set up those organizations in the various sectors, in the various departments.
If my information is correct, Mr. Chairman, that is not the situation unfortunately. We are far behind with regard to management-labour relations in government departments.
The present system of arbitration has also been mentioned. It is, up to a certain point, the cause of the various conflicts and strikes which we are witnessing. Clearly, the present arbitration system will have to be modified. The minister has taken a categorical stand, saying that the workers cannot be compelled to accept this system, since it would be quite discriminatory to force workers to accept measures which they are not ready to accept.
As for me, I do not think it is a good formula. Indeed, if we compel workers to accept the decision of an arbitration committee, I doubt that, during the course of such a collective agreement, two or three years, there might be a climate favourable to harmony in the company. The worker who will have to go back to work and accept conditions he is not willing to accept, will certainly be a bad and inefficient worker. I think it is preferable to settle the situation and not to establish compulsory arbitration.
I think that among intelligent men, it should be possible to find a system other than the compulsory arbitration. I know that the Woods commission is studying at the present time the various amendments to the statutes and I think that the minister is waiting, like all of us, the publication of this report, so that the statutes may be amended by the house.
In his statement, the minister specifically mentioned that, while waiting for that report, his department has already undertaken the drafting and preparation of new bills or amendments to acts now in force.
This is certainly some preparatory work which it was necessary to do. Once this legislation is drafted-at this stage I appeal to the leader of the government and to all the colleagues of the Minister of Labour-let the minister introduce it to the house as soon as possible because, in my opinion, the labour sector should certainly have a priority. Most of us have been elected by the workers and I think that we should not forget it.
I notice that, at this time when we consider the estimates of the Department of Labour, the attendance is not as large as one could have wished it to be, and I am a little

shocked. I thought that the members would have taken part in greater numbers in the debate concerning the estimates of the Department of Labour, because it gives them an opportunity to express to the members of the government valid opinions and especially to make known the viewpoints of the various groups which they represent in this house and in particular the workers group.


The Chairman:: It being six o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-time allotted to political parties in Quebec; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Pensions-consideration of universal principle of escalation; the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Water Resources-St. Mary's river-action respecting pollution.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions for papers, public bills.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: If I can have your indulgence for a moment, Mr. Speaker, we have had a discussion with the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council and I think there might be agreement that an order of the house be made that the house take recess for supper upon the conclusion of the consideration of item No. 1 relating to Atlantic Peat Moss Company Limited, if that happens before seven o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 19, consideration in committee of Bill No.
November 21, 1968
[Stage Direction]
C-103, respecting Atlantic Peat Moss Co. Ltd.-Mr. Breau-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
On clause 1-
James Hugh Faulkner: When the committee rose on Tuesday, November 19, clause 1 was under consideration. Shall the clause carry?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I will not detain the committee since I do not intend to oppose passage of this bill. I say that not because we agree with the arguments of those sponsoring the bill but because, if this measure is passed, certain numbers of people will gain employment.
Anyone with legal training must have wondered why, after a three year period in which notices were sent from the companies' branch to this concern asking it to file returns as was mandatory under the letters patent, this procedure of coming before the house is being followed. Returns were not submitted as requested. That was a breach of the privileges of the original charter. Now the company comes to the house and asks the house to ignore everything that the companies' branch has done.
It is passing strange that a company which has ignored all the notices that have been sent to it should now try to come before this house and obtain permission to do something. Why is it that more lawyers in this house are not curious about this type of operation? On previous occasions we have suggested that the type of procedure envisaged here ought to be carried out in some other forum, possibly before a committee that would deal with private bills and not in the house. We are very much opposed to the idea of private bills being brought before the house in order to do something that could have been done previously in some other way.
As I understand it, the companies' branch is very insistent that companies that are granted letters patent shall adhere, during their lifetimes to the terms of their charters. I am told by a lawyer that this company must have received a great many letters from the federal companies' branch. In fact, the communications probably ought to be measured in feet rather than in individual letters. There would be a great deal of correspondence. Perhaps one or two letters a day might be sent. In any event the companies' branch would have been most insistent that this company adhere to the terms of its letters patent. Therefore the arguments used before the committee by the parliamentary agent simply are not good enough.
Private Bills
It is not enough for the company to say that it was unaware of its obligations because it was concentrating to a large extent on sales. It has duties to perform according to its charter and it must have been aware of the notices that were sent to it. Surely no one could fail to notice all the communications that would be sent to the company's New Brunswick offices.
I suggest that hon. members who wish to do their duty ought to pay close attention to this type of bill which has the effect of undermining the protection to the general public that is provided by legislation. Agencies of government are set up to protect the general public and businesses. This bill tries to circumvent legislation that has been passed.
This company for a period of years was on very shaky financial foundations. It was almost operated by trustees or a firm of advisers that handled administrative problems. The firm of advisers did not have the courtesy of bringing the companies' branch into its confidence and discussing the matter with the branch.
On June 17 and 22 a notification appeared in the Canada Gazette that this company would cease to exist and that the date of the cessation of the charter would be published. We are now to eliminate that move by this bill. Many directives by the companies' branch must have been sent to this company. When a company says in the Canada Gazette that it will cease to exist and then comes before the house with this sort of private bill, surely it is engaging in a novel type of endeavour. Surely hon. members who are interested in the financial community and in the legal aspects of federal charters ought to be much concerned about this matter.
Here all the machinery that has been set up by the government has been unable to convince this firm over a period of years to toe the line. Not only did the company itself ignore the department but apparently the trustees or the people it had hired in Montreal to do its administrative work also ignored the department.


Mr. Dumont:: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
I wish to point out that we do not have a quorum in the house at present.


Mr. Forest:: We have a quorum.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, yes.

November 21, 1968
Private Bills


Bernard Dumont: We did not have it a while ago; there were only 17 of us.


James Hugh Faulkner: At the moment we have in excess of 20 hon. members in the committee.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, since we almost did not have a quorum it illustrates my point, that hon. members just are not as interested in this as they ought to be. Surely hon. members ought to ascertain for themselves whether any action we are now taking or about to take that will have the effect of side stepping previous legislation poses a danger. After all, members of the financial community are governed by federal legislation and federal charters.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I call to mind the number of bankruptcies of certain companies that are closely allied to agencies and to which we have granted a federal charter. Unless we provide machinery to demand certain reports and financial statements in keeping with the companies branch directives at an early stage of a company's financial difficulties, then we may well find ourselves exactly in the same position we were in in the case of Prudential. We all remember the recent bankruptcy of Commonwealth Trust. If it had not been for the fact that the insurance branch of the federal government stepped into the picture, and a period of three years had been permitted to elapse, then perhaps some 20 or 30 companies would have gone bankrupt and no money at all would have been netted. I am sure many shareholders across the country will be appreciative of the safeguards provided by provincial and federal legislation and are able to feel much more secure than would otherwise be the case.
In the committee reports, Mr. Chairman, I was disturbed at certain things I read. For example, one member of parliament continually intervened and finally moved a motion the effect of which was to ask the committee not to bother hearing the parliamentary agent explain the difficulties surrounding this company and why no protection had been afforded under the federal charter. The hon. member went on to ask for an assurance in writing from the parliamentary agent. I think this hon. member was derelict in his duty since he did not even listen to the parliamentary agent's explanation of the situation and why we should override legislation designed to prevent this sort of thing happening. While I am sympathetic to this company, Mr. Chair -
IMr. Forest.]
man, I am sure that the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill will agree that we should only override such considerations in exceptional circumstances.
I am reminded of an argument that was used when we used to discuss divorce, namely, that divorce should not be allowed except in the particular case we were discussing. Each case from the province of Quebec was treated as an exception. We are, in effect, treating this case as an exception and saying that the rules should not apply.
I suggest that the assurance that was given to the committee is not worth the paper it is written on. It serves no purpose whatsoever because the parliamentary agent is not responsible to parliament. I am sure that in most cases the parliamentary agent does not even know what his relationship is with parliament. In fact, I suspect some of them have not even paid to the Clerk their $25 parliamentary fee. Therefore I think his word in this case carries very little weight, and his word to the company carries absolutely none.
We must remember that the parliamentary agent gets his information from the company only. I am sure he did not investigate the wishes of the company shareholders. Therefore they are not protected against the action that we are proposing to take, and in most cases I do not think we can provide them with such protection. We are taking away whatever protection the shareholders have by paying no attention to the fact that for three years the companies' branch was trying to get an assurance from the company that it was operating in the best interests of its shareholders.
Many hon. members will say that this is not relevant to the question now before the committee. I realize the hon. member himself is vitally interested in this matter because the situation occurred in his own area. I am also prepared to take his word that it would be a hell of a good thing to give these employees a long period of employment. But we must keep in mind that he is making an exception here in a legal sense in that we are overriding machinery that we have provided to prevent this sort of thing occurring. I hope this does not become a precedent.


An hon. Member:: Not in your time.


William Arnold Peters: There are some members of this house who will not learn much about the parliamentary system even after four years. It may be that what I say will not be given much consideration, but to those who want to
November 21, 1968

go for supper I say that I shall be here for a period yet.
If it were within my power to do so I would certainly not permit the passage of this type of legislation, and I am sure there are other members of the house who feel the same as I do. I think we are engaging in a dangerous practice in passing this legislation. I do not think we should override legislation that is set up to establish letters of patent, federal charters and so on. We should make sure that the shareholders of companies and others concerned are given protection in cases where such machinery is abused.
The procedure for so doing is fairly simple. All they need do is make a report to the companies' branch. The branch could then ascertain the facts and decide whether the shareholders should be protected. While we are sympathetic to the cause being espoused here, I suggest we are not at all in sympathy with the method being used, which might be considered a doubtful precedent for bailing out of trouble other companies that get into similar difficulty.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, since we
received explanations in French on that bill, we see our way about a bit more clearly, and I agree with the opinion expressed by the member who spoke before me: it may be dangerous sometimes to rush through bills of this type.
I find it somewhat surprising that members of the government party did not forward any explanations, at least to enlighten us. Considering the salaries of parliamentarians and ministers, we must be informed, because according to the explanations given us, it would seem at first sight that the whole idea was to get rid of someone. It is the first thing that comes to mind; this company was seemingly going to be dissolved or it was, once again, a case of camouflaging some ma-nouvres which were not in the best interests of Canada.
So as the previous speaker said earlier, we will allow this bill to be passed, knowing that because of the promise given to the committee, we shall see, at some future time, a treasurer's report and will thus be reassured that we did not pass it with undue haste.
I sincerely believe that members of the opposition are able to prove their outstanding usefulness, and if, later on, in Canada or even in the United States shareholders of this
Private Bills
company feel that their interests are endangered, it would be quite natural for them-as the government party does not appear to give further information, to come and see members of the opposition who could then tell the house what may happen when we pay a bill about which we are left in the dark.
Anyhow, we shall support this bill, as an exception to a rule. However, as the hon. member who spoke earlier mentioned, we should not make a habit of this sort of thing.


Mr. Breau:: I would like to say just a few words, Mr. Chairman. I agree with the hon. member when he requires members of the ruling party who wish to introduce a bill to provide the house with every bit of information desired. The hon. member will however agree with me that the bill has been under the consideration of the Committee on miscellaneous private bills and standing orders and that there has been no pressure whatsoever to rush the proceedings or to conceal anything.
1	have always, together with the witnesses, answered every question. On the motion on second reading, I was here to answer any question that might be put and the hon. member will surely admit there has never been any constraint or any attempt at holding back the truth.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this clause reads:
Within the two months following the adoption of the present act, all returns prescribed by the said Canada Corporations Act, shall have to be filed and received for and in the name of the said company, notwithstanding any stipulation of the said act, or notice to the contrary.
How do we enforce this? What machinery is available to do so if these terms are not fulfilled? I suggest that we leave out clauses 2 and 3 because we do not have any machinery to enforce them, although there may be some justification for clause 3 because it is reinstating the charter under letters patent.


Herb Breau: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I have to disagree with the hon. member. Clause
2	is inserted to make sure that the returns that were not filed for three years shall be filed within two months. If the company does not file them within two months then the bill is void and the company has lost its charter, and the notices that have been served to the company have automatically been in effect. If the company does not file these returns then it

November 21, 1968
Private Bills
had better not come to see me to pilot another bill. I think it is important that the returns which were not filed for three years be filed within two months.


William Arnold Peters: I am sure that was the intention. If so we should amend the clause to say that if its terms are not adhered to within two months then the bill becomes null and void. Unless we write this into the legislation we have no agency to act on our behalf to see that the terms of the clause are fulfilled. We should write in a penalty making the bill null and void if the said conditions are not lived up to because otherwise we do not have anything to enforce them.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, if I understood the sponsor of the bill correctly he said that if the returns are not filed within two months of the bill becoming law then the effect will be that the act will become null and void. If I am correct then, with great respect, I submit that he is entirely wrong. Once parliament passes a law, that is the law.
Clause 1, which we have just considered, says that the various notices that have been given and Gazetted and published pursuant to the Canada Corporations Act shall be deemed never to have had effect for Atlantic Peat Moss Ltd. That is what this bill is doing. It is saying that those particular notices are wiped out and shall be deemed never to have existed.
Clause 3, which we have not reached, talks about the rights, obligations and liabilities incurred since the issuance of the company's letters patent and says that the company shall continue in operation as if it had never been dissolved. There is no requirement here which says that if the company does not meet the requirements set out in clause 2 then the effect of the bill shall be null and void, as advocated by the hon. member for Timiskam-ing. I am sure the sponsor of the bill would agree that the committee could write a penalty type amendment saying that if this requirement is not lived up to then the act shall cease to have force and effect.
In this case parliament is being asked to make an extremely extraordinary decision. We are being asked to say in effect that something did not exist when it in fact existed. We are being asked to use the eraser, to wipe the slate clean, to say that the parliament of Canada says that all the things that happened did not happen.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
All the members who have participated in this debate have thought of this action in
[Mr. Breau.l
terms of being a precedent and of a subsequent parliament harkening back to it and saying: parliament did that and therefore it is all right to do it again. It seems to me that we should write in some penalty provision. I am sure this could be done. I believe there should be something which would indicate that if there was failure to meet the commitment to the parliament of Canada to file certain returns within two months of the adoption of the act, the force of the act should disappear. If the hon. member would agree to that, perhaps we could spend a moment writing an amendment around it.


Herb Breau: The hon. gentleman is right when he states that once parliament has passed an act all clauses of the act are also passed. I do not see the necessity to have a penalty. This is merely to protect parliament and engage the committee to file the annual returns of the corporation. Unless they do this the notices will have an effect on the charter of the company. Although I am not a lawyer, this would seem to me to be clear.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, we are in agreement on at least one aspect of this; that is, once parliament passes an act it is the law of the land. If that law is silent on a particular point and is silent on the point of a penalty, then how can something cease to exist? The act will still have full force and effect. Perhaps I might read clause 2 in its entirety where it says:
Within two months following the adoption of the present act, all returns prescribed by the said Canada Corporations Act, shall have to be filed and received for and in the name of the said Company, notwithstanding any stipulation of the said act, or notice to the contrary.
The difficult part is where it says, "the said act". I assume this has reference to the Canada Corporations Act since it mentions stipulations of it. The wording is, "any stipulation of the said act, or notice to the contrary".
Although we are not dealing with clause 3, perhaps I might allude to it since I believe it relates to the whole matter we are discussing. It says:
Nothing in the present act shall be construed as depriving or discharging the directors, and shareholders and the company of any right, obligation or liability incurred since issuance of its letters patent and the said company shall continue in operation as if it had never been dissolved.
If clause 3 were to say, "and shall continue in operation as if it had never been dissolved", followed by words such as, "if the returns required to be filed by clause 2 are
November 21, 1968

not required, then the act would cease to have force and effect", what the hon. gentleman says would be correct.
I should like to move-
-that clause 2 be renumbered clause 2 (a) and that a new clause 2 (b) be inserted as follows:
"Failure to comply with the requirements of section 2 (a) will make all sections of this act null and void."
That is what the hon. gentleman has agreed should exist. If it is not spelled out I do not believe it could be interpreted in that way. I put forward the above amendment seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming. I do not think there is any disagreement among the hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Timiskaming, myself, and anybody else, about what parliament should do. It is a matter of ensuring that what we want to do is properly formed in the words of the act and the bill itself. It may be that one could quibble about a sentence or a word or two in the amendment. Perhaps the drafsmanship is not as precise as it would be were it done by one who spends his time drafting legislation. However the facts are there, and if accepted I believe the amendment would probably clear up what the hon. gentleman sponsoring the bill, and others in this house, want to see done.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the amendment carry? [Translation]


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, were I not convinced that our two colleagues of the New Democratic party are intelligent, I would say they did not understand anything. However, since they are clever, I have come to the conclusion that they want to make some kind of filibuster. There is an old saying: There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.
The clause we are studying is clear, Mr. Chairman, and it seems our friends are muddling up clause 2 and clause 3, which are entirely different.
Clause 2 says:
Within the two months following the adoption of the present act, all returns prescribed by the said Canada Corporation Act, shall have to be filed and received for and in the name of the said Company, notwithstanding any stipulation of the said act, or notice to the contrary.
It is not necessary to be very competent to know that the companies not abiding by the provisions of the Canada Corporations Act- and I am sorry I do not have the clause before me-immediately lose their operation rights. This point is sure.
Private Bills
However, let us imagine that a director of the company wants to resort to this gimmick to have it evade its responsibilities towards its customers or the government or any others. Clause 3 states that under the Canada Corporations Act, even if the said company has not fulfilled all its obligations according to its charter or finds its operations crippled, its responsibilities remain the same.
It seems to me that this is crystal clear, Mr. Chairman, and those who do not understand must deliberately refuse to do so. The amendment suggested is therefore superfluous and unnecessary, since there are already in the Canada Corporations Act provisions for such cases.


Bernard Dumont: Could the member for Trois-Rivieres inform us why he would oppose such an amendment if it is to shed more light on the situation?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I am against it because it is absolutely unnecessary. Why repeat something that has already been said in such an important and basic act as the Canada Corporations Act?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I did not raise this by way of a point of order because it is not really that valuable a contribution the hon. member for Three Rivers has just made.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.

I remember that my hon. friend once said that if I said "British Columbia" in this house he would say "Trois Rivieres". I have always said "British Columbia" since then, so I have honoured my part of the agreement.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Frank Howard: I think if the hon. gentleman will recall the discussion we had about the use of the designation "Columbia-Britannique" he will remember that I suggested to him-and this was when he sat on this side of the house and was only an honorary member of the Liberal party, not a full-fledged member-that if he and his colleagues from the province of Quebec would quit referring to my province as "Columbia-Britanni-que" I would gladly refer to his constituency by the name he gives it. That has not happened. In any event, we had some discussion

November 21, 1968
Private Bills
subsequent to that. I am not knowledgeable in terms oi detailed understanding of linguistics, languages or grammar, but I have discussed this matter with the people who are knowledgeable, and I have been told what the situation is. It has been suggested that in referring to a riding you must use a proper noun, and the name of a constituency falls within that category. The name being a proper noun, it is correct to refer to the constituency in the French language as Trois-Rivieres, as the hon. member does, or in the English language as Three Rivers, and each is correct.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. This has nothing to do with the bill.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Three Rivers, ou Trois-Rivieres, raised a point of order. Surely hon. members on the other side must know what is going on.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. It might be in the interests of the committee as a whole if we returned to the amendment, the clause as amended, the clause as it is, or at any rate some part of this bill.


Frank Howard: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that there is no point of order as raised by the hon. member for Three Rivers, and I can proceed to deal with the subject under discussion. The hon. member for Three Rivers, ou Trois-Rivieres, whichever you like, said that the amendment before us, as I understood the translation, was part of a systematic obstruction on our part. I presume he meant on my part, as the mover of the amendment, and on the part of the hon. member for Timiskaming, the seconder, and incidentally the drafter of the amendment.
In dealing with this accusation of systematic obstruction, let me point out that before we embarked upon the consideration of this bill, when Mr. Speaker was still in the chair, after a discussion with the parliamentary assistant to the President of the Privy Council, who anticipated the early passage of this bill, I suggested to the house that it make an order to the effect that upon the conclusion of this bill the house should recess for supper. Parliament only makes such an order when there is an expectation that an item under consideration will be concluded before the expiration of the private members hour. I took that step on that basis. The accusation of the hon. member regarding systematic obstruction is an indication to me of his lack of appreciation of the facts of parliamentary life.

The question as to whether this bill will have some validity arose subsequent to a conversation in respect of clause 2. The answer we obtained from the sponsor of the bill, and I forget the name of his constituency, was that if the company did not file its reports within the required time the bill would be null and void. Perhaps I misunderstood him. Will the hon. member clarify this?


Herb Breau: Mr. Chairman, what I intended to say was that if clause two of the bill was not complied with by the company it was automatic that the bill would be null and void.
Clause 1 says that the notices given on June 2 and June 17, 1967, and June 22, 1968 in the Canada Gazette by virtue of section 125(12) of the Canada Corporations Act shall be deemed never to have had effect as for the Atlantic Peat Moss Company, "subject to the following sections." This means it is subject to clauses two and three of the bill. As far as I am concerned the amendment is repetitious and that is why I cannot see the necessity for it.
The hon. member for Skeena suggests that if we pass clause 1 it will become law, but it will be the law subject to the other sections. I am not a lawyer, but this is very clear to me. If the company does not fulfil its obligations so far as clause 2 is concerned this bill will be no good and will have no validity.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer but I think that what will happen as a result of the gazetted notices on the 2nd and 17th of June, 1967 and the 22nd of June, 1968 under the Canada Corporations Act, or a failure to live up to the obligations, is that at some period subsequent to the publication the charter will be revoked. We are not by the amendment wiping out the company, we are simply wiping out the notice required.
I am not in a position to say who drafted this bill, but I suppose it was drafted by a lawyer with little experience in parliamentary procedure. The bill goes on to say in clause 2 that the company must do certain things within a certain period of time. Clause 3 contains an entirely different obligation. What we are suggesting is that if these obligations are not met we reverse the situation and reinstate the obligations in respect of notice. We are suggesting that in that event this obligation should apply. If the amendment moved by the hon. member for Skeena
November 21, 1968

is accepted, and the obligations are not met, this bill will be deemed not to have been passed.
There is nothing in the bill which suggests that the notices required to be published on June 17, 1967 and June 22, 1968 are now in effect. Apparently they have been published and we cannot reverse that. If the company has met the requirements of the Canada Corporations Act it has met these obligations. All we are suggesting is that we waive this notice. In clause 3 we go further and say that we should forget about the whole thing and that it did not happen. We suggest that the personal liability on the part of the directors of the company should apply.
I am prepared to allow this bill to stand in order that the hon. member might consult the legal personnel, but I am of the opinion that we are not asking for anything other than protection, so that if the company again fails to live up to the obligation in respect of notice, appropriate steps can be taken. The company has failed to live up to these obligations for a period of three years. Perhaps the hon. member would like to move another amendment changing the period from two months to perhaps four or five months. We say that if they do not live up to it, this bill does not apply; the requirements of the old charter with regard to notice of termination will apply and there will automatically be a cancellation of the company.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
I am not wedded to the idea of two months. I did not write this provision in the bill; the hon. member or his lawyers wrote it in. I have no objection to that provision being changed, but I suggest we have to include some protection in the bill otherwise a long period of time could go by and we would find we had already wiped out the notice, and the only thing the companies branch could do would be to start all over again, unless we do something to wipe out the terms of our amendment.
It sounds to me rather like the situation where a marriage has taken place, a separation is sought and then we wipe out the separation by applying for an annulment. I suggest that if we write in this provision we will eliminate the annulment and get back to the separation again. It seems very simple to me and I do not know why there should be any objection to writing into the bill this very small amount of protection so that the house does not do something that it will regret in the future.
Private Bills


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the necessity for the amendment because it is quite clear, as far as I am concerned, in clause 1 that if the company does not file its return within two months it cannot use the provisions of this bill. But I agree with the hon. member that there is nothing wrong with the amendment, so I am ready to support it.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Howard, Skeena) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.


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


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Frank Howard: On division.


Herb Breau: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to special order made this day, the house will now recess until 8 p.m.
At seven o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
James Hugh Faulkner: Order. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-J ean.


Mr. Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Chairman, before the six o'clock adjournment, I was talking about the arbitration method now used with regard to collective bargaining.
If the situation is so tense today in the field of collective bargaining it is because monopolies have appeared in our industry and that has led to the creation of the labour

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
movement which in turn tends to monopolize things. In fact, the labour unions are becoming more and more powerful and they bring together a very large number of workers in order to countervail the power of private enterprise.
Therefore, I do not think that we should be shocked at the fact that our trade unions merged, that the various groups united, to be in a position to offset the opposing power.
Mr. Chairman, if we want our economy and especially labour relations to operate more smoothly, more progressively, we must amend the present arbitration legislation to make it more functional and likely to bring about solutions to problems facing the various groups, during the negotiations for collective agreements.
Mr. Chairman, one fact remains in all that: the rising prices and salaries. With the inflation spiral, in the end we are worse off than we were at the start.
After checking with a good number of workers and citizens in my riding, I am wondering whether setting up a control board of prices and salaries might not be indicated.
A while ago, a member for Hamilton-Went-worth (Mr. Gibson) mentioned this possibility. I would go even a bit further: I ask that consideration be given to the advisability of setting up a board to control prices and salaries, on a temporary basis, so that we might return to a realistic and reasonable equilibrium in this aspect of our national life. I believe it would be wise to have such a board which could, with other competent people, arbitrate, if you will, prices and salaries in order to adjust the various sectors.
At the present time, you have well-organized groups of workers, strong industries, and they can demand and obtain decent living conditions. Still, between those two groups, you have this mass of Canadian citizens who are crushed, so to speak, between the two powerful blocks facing each other. I feel that we need some control system of prices and salaries, even if it were only on a temporary basis, in order to go back to a reasonable balance.
I wonder whether, starting from this new balance, it might not be advisable to apply same correction to lower prices and salaries so that we might compete on world markets. For instance, there are countries like Japan where the standard of living and salaries are generally fairly low, that manage to compete with the countries in our hemisphere precisely because their prices are lower. I feel this possibility should be looked into.

At the present time, the point which surely concerns the hon. Minister of Labour, is the famous question of unemployment. I wonder whether it might not be well to declare war on unemployment. Let the country be put on a war footing. If Canada were attacked by any opponent from the outside, all its energies, industries and citizens would be mobilized instantly to fight for the country. But the fact that we are tolerating this group of unemployed constitutes, up to a point, an enemy, since our unfortunate brothers take away part of the country's production without directly contributing thereto.
This segment of the population-and I refer here to the recently published report of the Canada Economic Council-represents a rather significant percentage of our people, almost a third, who do not have the same standard of living as their fellow-citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I think all the energies and efforts available in Canada should be mobilized to fight the scourge of unemployment. I believe that Canada cannot afford the luxury of having so many unproductive citizens, so many people who forcibly have a minimum consumption, but who are consumers just the same, while not contributing to the production. I contend that we cannot afford that kind of luxury, particularly when we consider all that remains to be done in this country. It is illogical to hold up that energy, that potential instead of using it to complete what has already been started and also to start new projects.
Furthermore, after reviewing the needs of other countries, we could use our imagination to produce more in a number of other areas and then give part of our production to other nations whose citizens suffer and die by the thousands in some cases.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, in concluding my remarks, I should like to refer to another matter, automation. I mentioned automation in my remarks on the budget. I think it has also been mentioned by the hon. Minister of Labour in his speech. I may therefore rightly raise the subject again.
Automation, mechanization and modem technology must be taken into account. I ask the hon. minister to let us know as soon as possible what legislation he intends to present and in what fields it will be applied. On page 2 of the text of his speech, it is said that that legislation is being prepared. I am anxious

and I think
November 21, 1968

the majority of the members of this house are equally anxious-to see what measures the government, and in particular the Minister of Labour, intend to take so as to correct the situation which affects workers in the whole of Canada.
I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand) to a typical example. In the ending of Lac-Saint-Jean, a municipality of 2,000 inhabitants will be affected soon by the closing down of its only plant. The Saint-Raymond Paper, a pulp and paper plant, announced two days ago that it was closing down at the beginning of March. As a result, 200 families will find themselves destitute and we will have to support them through taxes, by giving them social welfare and unemployment insurance benefits. Is that a desirable situation?
Mr. Chairman, that plant had been established 46 years ago and, during the first years, it yielded profits. However, the management forgot to invest money for the development of the factory and today it cannot even survive, because they did not mechanize or modernize their equipment. Today, they are compelled to shut down on account of competition. We have there an example which specifically proves that businesses have no choice; they must develop and modernize their production line.
It is a known fact that workers are laid off due to automation, but we have the proof today that this company must shut down, because it was not improved. It is not 10 or 12 workers who are laid off, as a result of technical progress, but actually 200 family heads. They are laid off, because during the years preceding the shutting down of the plant, no improvement was done to enable it to compete against other plants.
Mr. Chairman, the municipality of Desbiens in the Lac-Saint-Jean area is doomed to become a ghost town, because that is the only plant there. I have submitted the problem to the Minister of Labour, to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) and to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. I hope-which I urge them to do-that they will combine their efforts to consider what could be done in co-operation with the provincial government to enable that Desbiens plant to continue its operations.
According to the company's spokesmen, some temporary solution could be applied apparently while waiting for a permanent one, and if the governments stepped in before the plant closed down, I think it would be pos-
Supply-Labour
sible to keep 200 workers on the job, in the hope that, in the meantime, some permanent solution could be found, so that this plant would not only remain in operation but also flourish in order to create more jobs in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Chairman, lest it go unnoticed, I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members the colourful flowers being worn by hon. members to my right. I hope this is an indication of their flowery outlook on the situation and perhaps an optimism for the future of our Canadian society.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Howard Lundrigan: This is the first time I have ever received applause from people of that particular political stripe. In all seriousness, before my time runs out I think I should compliment the minister upon his very fine statement this afternoon. We are hoping that statements of the kind that have been made by hon. members this afternoon will be translated into reality in the Canadian nation of today and tomorrow, because I think the portfolio for which the minister has responsibility is going to become more important, not less important, as may be the case in some other areas of the estimates before us.
I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to make a few general remarks. I have been connected with the labour market, contrary to what many members might think, in connection with everything from railroad building to fishing, trapping for the department of mines and resources, and almost every aspect of the labour market. In fact I have had a lot of practical experience in trying to survive in this society of ours, especially in a particular region of Canada.
With Christmas coming on and the winter months setting in across Canada, I wonder how we can take pride in our Canadian nation. I should like to refer to the people in many parts of Canada today, for example in Quebec, northern Ontario and in northern Canada generally, parts of British Columbia and the whole Atlantic region. These people cannot even think in terms of providing food for the winter, let alone the provision of gifts from Santa Claus for their children. They cannot even think of providing adequate shelter, clothing or the necessities of life, not to mention the important necessity of education so that eventually these children can look to

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
the future with a little bit of hope of getting out of the despair in which they presently find themselves.
How can we talk about the affluent society in this Canadian nation, when we realize that in many regions of Canada there is no afflu-ency, but rather a pseudo type of affluency resulting from the fact that people can more easily borrow money than they could a few years ago, and consequently have more debt than they ever had before. If the Minister of Justice were here, I should like to ask him what constitutes a crime in Canada. Of course the Chairman might rule me out of order on that question, because it would be construed as being off the topic of debate. I contend that there is a great crime in the Canadian nation today, and that crime is being committed by most of the big businesses and the various other agencies that have control of the labour market.
The consequences of this crime are low wages, a low standard of living, the high cost of living and unemployment. People in various parts of Canada are being classified as having committed a crime just because they were born in a particular part of Canada. Somebody in Canada, in many cases this government and as I have indicated businesses of various types, construction companies of various types, have elected to classify as a crime the fact that people live in a particular part of Canada. In my opinion this is a fairly serious situation. We have heard quite a bit of conversation about one Canada. This concept originated when I was a much younger man than I am right now, and dates back ten or 12 years. I believe there has been some effort made to turn the concept into a reality.
We heard quite a bit of comment about one Canada during the recent election. Many people in various parts of Canada were given the hope that Canada would become great. I contend that as long as we have the amount of regional disparity that we have in Canada today, we are going to have not two or three Canadas, but 15 or 20 Canadas. Unless this government is prepared to tackle the problem of regional disparity, not only in the Atlantic regions but many other regions of Canada, we are going to have a multiplicity of Canadas. This is the one great fear I have as a young Canadian. In order to fight regional disparity, there has to be provision for stimulating the economy. These stimulants are employment and a just wage structure.

[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
In the few months I have been in Ottawa a great deal of my correspondence has had to do with the low wages that Canadians in this country are paid. That applies not only to the people of my region but to those all across the country. I hope the minister will take note of my remarks and do something to correct this state of affairs. Many of our workmen across Canada are not receiving the minimum wage to which they are justly entitled, by law. Whether people work in industry, construction, for federal or provincial governments indirectly-that is, in projects coming under the jurisdiction of those governments-or in private enterprise, many of them are not receiving a fair and just wage. In other words, our wage earners are not receiving the wage that is theirs legally.
Hon. members have talked a great deal about the minimum wage that is paid to workers across Canada. Failure to pay that minimum wage shakes one's faith in our society. The winter months are approaching and some people in Canada are faced literally with semi-starvation, and all the ills of an environment which would be disgraceful even in poorer parts of the world, let alone in Canada. There are loopholes and clauses in government contracts as a result of which companies take advantage of their workers and pay them less than that to which they are entitled, by law. This makes one wonder about the sort of society we live in.
I will not expand on my remarks. I have already made representations to the minister with regard to specific areas in which Canadian workers are being gypped of their legal right to wages. I hope the minister will use his good offices to bring about an investigation that will rectify some of these things. That this state of affairs exists in Canada is a crime, and I use that word intentionally. Many in Canada do not earn an income which will even remotely give them a decent standard of living.
The hon. member who led off in this debate said that in the Atlantic region over 5 per cent of the people are unemployed. In some parts of Canada such as Newfoundland 20 per cent of the people are unemployed. I have talked to hon. members from Quebec who have indicated to me the serious situation existing in their province at this time.


An hon. Member:: We are listening to you over here.
November 21, 1968


John Howard Lundrigan: It is fine for the hon. Liberal member to say he is listening, but it is time someone said what is to be done. Perhaps the hon. member who just interjected might like to stand up and tell us about the problems in his province. Perhaps hon. members from different parts of Canada might like to follow the courage of their convictions and tell us of the problems existing in the parts of the country they represent. For instance, there are grave problems in northern British Columbia as well as in Ontario.
I am proud to stand here as a member of the opposition and talk of problems that affect all Canadians. I am bringing these problems to the government's attention, and I suggest hon. members on the other side of the chamber might do the same. Since other hon. members may wish to make their contribution to the debate and bring the attention of the government to the problems in their respective province, I shall say no more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, so many speakers this afternoon and this evening have made remarks that were pro-labour and pro-union, and so many speakers have dealt with problems that concern members of trade unions, that I feel I should start my remarks by saying, "Brother Chairman, sisters and brothers". When I look about me, though, I realize I am not in a union hall.
Brother Chairman, I should be less than frank if I did not begin by saying something about the speech this afternoon by Comrade Mackasey. In fact I was quite impressed by the answer the Minister of Labour gave to my question on orders of the day concerning action on the Freedman report. Likewise I was impressed by the fine speech he made when introducing these estimates this afternoon.
The Leader of the Opposition took issue with the Minister of Labour-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As usual.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
Leader of the Opposition said he thought the minister was lecturing us, lecturing the house and lecturing the public. There was a certain amount of lecturing in the speech but I forgive him for that, for it seems to me that included in his remarks there was a clear indication that he was lecturing his fellow members of the cabinet. If I understood him correctly he was saying to those cabinet colleagues who were here that, so far as he was
Supply-Labour
concerned, the Department of Labour has to move ahead. It must have the permission of the cabinet to bring in legislation to implement the Freedman report, to do something about the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, to do something to step up the enforcement of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and the Canada Labour (Safety) Code. It must do something about discrimination. You know, all told it was a good speech. It was the kind of speech I can imagine the minister making in cabinet and I think he deserves full marks for making it here, out in the open, on the floor of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: thought he was serving notice that he wants his department to be a department of and for labour. He wants the work of his department to result in labour's having a rightful place in this country. In some portions of his speech he dealt in generalities, but in other portions he was specific, and I congratulate him for that and I confess that I congratulate any Liberal, especially any Liberal cabinet minister, with reluctance for every instinct in me tells me it is the wrong thing to do.


Howard Russell MacEwan: You had better beware.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
experience in this house is to beware when a Liberal, especially a cabinet minister, makes a promise and tells us something will be done. I do not mean that the promise will never be implemented, but it takes an awfully long time. Some of my colleagues would like me to mention the year 1919; the Liberals do not want me to do that, because some of them were not born then. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman-brother chairman-and I see we are changing brothers in the chair-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -despite my instincts that tell me it is wrong, and that I am making a mistake and will regret it, I will say that in light of what the Minister of Labour said this afternoon, I am prepared to give him a chance. I am prepared to give him a reasonable period of time-I will not tell him how long it is-to deliver and come through with some of the things concerning which he spoke so vigorously this afternoon. I have already credited him with having been specific in two or three cases, so let me add to the list of

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
specifics on which the minister must act if he is to carry through with the position that he staked out in his remarks this afternoon.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
It all began today, Mr. Chairman, with his answer to my question about the Freedman report and his report and his further reference to it in his opening remarks on these estimates. As we all know, the philosophy of the Freedman report is especially important to Canadian labour. My colleague the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has already spelled out the details.
In the main the Freedman report says that workers have just as much stake in their jobs as management has; that workers have rights with respect to their jobs which are not to be sold down the river by management. I was delighted to hear the Minister of Labour say this afternoon that certain recent experiences have persuaded him that it is not good enough just to do what the previous minister of labour did, which was to tell us that the department would take action on the matter. The minister stated clearly that legal legislative steps have to be taken.
A former minister of labour, whose name somebody over there could not remember, used to say that he always said things in a kindly way, so I am going to turn these kindly references to this Minister of Labour into straightforward congratulations if within a reasonable time he has before the house legislation amending the Freedman report.
That would be fine, Mr. Chairman, but the minister cannot stop there. There is also the whole question of amending the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I know that if I remind this minister that his predecessor but one-his penultimate predecessor, the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration-promised on a certain occasion a few years ago that that act would be amended the next year, I need not point out that in fact it was not amended.
The minister will probably tell me that in the meantime the Woods commission has been established and that we are of course waiting for the report of that commission before action is taken on this question. However, Mr. Chairman, the indications are that that report will be received soon, and surely the department itself is thinking about the things the commission is studying. Therefore I suggest that there are improvements affecting the whole process of collective bargaining that need to be made in the legislation.

I trust that the Minister of Labour, who is a man who tries to see all sides of the issue, will be aware of what some of us think were the pitfalls that were put before us last year in what was then Bill No. C-186, and that he will see to it that any amendments he proposes to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act will not have as their possible result the fragmentation of the collective bargaining process in this country.
I am prepared to leave discussion of that legislation at that point, Mr. Chairman, recognizing that we have to receive first of all the Woods report. But let us not have the Woods report lying around for as long as the report on unemployment insurance has been lying around, or have it lie around for as long as we have had the Liberal platform of 1919.
However, Mr. Chairman, let me move on; as I say I am being very helpful to the Minister of Labour. I liked his speech this afternoon and I think I should reciprocate. I am therefore suggesting things that he could do to show that he really meant it when he said that he wanted to make his department one that will serve the working people of this country.
I think it is time he took a good hard look at the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. Time moves fast in this day and age, so let him not tell us that it has been on the books for only a few years, that we must live with it for 10 or 20 years before we change it. I suggest that he take a look in particular at the minimum wage provided in the legislation. Other people have talked about the minimum wage this afternoon but nobody ventured a figure. Even the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, who wants the minimum wage raised, did not say to what figure it should be raised.
If the Minister of Labour would like to have it, Mr. Chairman, there is a bill of mine in the list of private members public bills that suggests that the minimum figure should be not less than $1.75 an hour. At present it is $1.25 an hour. I am not terribly proud of the figure of $1.75 an hour, but I think it is at least a minimum below which people should not be asked to work under any condition. Even if a person receives the minimum wage of $1.75 an hour, working a 40-hour week for 50 weeks a year, he will still earn only $3,400 a year, which is about at today's poverty line. So where does that leave the present $1.25 minimum wage, particularly in the case of those who do not get work all year round? Therefore, Mr. Chairman, that is one matter
November 21, 1968

on which his own stance this afternoon calls for action.
I would ask him to take a look at the holiday provisions in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. The code still provides for only two weeks holiday a year, after one year employment with the same employer. I urge that in this day and age this period should be lengthened. Again, Mr. Chairman, I point out that I have a modest bill on the order paper that suggests that after three years employment the annual holiday should at least be three weeks a year.
The minister might also look at the question of statutory holidays. When the bill was brought in some years ago it contained provision for seven statutory holidays. We were able to get that bill amended on the floor of the house in committee of the whole so that it provides for eight statutory holidays. I see no reason why there should not be at least nine holidays. I suggest there is really nothing wrong with the principle that there be at least one statutory holiday per month in this country, particularly since it is a cold country and a few days off in the middle of the winter season might be a good idea. Therefore I urge the minister to take a look at that suggestion. However, if I am going too far in suggesting one day a month, 12 days a year, we should at least raise the figure of eight to nine.
The provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code relating to the 40-hour work week also might be improved. However, in all realism I suppose I would have to admit that the first job is to get the 40-hour week really lived up to.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, I would call upon the Minister of Labour to include in the stance that he has taken a clear indication that he is not going to be led down the garden path by some of his backbenchers. As the minister knows, there are a couple of private members bills on the order paper in the name of Liberal members, one of which seeks to reduce the position of labour so far as collective bargaining in the civil service is concerned. The other would deny the 40-hour work week to certain workers who fall within the federal labour code. So that while the minister is making these forward steps I suggest that he watch he is not knifed in the back by some of the brothers over on that side of the house.
Then I would urge the Minister of Labour to see to it that his department get cracking on the Canada Labour (Safety) Code. He will
Supply-Labour
remember how in a certain session a year or two ago we were pressed by a former minister of labour-the last one-to get this legislation through. We were debating it in committee and taking time to go into its details. The minister of labour pleaded with us to get the legislation through because the government wanted to get things moving. I do not know whether the regulations under the act are in effect even yet. I see the minister shake his head. He should also shake his head in shame, if he had been the minister for very long, but he does not have to do that because he was not. However, he is the minister now. I will give him a little time to deliver the goods, Mr. Chairman, but this is an area where the goods must be delivered.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I think the minister has to go beyond some of the things that have been regarded as his particular area-for example, the matters I have named such as the Freedman report, the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and the two labour codes. He must also be concerned about things such as poverty-yes, pensions-yes, and the concept of the guaranteed annual income. I was glad to hear the Minister of Labour say this afternoon that he felt it was his responsibility to be concerned about the people who are not able to keep up with inflation. Inflation is a word that gets tossed around a lot in this house and in public debate throughout the country. It is said time and time again that governments must somehow stop inflation, and if the government of the day does not, the opposition of the day condemns it out of hand. Then when the two get reversed the same thing happens in reverse.
I quite agree that steps have to be taken to control the rate of inflation. Steps have to be taken in that area, but let us face the fact that if history, especially the history of the past couple of hundred years, is any guide, we are not going to keep prices where they are. Prices and wages in the year 2000 are not going to be what they are today. Price increases and wage increases are going to take place. The role of government, the role of society in this is to see to it that certain people who cannot defend themselves are not hurt because this happens.
Those who have collective bargaining, and those who get the benefit of wage increases because other people do their collective bargaining for them, are able to keep up to some extent with the cost of living and the increased standards of living. But those on

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
fixed incomes, pensioners in particular, do not have any opportunity to do this, and this is where society and where the government has to step in.
The present occupant of the Chair is fully aware of my concern for one particular group of pensioners. But there are other kinds, other groups of pensioners, particularly people on industrial pensions, who face this problem, and I say it has to become the concern of the Minister of Labour that somehow we get built into our pension schemes arrangements for pensions to escalate so that no group in our society is hurt by inflation. I call upon the minister to take on this idea, along with the others about which he must concern himself.
I have made passing reference to the guaranteed annual income concept, which I think has to come. I think some day it will take the place of minimum wage legislation and unemployment insurance. I plead with the Minister of Labour not to confuse the concept of a guaranteed annual income with the guaranteed income supplement that is in effect so far as old age security is concerned. I am sure he knows the vast difference between these two concepts. I am sure he agrees with me that, taking into account the speed with which things are moving, the explosions all around, 20 years from now if all we have achieved is guaranteed supplementary income, then the poverty of retired people is going to be staggering.
The work pattern is going to shift tremendously. Automation is going to produce drastic changes. Instead of our going blind into all this uncertainty and confusion we should plan for it, and should start now to make arrangements for a guaranteed annual income. Some ministers may say that this concerns some other department such as Finance, or Health and Welfare. It is probably a major concern of the whole government, but this is the minister who is responsible for the well being of the working people of this country, and this is the place where the planning should start.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is one other branch of the work of this department about which I should like to say a word. It involves the question of unemployment insurance. This afternoon the minister pointed out that we dealt with these estimates in the standing committee to which they were referred. But they have been referred back to the committee of supply and we have them before us now, and so I want to urge upon the minister

the urgency of the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which have been promised ever since the Gill committee made its report. I am not suggesting they should just be the recommendations made by that committee: There are many improvements and changes that must be made to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
This is the minister who said this afternoon that he is going to make something out of the Department of Labour. This is the minister who so impressed all of us that we feel we are in a union hall tonight. I say it is time for him to see to it that a job is done in amending that act. In the meantime, even before it gets amended, I urge the minister to take a personal interest on the other side of a question which has been given a great deal of publicity, and that is the desire of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to cut down on cases of fraud against the commission and against the fund.
Let it be perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to condone fraud in any way. I do not want to throw any cold water on any efforts to cut down fraudulant practices, but I do suggest that the way the commission is going about this is going to create an impression among a lot of people that there is a lot of chiselling going on, that downright thievery is taking place, with the result that anybody on unemployment insurance may be suspect.
I say quite frankly that I do not like this pamphlet put out in both languages by the Unemployment Insurance Commission titled "Are you really available for work?". Among other things it gives five examples of people who broke the law. They are all anonymous. One is a waitress, another a railway conductor, and the third a stenographer, the fourth a seasonal clerical worker and the last a sales clerk. No doubt they are samples from the files of the commission, but when you put out this kind of literature you create the suspicion that there is a wholesale amount of this type of thing going on.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission admits that the fraud that takes place amounts to only 2 per cent of the total. An editorial in the Toronto Daily Star of November 16 pointed out that the retail industry would count itself lucky if its annual loss through shoplifting was a mere 2 per cent. But there is the other side of the coin. The reason I raise this is because in my experience many people feel they are defrauded
November 21, 19S8

of their right to unemployment insurance because of the extra zeal of some of the department's officials who call people in, after they have been put on benefit, and get them to make the kind of statements which result in their being cut off.
We went into this question in some detail when dealing with the estimates in the standing committee, and so I do not intend to pursue it further at this time. But I do want to point out that in the minister's absence, when he was over at Geneva at I.L.O. meetings, the Prime Minister answered a question of mine on orders of the day in a manner that I found eminently satisfactory, and I hope the Minister of Labour, if he does not already know about it, will see to it the Prime Minister's statement is carried out.
On Wednesday, November 13, as recorded at page 2685 of Hansard I asked:
In view of the announcement that has been made of increased efforts to check abuses with respect to the unemployment insurance fund, will similar efforts be made to protect the rights of those who qualify for unemployment insurance to have their benefits continue without overzealous officials applying the availability clause too severely?
This was the reply of the Prime Minister:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is now attending I.L.O. meetings in Geneva. I am happy to give to this house the assurance that is demanded by the hon. member.
I did not think I was demanding it. I thought I was just asking for it, but I suppose that is one of our bilingual problems. At any rate there is a clearcut assurance by the Prime Minister that what 1 was requesting would be undertaken.
I hope the Minister of Labour will see to it that steps are taken to make sure the impression is not created that those on unemployment insurance are a bunch of frauds when, after all, the amount of the fraud is only 2 per cent of the total and when there are people-I don't know the percentage, it may be considerably higher than that-who are denied benefits to which they feel they are entitled.
The unemployment insurance fund is there to assist people who are unemployed because there is no employment for them. I hope the fund will be administered with an effort to make sure that it is not abused, but also with an effort to make sure that people get the benefits to which they are entitled.
Now, with respect to the whole question of unemployment, unemployment insurance and so on, I of course come back to the point that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby made in
Supply-Labour
the opening part of his remarks this afternoon, that the chief concern of the department and of the Minister of Labour should not be picking up the pieces when people are unemployed, but should be the initiating of policies that will produce employment.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
That is all our people want-not unemployment insurance, not being forced to work for minimum wages, but an opportunity to work at productive jobs that will provide levels of wages which will enable all of them to take some part in the just society. I have noticed that for the most part the references to the just society are now made from this side of the house. Liberals do not use the phrase very often; it embarrasses them. But the Minister of Labour did this this afternoon and he deserves credit for his courage in doing so. He made it clear that he believes workers and their families have a right to share in this just society.
Now, Mr. Chairman-I mean "brother Chairman"-I say again that I was delighted with the position the minister took this afternoon. If he thinks I am being friendly and congratulatory toward him now, fine; I am. But if he does not deliver he knows what will happen.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg North-


Stanley Howard Knowles: -Centre.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I always get confused about ridings. The hon. member has made me a little inarticulate for a moment. If he finds it strange to say anything complimentary about a Liberal cabinet member, I think my record in the house would show I find it equally difficult to find anything nice to say about the many socialist reactionaries in the New Democratic party at whom I have looked with so much affection for the past five years. I believe however, we do share one thing in common; that is, a deep concern for people, Canadians in all walks of life, entitled to a just society. We differ only with regard to the method by which we would achieve this just society. I often think that their philosophy is better suited to the nineteenth century and, although it is Utopian in concept, as an ideal it is not practical. I believe those of us on this side of the house will attain the just society and at the same time retain the better features of the private enterprise system which has been a character of Canada and Canadians.

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
I believe I do appreciate the concern expressed this evening by the hon. member from Winnipeg, who has a bill on the order paper for every situation. He suggested that I refer to the private members hour and private members bills for guidance. I will admit there are bills in his name in respect of perhaps every subject under the sun, but they are always progressive in the field of social welfare. They are designed to improve the plight of senior citizens and the position of the fixed incomes of civil servants with lower than standard salaries and lower than standard pensions, pensions which were set on an actuarial system which is long out of date. I have no quarrel with his concept.
I believe most people in this house know that if I am unable as Minister of Labour to implement some of these reforms-not necessarily along the lines the hon. member thinks are appropriate-and unless I am able to find support for this type of reform inside the Liberal cabinet, I would find it necessary to resign from the cabinet and demote myself to the back benches, where I would be free to express my opinions. However, I have confidence in the Liberal government. It has placed on the statute books of Canada every meaningful piece of pro-labour legislation that Canadians deserve and appreciate.
I have very little reservation about my ability to sell my concept to the cabinet, particularly when among the members of the cabinet are such very wonderful Canadians as my colleague who will be charged with the responsibility of eliminating regional disparity in a country as vast as Canada. I would commend to all members of the house the speech the hon. gentleman made in Montreal last night, which was published in great detail in La Presse, because I think it is very thought provoking and very tangible evidence of the fact that we do intend to attack poverty in this country on a meaningful basis.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would hardly expect me to comment on all the pieces of legislation he mentioned. He did mention the Industrial Disputes and Investigation Act. I have prepared no less than 80 some potential amendments to that act, but I am very conscious of the fact that the task force may come forward with better solutions.
The hon. member also mentioned Bill No. C-186. I would hope, when and if this type of legislation is brought forward, that he and other members of the house would approach it objectively and not as a matter of Quebec
[Mr. Mackasey.l
against Canada, the French against the English, or Jean Marchand against somebody else. This is not the type of attitude that makes the committee system in this house more desirable. I am not directing these remarks to the hon. gentleman, because he did not do this. I am referring to some of the people who did appear before that committee representing the labour movement in this country. They did mention to me, in secret however, that even if the bill was imperfect in their opinion and if freedom of association was not as important as national bargaining units, at least they agreed they might have attacked the bill for its weakness in structure and not resorted to an emotional attack on the government in order to defeat the bill.
Many people have been complimentary in their remarks this afternoon. This has a sobering effect on me and makes me more responsible just when I was preparing to rear back and remind the members of the New Democratic party of the failures in Saskatchewan and so on. I should like to comment on some of the issues which have been brought forward and say that I appreciated the remarks of the hon. gentleman opposite from Central Nova, who is the official labour critic of the Conservative party. In the years I have been in this house I have found that he is very strong in debate, and I have no illusions about whether or not he will make it difficult for me on the right or wrong occasion, as the case may be, depending where you sit.
I did appreciate his endorsation this afternoon of the philosophy contained in the Freedman report. I suspect this is the first time a Conservative member of parliament has ever endorsed the philosophy of the Freedman report. I think this is a sign of progress on their part. I should like to attribute that progress to the hon. gentleman, the very genial labour critic from Central Nova. When I take this concept to the cabinet and bring it back to the House of Commons in bill form, in view of the fact that the New Democratic party supports the idea and the official labour critic of the Conservative party is wedded to the philosophy in the Freedman report, the bill should have speedy passage.
The hon. member also mentioned the postal strike, although this more appropriately comes under Treasury Board rather than the Department of Labour. He made the point that much of the cause of labour strikes is not directly applicable to dollars and cents but rather to daily differences between management and labour, differences that grow out of all proportion, so that when the two parties
November 21, 1968

meet at the bargaining table there is real animosity, which is unnecessary and which prevents management and labour looking after the small details, which are small in their eyes but important in the eyes of the individual worker with a lunch pail. So I compliment the hon. member for bringing this to our attention. I cannot but agree that the problems which led to the postal strike were due to a type of working conditions the federal government should not be proud of and that it should have taken steps to eliminate that condition much sooner.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I was glad the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was here when the hon. member from Newfoundland-I believe he represents Gander-Twillingate-spoke, because in the very short period of time this young man has been in the house he has proved to be one of the more eloquent members. I appreciate the very fair way in which that hon. member mentioned in a passing manner some of the labour problems he had brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour. It would have been very easy for the hon. member to get up tonight and embarrass the minister or perhaps the government in respect of some of the problems he has discovered in relation to minimum wages and prevailing rates. He has brought these problems to my attention in private, and I have taken the trouble, as he knows, to send a special assistant to that beautiful province. This man is quite familiar with that province and he will be reporting back to me on the week end in respect of those specific cases brought to my attention. I hope if there is any evidence of intentional or unintentional injustices or abuses that we in the Department of Labour will, if necessary, be given the authority to step into other departments to see that the labour legislation of this country is respected not only by private enterprise but by government agencies as well.

I should like also to thank the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) for his interesting remarks on the activities of my department.
I appreciate the comments which were inspired to him by his activities in the labour movement. His practical experience as a member and as a worker in our Canadian society give weight to his remarks. I can assure him that they will be considered and that his suggestions with regard to unemployment insurance for instance will be studied,
Supply-Labour
even though consideration of the estimates of the commission has already been completed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, who represents one of the really great industrial centres of this country, also impressed me, and I learned much from his contribution, particularly when he spoke quite eloquently and factually about the problems of residual rights and how this is handled in other countries such as the United States, Sweden and England. This really is the basis of the philosophy of Freedman, as the hon. member and I both realize. The hon. member also mentioned the unemployment figures and asked whether I could bring him this evening a projection of unemployment for the winter in Canada. I am sorry to say that I cannot, because this particular responsibility falls under the jurisdiction of the department of manpower in conjunction with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I understand the implication of his request and his remarks. Any rate of unemployment is undesirable in a country which should be as prosperous as ours.
I think the departments of manpower, labour and what I have referred to, perhaps prematurely, as regional disparity, should work closer together to attack this problem of unemployment on a permanent basis. There has been reference to the winter works program, but we must realize that this program, desirable as it might have been ten years ago, has done little in a permanent way to re-educate and retrain people who are chronically out of work during the long winter months, which exist in many parts of this country. I think we must realize that the money we spend on retraining these people is a much better investment than simply handing them a shovel during a snowstorm, or asking them to turn over roads and ditches for sewers in the dead of winter under the pretext that this is a suitable winter program.
If we are going to fight poverty and unemployment we have to end this type of program, and spend the money in areas where, in the long run, it will be more meaningful and beneficial to Canadians. Many members have touched on the need for education. Experts from the economic council have told me that a recent study they have undertaken on the mobility of the Canadian work force indicates, that it is much more mobile than we anticipated or realized, and this includes workers from the province of Quebec. There

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
is a direct relationship between education and mobility, and the educated and trained worker is quite prepared to move from certain areas of the country to other areas where jobs are more plentiful.
If we are to reach the type of utopia which I think is within the grasp of countries such as ours we must tie in the whole problem of unemployment and poverty with the problems of education. Some time ago we realized that no one is too old to be retrained or educated. This is one of the areas of priority in the fight against poverty in this country.
Having said these things, and I feel rather deeply about them, I realize that while I may be speaking in a rather non-partisan manner, this is a problem that cannot be tackled by one, two, three or four ministers. This is a problem which must be tackled by all levels of government and all Canadians who have a social conscience. The sooner we reach this concept in . Canada the sooner we will reach that standard of living which Sweden enjoys and which Japan is rapidly reaching, where co-operation and concern for each other is almost a religion. I think these ambitions and desires are not beyond the scope of this government or this House of Commons.
I was impressed as well by the sincerity of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth who represents one of the more affluent sections of Hamilton. If he were politically partisan I am sure he would say nothing that was pro-labour. He talked about a wages and prices board. Perhaps I should correct that by referring to and talking about an income and price board. When we talk about wages we are again talking exclusively about the worker. When we refer to control we should think in terms of controlling "income", because that is the proper terminology. Income includes the income of doctors who increase their charge by 20 per cent or 25 per cent when called out in the dead of night for instance. It is "income" that properly describes the income of the lawyers, many of whom are in this house, that can stand scrutiny.
All of us who come here to the political table, and all those union members who have power and strength have a responsibility to our fellow Canadians. That is a responsibility not only of the government but also of management and labour.
I had some nice choice remarks to make about the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, but because of the pleasant atmosphere of the evening debate I do not intend to lecture that right hon. gentleman in the same tone in
[Mr. Mackasey.l
which he found it necessary to lecture the hon. member for Verdun. I am starting to develop a real affection for that hon. gentleman, and this frightens me. This is not part of my character. Since my dad came from Halifax, and since I found out that the hon. gentleman has ties in that city, I decided there must be some good in the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition. Some days it is harder to realize this than on other days. In any event, when he suggested I was lecturing the house-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I should like to request the minister to stop referring to me as "right hon.", because this might go to my head.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: From force of habit, I occasionally get confused between the real Leader of the Opposition and the hon. gentleman. I keep falling into that trap.


Mr. Thompson (Red Deer):: I knew it would come out.


Howard Russell MacEwan: We see your true colours as a result of that kind of remark, and I hope Hansard got it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There was one contribution made this afternoon to which I have not referred as yet, and that is the contribution made by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. This "product of poverty" suggested that the Prime Minister of this country could not deal with poverty and could not be connected with a just society because of his wealth and background. I am wondering if this is not the case of the pot calling the kettle black.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


George Harris Hees: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I was not referring to that at all. I said he had not come in contact with it, referring of course to his calling as a lawyer and a university professor. I said also he would not come in contact with it because of the fact that his constituency is very well-to-do and is probably one of the most affluent constituencies in this country.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman has on the surface pointed out some very valid reasons why the Prime Minister of this country would not be familiar with the problems of the poor and the underprivileged, including the working class. This indicates to me, of course, that the hon. gentleman is not familiar with the history of the present Prime Minister. He is not
November 21, 1968

aware of the fight that this same Prime Minister had, as a lawyer, in company with Frank Scott who is a great Canadian, to break the padlock law of Duplessis ten or 15 years ago. He is not aware of the fight this same Prime Minister waged side by side with his colleague who is presently charged with the cultural affairs of this nation. This is obviously one of the problems of the hon. member. In this Prime Minister we have a Canadian who is concerned about a just society, the poor, the rights of Canadians and justice. This is the man who is the present Prime Minister of this country.
Anybody who is responsible and is familiar with the writings of the present Prime Minister in Cite Libre, when he championed the causes of the poor and the underprivileged-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was before he became a Liberal.


George Harris Hees: That was when he was an N.D.P.'er, and a card-carrying one at that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am not too interested in the political philosophy the Prime Minister had before. I am just reminding the hon. gentleman that the record of the Prime Minister in this particular area of concern for fellow Canadians who have not had the opportunities of his education, who have not shared in the affluence of his background, who have not come from the same milieu in French Canada, should be inspiring; and I refer to all members of the opposition as well as all members of the Liberal party.


George Harris Hees: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I was not trying to be unfair to the Prime Minister; I was trying to be very fair and to make an excuse for his complete lack of concern in this regard. I was trying to ascertain whether the Prime Minister intended to do anything to alleviate the situation in which those living in poverty find themselves.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, there is not much use trying to convert the hon. gentleman. However, I would point out a few things to him. He mentioned that on September 13 he asked the Prime Minister whether he would raise the minimum wage, and said that the Prime Minister said no. I wonder whether he would like to look at page 16 of Hansard for September 13 and tell me whether that is the interpretation he still gets out of it. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings said:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Supply-Labour
He made a very valid case for increasing the minimum wage. The Prime Minister said in reply:
I will have to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has that under consideration.
Then as Minister of Labour I said, with due modesty:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is always conscious of the needs of the working man in this country, and will give consideration to the suggestion of the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: Does the Prime Minister in the very near future intend to call a conference with the provincial premiers to discuss this very vital problem?
That is when the Prime Minister said no. It was not that he was not interested in raising minimum wages, but he did not think he had to call a dominion-provincial conference to raise the minimum wages of federal government employees.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, in my question I asked whether he would not raise minimum wages in respect of employees who came under federal jurisdiction, as an example to the premiers, and call them together to discuss this matter. I asked whether with this example before them the Prime Minister could not urge the premiers to raise minimum wages of employees under provincial jurisdiction. That is the question I asked the Prime Minister.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member suggested that we raise the minimum wage as an example to the provinces.


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: He pointed out, quite accurately, that the last time we raised minimum wages on the federal scene was three years ago. The great province of Ontario, with all its affluence and industrialization, took precisely three years to bring its rates up to ours.


George Harris Hees: The rates in the province of Ontario are now higher than those paid under federal jurisdiction.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: They will be exactly one nickel higher-


George Harris Hees: That is higher.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -when the rate is strictly applied.


George Harris Hees: Then the minister should not say they are lower, when he knows they are higher. I ask him to stick to the facts and be honest.

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order.
I think that in order to carry on this debate in the proper manner the Minister of Labour should continue his speech, and any interruptions in the future should be by way of questions of privilege and not by way of corrections of what the minister has said.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very glad-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will be very glad to sit quietly if I am not accused of saying things that I did not say and if meanings which I did not mean are not put on what I said.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. Every hon. member of this house knows that when he feels he has been misrepresented he can rise on a question of privilege. Any hon. member can in committee, after the minister has spoken, rise and speak.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, for the sake of the harmony which has been present throughout the day and this evening-


George Harris Hees: Why don't you tell us what you are going to do to eradicate poverty?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman, as usual, rises to dish it out, but when you hand it back he loses his cool.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: I have not lost my cool at all. I just get a little annoyed at direct misrepresentations-and that is a polite way of saying it.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. I would request the Minister of Labour to proceed with his remarks. I do not want to intervene in this debate and make my own remarks, but I think some of the minister's remarks are inviting this kind of comment.


George Harris Hees: Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before the minister leaves the question of minimum wages will he indicate whether the government will support the increase in the minimum wage at this session of parliament?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I made it quite clear in my answer in September that

the increase in the minimum wage is now under consideration.


George Harris Hees: Nonsense. That is a stock answer, and you know it means nothing.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should know all about stock answers because they were usually prepared for him
when he was a minister.


George Harris Hees: I have been listening to them every day for five years, and I should know.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In fact, his speeches were prepared by the ghost writer, who is almost unique in Canadian history. Hon. members will understand this if they have read Pat Nicholson's latest book. But on a serious vein, Mr. Chairman, the problem of unemployment is certainly something one should be very concerned about. It is around the 5 per cent mark. It is, in the opinion of the minister and hon. members opposite, a very serious threat and challenge to Canadians.
The fact is of course that I have confidence in this country, because a study of the records and history of Canada shows that this is not the first time we have had unemployment at this rate, and we have managed to solve it. For instance, back in 1958 it was 7 per cent; in 1959 it was 6 per cent; in 1960, when the hon. gentleman was working hard- and I say this seriously-in our export field, it was 7 per cent. When we took over government it was 7.1 per cent. We have managed to bring this 7.1 per cent down to 3.6 per cent. This was done in 1966.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, would the minister entertain a question? I wonder whether he is trying to establish the fact that unemployment has been equally high under Conservative and Liberal governments.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I think that would be a fair appraisal, Mr. Chairman, except I can also show that, unlike the Conservatives, we know how to cope with it, because we have reduced it.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Winter is not over yet.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This is the cry of the new rich.


An hon. Member:: Sock it to him.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: According to the latest figures on the labour force, unemployment has increased by 34,000. However on the
November 21, 1968

other hand there is some consolation in the fact that we are able to employ 270,000 more people who are coming into the labour force.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the minister a question? A few minutes ago an hon. member asked for some statistics on unemployment and I think the minister indicated he could not give them because this was not under his jurisdiction and he did not have the figures. Perhaps in his commentary he could indicate what particular statistics were being sought at the time.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I would be glad to remind the hon. gentleman of precisely what I said. Perhaps he did not hear the question, which was put quite properly. I was asked whether I could give a prediction concerning the rate of unemployment this coming winter in the major cities of Canada. I said I could not because this was not the role of the Department of Labour, and the question would have to be asked when we come to the estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, the question was-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I should like to finish what I was saying. The hon. member is in bad company.


George Harris Hees: If you can't stand the heat you had better get out of the kitchen.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I was going to say that the figures I am reading are factual. I got them out of the parliamentary library, and I am sure the hon. gentleman could easily do the same. As to the figures concerning unemployment in the coming winter, I cannot produce them, and this is an honest answer.
I appreciate the quiet, the attention and respect with which my remarks have been treated by the opposition. Obviously people can see that my big problem is to act with the dignity which a minister is supposed to act in a debate, and at the same time I find myself periodically reverting to the role I had before I was elevated to the cabinet. This is a house of debate and I should hope that in the repartee and exchange I have hurt nobody's feelings-certainly mine were not hurt. I just happen to think that in the last election the people of Canada indicated more confidence in this great young man, the Prime Minister, who is going to lead this country toward a just society than in hon. gentlemen opposite. I think his record is excellent. I am sure his
Supply-Labour
concern for the people of Canada, for the working class and for the underprivileged, his direct connection in the past with unions, their causes and their plight, and his willingness to fight for them in court as well as with the strength of his pen, indicates that we have a Prime Minister who is really concerned about and sincerely interested in establishing a just society. I believe that with the complete co-operation of the opposition, that just society will be arrived at much sooner than most people think.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, thank you for all the applause.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. The chair-intends to recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue, unless the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings has a brief question.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The reason I want to ask a question is that when I was speaking the Minister of Labour assured me, as I understood it, that he would be ready to advise the house as to what steps the government is taking to eliminate poverty from this country, so far as it can.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I think we should hear from someone else who has something constructive to add.


George Harris Hees: Than I take it that the minister has nothing to say-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -and nothing to explain as to what this government is doing.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: He has nothing to offer.


John Howard Lundrigan: I have a brief question, Mr. Chairman.


James Hugh Faulkner: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, after hearing the hon. members who took part in the debate on the estimates of the Department of Labour, everyone will agree that the regional disparities mentioned in most speeches are strangely alike throughout Canada.
If you listen to an hon. member from the Maritimes, you will hear about economic difficulties with regard to coal mines, the

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
development of natural resources, etc. The same situation prevails in northern Quebec.
I heard a little earlier the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard) talk about Desbiens where something could be done. The problem was submitted to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and to the cabinet, but it has not been solved yet. Incidentally, I think that the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who was previously sitting on this side of the house as a Credi-tiste member, realizes that occupying a seat on the government side does not improve the standard of living of his electors, nor that of Quebecers or Canadians as a whole.
Therefore, he should have remained with us to pursue a more efficient flight.
Mr. Chairman, the situation is the same in other areas. In my own area, people complain that mines have to close down. In the Quebec area, they complain about the shipyards of Lauzon; in the eastern townships, they complain about problems facing the shoe industry and the precarious situation of the textile industry. There are economic difficulties everywhere.
Regional disparities resemble each other very much from an economic point of view.
I limited myself to Quebec, but the situation is the same in Ontario. We also hear the members from the west complain about a lack of industries, and especially those from Manitoba who complain that the overhaul base of Air Canada will be transferred to Montreal. Mr. Chairman, that stirs up a storm in the house. The members from Manitoba complain because hundreds of employees will have to move to another province if they want to continue working.
We have the same thing in the western provinces. In British Columbia people complain about that situation. In the fishing industry, for instance, in business, in the lumber industry, one runs into economic difficulties called regional disparities.
Mr. Chairman, all those regional disparities are related to a single problem: the Canadian economic problem. That is why, following the June 25 election, the future Minister of Regional Development stated categorically on television that, at all cost, the government would have to make a comprehensive study of what economic reforms should be made in Canada. This is the case not only in our region, but all over Canada.
It should be borne in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the minister was speaking about winter

works being replaced by retraining courses with a view to giving more education to our people, our unemployed and our younger people, which will enable them to acquire knowledge that will eventually assist them in finding employment. But the fact remains that, after studies lasting up to three years, depending on the retraining courses, they are not in a better position to find jobs.
The unemployed who are over 50 are not eligible to go to those schools as they are considered too old. What measures can be taken to assist these people?
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
At this very moment, Mr. Chairman, there are over 80,000 unemployed in Montreal alone which is equivalent to practically one quarter of the unemployed in Canada. To these people will be suggested that they register for retraining during the winter. In fact, the present system consists in having the uneducated unemployed become educated unemployed. When people have finished their 10th, 11th and even 12th grade, they are told: "We do not have any work".
In the meantime, the Minister of Labour is at grips with management on the one hand and workers on the other hand. In addition to that situation which affects the labour world everywhere in Canada, and more particularly in Quebec, the minister has to face arguments of ah kinds, right and left. We hear about strikes, the postmen's strike, the longshoremen's strike, the teachers' strike, the students' strike. Why do these strikes exist?
When somebody finally proves to me that in Canada a strike has solved a labour problem then I will believe in the efficiency of the strike. But all the strikes which I have witnessed in Canada were settled by some agreement, which formed the basis of the next strike on expiry of the collective agreement. It has always been the same thing.
I see the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development who was, I think president of the C.N.T.U. nineteen years ago, during that famous strike called the Asbestos "greve de la matraque". Twenty years later, are the workers treated any better? Let us go to Asbestos and see, let us talk to the workers in Asbestos. Blood was running in the streets. Did it change the system? This is why I find it indecent for some workers to rouse other workers against management, when these leaders should act as peace-makers between labour and management. They should be goodwill ambassadors, not distributors of boxing gloves or fomenters of hate. The workers
November 21, 1968

need the employers just as the employers need the workers.
I heard earlier the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggest his famous solution. He always asks for the same thing: a minimum wage of $1.75 an hour and seven days of leave with pay. He would prefer eight or nine days of leave with pay; he would not object to one day a month which would mean 12 days of paid holidays and shorter working week. They feel sure that this is the answer. There are people working in small restaurants, for instance, who earn $30 or $35 a week. Try to pay them $1.75 an hour, and the boss or the little restaurant owner will end up bankrupt. We know that some industries cannot pay that kind of wage, because as soon as the wages would go up, it would trigger an increase in the cost of living. In fact, salaries go into the cost price of goods and services. This is what people do not understand. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is completely at sea. If we increase salaries, up go the prices; but reduce the working hours and then increase productivity, nobody can make head or tails of that.
A Chinese might understand the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but no Canadian would.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, when I was listening to the hon. member's speech I was reminded of the late Clement Attlee and of his speeches of 20 years ago, as well as of the speeches of the Right Honourable Harold Wilson, Prime Minister of England, when both gentlemen sat on the opposition benches. But, when they came into power, they did exactly the opposite of what they had been preaching.
To realize that, let us take the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to England tomorrow morning, to show him at close range the magnificent achievements of State socialism, in England, in every field. Financially, Mr. Chairman, England has gone to the dogs. Why? Because of a mad system similar to our own. The Liberals agree with me. They know that our system is wacky. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Minister of Labour know it.


An hon. Member:: A gang of madmen.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, and some people go a little further, they say we are ruled by the most outstanding of those madmen. What are we to do?
Supply-Labour
Mr. Chairman, the day after the election I was listening to the comments of two union leaders, Mr. Marcel Pepin, president of the C.N.T.U. and Mr. Louis Laberge, president of the F.T.Q. They stated that all those who had voted against the New Democratic Party were idiots. What did Mr. Louis Laberge ask before the elections? He asked the workers of Quebec to vote for the New Democratic Party but they did not listen to him, because they did not take him seriously. We saw Mr. Marcel Pepin, on television on election night; we often see him there. He looks like a regular guardian angel; he is a mealy-mouthed type, and is as quiet as they come. He reminds me of a monkey that would have escaped from the Granby zoo, or something like that. And what is his program? Stir up the workers against the employers, nothing else. A distributor of boxing gloves.
Mr. Chairman, in every socialist country throughout the world, when the government fell into the hands of union leaders trouble began. I know that from experience. I have been in Russia, in Czechoslovakia and in other socialist countries. Go to England and you will see the same thing. Those at the helm are former union leaders who used to say that power should belong to the workers. Theoretically it does belong to them now, but all they get is a kick in the pants, because they are not the real rulers.
Recently, in Czechoslovakia, students had led the country on the road to socialism. Now, the people are trying to get rid of it but they cannot since the U.S.S.R. who is practically next door, keeps them under her thumb and they can neither budge, move forward, nor shake themselves free. Such are, Mr. Chairman, the advantages of socialism.
On the day when people like Messrs. Marcel Pepin and Louis Laberge have any political power, we will witness here the same things that are happening now in England.
There is no need to go that far. In our own country, Canada, did not the New Democratic party, successor to the C.C.F. party, hold office in Saskatchewan during 17 years? With what results? It is the only province from which the people migrated to the other provinces. They went to work in Alberta and British Columbia to pay Saskatchewan's socialist taxes. In fact, there was no work to be had in that province.
And that is not the worst, Mr. Chairman. The provinces of Manitoba and Alberta spent millions of dollars to prevent rats from Saskatchewan from eating up their crops. These

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
are not tales, but tacts. I do not lie; it is the gospel truth.
This being so, would we let men like Mr. Pepin and Mr. Laberge guide us and direct us towards that type of system?
Mr. Chairman, I am not against unions, far from it. I am entirely in favour of trade unions but only those where workers control their own business and are not told what to do, as if they were children. That is exactly what is happening now.
When Mr. Laberge asked Quebeckers to vote for the New Democratic party, did they comply? Let us not be funny! They would rather vote for my hon. friend, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
In the city of Montreal, that party spared no effort. They were quite sure they would take about ten ridings. But they did not win a single one. So much the better! However, they have the comfort of knowing that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) once belonged to their group. The hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development at one time was flirting with them. The hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) had connections with them for many years. Therefore, the members of the New Democratic party feel a little bit at ease with the present government or, at least, with the leaders of the present government.
All this, Mr. Chairman, to say that we must make some improvement. I am all for respecting labour unions. But let us first of all respect the workers. That workers should unite to study together those problems they have in common, I agree with that. I am also in favour of discussions between management and labour. But whenever a labour leader raises an almost unsurmountable barrier between the workers and the management, he is then abusing his authority. He is not upholding and serving the best interests of the Canadian workers, because employers as well as workers are human beings.
It is possible for these people to discuss. I am myself an employer. There was a strike in my establishment. What did it settle? Nothing, like I said at the beginning of my remarks.
I have yet to see a strike that will settle labour problems. In Quebec, some strikes have been going on for a long time. What will they achieve? Employees of the Quebec Liquor Control Board have been on strike for five months. What does it amount to? For
[Mr. Caouette.i
the first few weeks, it is great. You are ready for anything. At the end of five months, Mr. Chairman, if the employee does not realize the situation, go and see his wife and children; they realize it. And yet when these workers go back to work, they will find no great improvement in their working conditions. However, they will have gone into debt for perhaps five or ten years and will have to go to finance companies and ask for credit at the corner store and everywhere in order to manage and make ends meet; but they will not be able to.
Mr. Chairman, problems are not solved by strikes. When my colleague the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) spoke of labour matters this afternoon, he knew what he was talking about, because he is a former union president. He did not organize strikes, but he was the leader of a group of hard workers and, at the same time, he met with management in order to act as liaison between the two groups and bring about an understanding. I think in this respect he could give a few very useful lessons to union leaders today. Even my hon. friend the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development should have known the hon. member for Kamouraska twenty years ago; he would never have had anything to do with the Asbestos strike.
Mr. Chairman, I do not say that all present union leaders are wrong. However, most of them, the ones we constantly see on television, are always against everything. I sometimes wonder what prevents them, since we live in a free country, from setting up industries, a steel mill, for example, from becoming employers and treating their employees according to the views they now express or as they say workers should be treated. What is preventing them from setting up companies and becoming employers? But that is not what they are looking for.
Instead of trying to create something, they try to demolish, to destroy what others have built. They tell the employers what to do; they always talk on behalf of 125,000, 132,000 or 134,000 members and they are sure of them because on television at least they have real power. Then there are politicians who are afraid. Mr. Chairman, you would not believe it. They are afraid to lose votes, they are afraid to lose elections. That is why today there are so many abuses in the field of labour and management relations; it is because politicians do not have the courage to assume their responsibilities. The politicians were afraid when they should have
November 21, 1968

stood firm, when they should have stated the facts, when they should have been frank with the population, the workers, the lumbermen, the people as a whole. If they had done all that, there would be fewer strikes today.
In the field of labour in Quebec, people blame the students because they stage sit ins, they argue, they occupy buildings. It must be noted, Mr. Chairman-I call the Prime Minister's attention to that-that their own professors showed them the way two or three years ago when they attacked the school board, held demonstrations against the provincial government or against the administration of this college or that university. You set a bad example and then you blame the students for following it.
The parents who deplore such things are in the same situation. The Liquor Control Board employees are on strike, and there was a strike of postal employees! During the latter strike, there were threats against the Prime Minister, the government, and then the Canadian public to deprive them of the postal service as long as they felt like it. The strike has been settled, but who pays for it? The workers who went on strike gained something. But today, it is the public in general that is paying for the increased postage stamp prices, for the transportation cost of the mail. It is paying a rather a heavy price for the postal employees as well as the famous strike of the Montreal dockers.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
This does not mean, Mr. Chairman, that longshoremen, postal employees and so on do not deserve a better income-I do not say an increased salary but an increased income. As long as we continue to increase income merely through salary increases which are part of the cost of goods, we shall always face the same problems. We shall be running in a circle, struggling in a strait jacket. And what are the Creditistes suggesting? They suggest to increase the income, but in such a way that the increase will not be a part of the cost of goods. And how can we achieve this?
Let us not study my statistics but those of the federal government which indicate that this year the national production of the Canadian labour force amounted to $67 billion. The total income of the members, the salary of my friend, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, my salary, the profits of all the business people in Canada, and all the other incomes put together, will amount to $48 billion. The government then warns us
Supply-Labour
by saying: Productivity will increase by about 5 or 6 per cent per year and therefore the salaries must not be increased by more than 5 or 6 per cent.
Let us say, for example, that our production will amount to $70 billion next year. With a yearly increase of 6 per cent, that would mean a production of $74,200 million. It is an increase of $4,200 million of new production, and there is no need of increasing our income by more than 6 per cent a year. Let us say, for example, that our revenues amount to $50 billion; with a 6 per cent increase, that means $3 billion. How can we, Mr. Chairman, purchase $4,200 million of new production with $3 billion of new income? That is the problem. So we say that the difference between the two can be used to increase the income of all Canadian citizens, without that coming into the prices. We are right, and the minister knows it.
According to the facts, there is now a difference of $20 billion with regard to the economic operations of 1967-68 alone. For $20 billion of production, there is no corresponding purchasing power, and $48 billion is purchased with the national revenue. This $20 billion production is not sold because we do not have the revenue to purchase it. What does that mean? Mr. Chairman, the Bank of Canada could create, in figures, about $1,000 per capita if the government of Canada gave the order to do so and to distribute the money to every Canadian citizen, without creating inflation, without this being included in the costs of goods, without increasing the cost of services. Then, we would achieve an economic balance which would give citizens a purchasing power enabling them to purchase products which exist.
We do not know what to do with our products, and the unemployed in Montreal need them. Why can they not buy them? For lack of purchasing power. The minister knows that. The number of our unemployed will increase because of automation. What is the government's solution in the face of automation? No solution. So, unemployment takes over. But what do we advocate?
In so far as machines, automation, science, progress and knowledge are being used to speed up production and to replace man at work, let us establish a system thanks to which Canadian men, women and children will have an income that will allow them to buy the products of automation, and of machines. This is not inflation. This is balance, common sense and logic.

November 21, 1968
Supply-Labour
The 86,000 unemployed of Montreal who earned maybe $100, $125, $130 a week, while to-day they get only $30, $33 or $36 as unemployment benefits, are out of work. Why? Because there is a superabundance of products and the factories no longer need their workers. When there is overproduction, factories close down. If it is true that the unemployed is laid off because of overproduction, why is he not given precisely the salary he used to earn when he was at work? Indeed, let us pay him his salary until he finds a job. Products are there, and he only needs purchasing power.
The government does not consider that possibility. It thinks in terms of retraining of manpower and we are back again in the same system, going round and round, without ever finding a way out. It has been suggested that there is one, because the minister was speaking a while ago of the just society. It is all very well to speak of a just society! But in the meanwhile, there are 28,000 families in Montreal on welfare and 86,000 people who draw unemployment insurance. What does it represent? It represents a population of
150.000	to 200,000 persons. Now, if 300,000 or
400.000	persons out of a population of 2 million in the City of Montreal do not have a sufficient purchasing power to buy the necessary products for their subsistence, Mr. Chairman, where are we going with the government of the just society?
That is why we have all these clashes, and they are going to become much more frequent. In fact, we are building a tower of Babel. The only difference with the real Tower of Babel, is that when the people at that time realized that there was confusion, that they could not communicate with or understand one another, they gave up; but we are too stupid, and we go on with the work. It is the only difference.
Mr. Chairman, the problem can be solved. The root of the evil is not in the minister's heart, nor in the heart of the government; Finance is the villain. Let us first put Finance at the service of Canadians. It is up to the government to take it upon itself.


Mr. Sulaiycky:: May I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee for allowing me one minute in which to make my maiden speech in this house. We have heard speeches from members of the opposition dealing with unemployment, the elimination of poverty and regional development, but in some manner they seem to place responsibility for these immense problems on the

Minister of Labour. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I do not appreciate the relationship that these problems have to the minister's department. However, I wish to advise the committee of some important problems that do have direct relationship to the minister, and which may properly be recognized as such by some of the members who have done much of the complaining here today.
Hon. members, as I say, have talked about unemployment, regional disparity and the elimination of poverty. In my constituency, Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal of industrial development. Several areas are exporting coal to Japanese markets, markets that we hope to exploit in the near future. However it disturbs me to see that in these areas there is an insufficient supply of labour.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I listen to members in this house saying that in other parts of the country people are unemployed. Last week the manager of one of the coal mines in my constituency visited me in Ottawa and told me that he could ship twice as much coal to Japan as he is now shipping if only he had enough labour to bring up the coal from under the ground. This man, Mr. Chairman, is prepared to provide the cost of moving workers from where they presently reside to his area in western Alberta. He is prepared to retrain them to equip them with the skills necessary to engage in the occupation of mining this coal. He is also prepared to provide assistance in the matter of obtaining housing for these workers. Yet as I say, Mr. Chairman, hon. members from other parts of Canada tell us that there is insufficient work in their constituencies.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, particularly on the occasion of his maiden speech, but it is ten o'clock and it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we pass this item. I do not think anybody else wants to speak. The Conservative party is agreeable to this course.


James Hugh Faulkner: If we have unanimous consent we can agree to the first item and any subsequent items.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think there are others who would hope these estimates might be back some time.
Progress reported.
November 21, 1968



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional satnding order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to be quick about it because I have only seven minutes to deal with a fairly important matter. On November 7, I put a question to the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), asking him to explain to us why the C.B.C. had allotted only an hour and 37 minutes to the Ralliement credi-tiste at the time of its last convention at Sherbrooke, while allotting that same weekend, eight hours and 46 minutes to the Parti quebecois.
Later, several similar questions were put to the minister in this house.
It should be noted that the minister attempted twice to shirk his responsibility and to tell the house who is responsible for the C.B.C.
The same thing happened when, on November 7, the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), put a question to him asking when he intended to set a policy with regard to the allotment of the time on C.B.C. The hon. Secretary of State then told us, in this house, that the C.B.C. was not answerable to the Secretary of State but instead to Parliament. The following day, on November 8, the hon. member for Lotbiniere, further to his first question, asked the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who is responsible for the C.B.C., whether it is Parliament or the Secretary of State?
The Prime Minister replied, as seen on page 2572:
Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Secretary of State.
Now, it is obvious that the C.B.C. seems to be answerable neither to Parliament nor to the Secretary of State. It seems to act as it sees fit. Indeed, on many occasions- I have proof of this-it has been prodigal with the Liberal party. Besides I have figures here on the allotment of time slots to prove my statement.
The C.B.C. has no definite policy with regard to the allotment of time slots to the various political parties. That is why we
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion will again return to the charge, as long as the hon. Minister, who to my mind is responsible for the C.B.C. has not defined a policy in this regard.
Besides, the matter has already been cleared up by the committee, in the 1966 report concerning the White Paper on broadcasting, where the objectives of radio and television are defined. One of those objectives is to the effect that we wish to express our conviction, and another to the effect that priority of the public sector must be observed; that is one of the supreme and permanent objectives of the new act. We should develop, and not diminish, the effectiveness of the corporation, the main instrument by which our national conscience can be extended and maintained and national unity thereby strengthened.
But in the report on broadcasting, the C.B.C. is asked to promote national unity or, at least, to respect it. That is where the corporation has sinned, has erred, has taken a wrong direction, in that it allowed an hour and thirty seven minutes for the broadcasting of the program of the Ralliement Creditiste, and eight hours and forty six minutes for the broadcasting of a program opposed to national unity.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has not complied with the parliamentary committee report to this end. And the crown corporation has not been brought back to order by the responsible minister.
In the same report, it is pointed out on several occasions, that parliament has never given any guidelines to the C.B.C. with respect to the policy it should follow. But, on the other hand, when I consider the generosity with which the C.B.C. has treated the Liberal party during its convention here in Ottawa, I am amazed. I have in hand a document published by the CTV network-"The English-speaking network of the C.B.C."- about the Liberal convention held on April 4 and 5. Reference is made to the candidates to the leadership who had their publicity paid for out of public funds or moneys. The publication of that document seemed to have been costly; the president, Mr. Charles Templeton, has even his picture on page 3, where he states:

The Liberal leadership convention should be Canada's most exciting and dramatic event of the year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the crown corporation has exceeded its right, privileges

3064	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and duty by publishing at its own expense, with our moneys, the propaganda of a political party.
Along the same line of thought, I have in hand a C.B.C. publication which mentions the number of hours devoted to the convention of the Liberal party from March 31 to April 6 last. The C.B.C., according to its own statistics, has awarded to the Liberal party about eighty hours on the French and English networks.
Now, we are complaining about this state of affairs because we think that such a number of hours awarded to the Liberal party during its last convention-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to allow me two more minutes-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.

I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: I have been informed that the management of the C.B.C. regards the subject matter of the hon. members question as being of a most serious nature deserving of considerable comment and discussion. It is therefore the intention of the C.B.C. management to discuss fully with hon. members the complex question of programming at the forthcoming appearance before the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. The C.B.C. realizes the importance attached to this matter and it is their belief that a committee hearing is the most appropriate place for a full and fair airing of this most important matter.



PENSIONS-CONSIDERATION OF UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE OF ESCALATION

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) cannot be here this evening, but I am sure that whichever parliamentary secretary responds to my question will convey my message to him.
On Tuesday, November 19, as recorded in Hansard at page 2912, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he had yet set up in his department a committee or task force to study the whole question of a general application of the principle of escalat-

DEBATES	November 21, 1968
ing pensions that have been put into effect. The minister's reply was in these words:
Mr. Speaker, as indicated, I believe, earlier this session by the Prime Minister, the whole question of our various welfare programs is under review.
I went on to ask whether the specific question of escalating pensions was included in that review and the minister's reply was:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, all matters pertaining to our welfare programs are part of the review.
I suppose I should be content with that generally affirmative reply, namely that this matter in which I am deeply interested is being reviewed, but I confess to something less than complete satisfaction with that answer. As I understand it, the review the government is giving to all federal welfare programs is of the kind that considers what programs can be passed on to the provinces and what programs can be dispensed with at this time. I have seen nothing in the references to the review of welfare programs that implies any willingness to extend benefits or provisions. In fact, the classical statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was that we have had enough of this free stuff.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied that this very serious matter should be considered as covered because there is a general review of welfare programs. The specific problem I am concerned about, and hon. members must be aware of this, is that with the speed of rising prices and costs, with the growth of affluence that is taking place, there is the danger that people on pensions will become third or fourth class citizens or that they will become people who have no chance to protect themselves against inflation or against the failure of their fixed incomes to enable them to meet the cost of living or to keep up with the rising standard of living.
I hope I have made that case clear with regard to retired civil servants, and I have tried to make it clear with regard to retired C.N.R. employees and various other workers, but it applies to everyone. It applies to people on old age security pensions and people on industrial pensions. These things are relatively recent in our way of life, considering the long haul, and I suggest that unless we look to the future and build into our program adequate provisions for escalation, our pension programs could fall apart.
Another thing that concerns me, bearing in mind that good is frequently the enemy of best, is that a pattern is being established. In a sense it is a good pattern, or I should say
November 21, 1968
that in a sense it is a good principle. I refer to the 2 per cent increase in old age security-pensions that is possible, and the same increase that is possible under the Canada Pension Plan. Two or three days ago the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand) tabled the Devco report and, lo and behold, we find in there a certain pension arrangement being made for the miners of Cape Breton with a special provision being made for escalating the pensions by not more than 2 per cent per year.
I am in the position of having to welcome, and welcome wholeheartedly, this extension of the principle that pensions already in pay have to be escalated; but I am afraid that if this pattern of 2 per cent escalation, and a fixed 2 per cent, gets much wider, a good principle will be destroyed because of that kind of limitation. We can reach the situation where people's pensions will generally be increased by 2 per cent per year and they will be told that therefore they cannot expect anything more. But 2 per cent does not begin to keep up with the rising cost of living and it does not enable the sector of our society which is retired to keep up with the rising standard of living.
Therefore I am pleading for a study of the whole, broad question. I will fight it on its individual fronts, retired civil servants on pension, old age security pensioners and all the rest, but I plead that somewhere in the government-and I suggest that it be in the Department of National Health and Welfare, or perhaps the Department of Finance if the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance is going to reply-there should be established a special task force or committee to work on this problem. I suggest that it is not good enough just to have it lost somewhere in the general study of welfare programs.
The standard letter being sent out from the Prime Minister's office to people who write in regarding retired civil service pensions, and I have seen it several times, reads in this way:
The position of persons on pensions and other fixed incomes who have seen their real income diminish with the general increase in costs and prices is a matter of great concern to the government. The government, of course, cannot limit its consideration of this question to the situation of retired public servants, but must be concerned with the broader question of the problems of all pensioners and others living on limited fixed incomes.
I am not satisfied with this letter as an answer to these people, but I underline and endorse wholeheartedly the statement that comes out of the Prime Minister's office that the government must be concerned with the
3065
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion broader question of the problems of pension-ners and others living on limited, fixed incomes. Therefore I think the least one should settle for at this stage is a committee or task force that will devote its attention to this problem alone.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to answer this very important question on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) because of his unavoidable absence. Certainly the matter of improvements in pensions to meet changing circumstances is one which is important to all of us.
I am glad that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) confirmed that a Liberal government established, at the federal level at least, the principle of the automatic escalation of pensions under certain circumstances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But
only by 2 per cent.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It seems to me that, contrary to what has been suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the minister's answer which is to be found in Hansard for November 19, at least in the way I read it, in no way indicated that the review in question is narrowly limited to the areas of concern which the hon. member mentioned. Let us look at what was said. The Minister of National Health and Welfare answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, as indicated, I believe, earlier this session by the Prime Minister, the whole question of our various welfare programs is under review.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked the following supplementary question:
Is the particular question of escalating pensions that have been put into effect included in this review?
The minister replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, all matters pertaining to our welfare programs are part of the review.
Mr. Speaker, every measure of social welfare we have today at the federal level was created by Liberal governments, and I am confident that this government will be equally conscious of its responsibilities to the people of Canada.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)



WATER RESOURCES-ST. MARY'S RIVER-ACTION RESPECTING POLLUTION

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to

3066	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion appear on the late show this evening, with the other hon. gentlemen who are in the chamber at this time. My inquiry put to the Minister of Transport during the question period today was as follows:
In view of the report of the International Joint Commission on pollution of the St. Mary's river, does the Minister of Transport plan to take any action against the shipowners who are polluting this river by dumping waste into it?
This report which was released last week, on November 12, is a very comprehensive document which outlines the problems of pollution not only in St. Mary's river but in the St. Clair river and in the Detroit river as well. I am especially concerned with the problem of the St. Mary's river because it runs through part of my riding of Algoma. In Algoma one of our main industries is tourism, and places like St. Joseph island and Pine island which are in the flow of the St. Mary's river suffer when the waters become polluted. As a matter of fact, tourism in this area is rapidly accelerating because of an expanding urban population in Sault Ste. Marie which moves out to the rural areas every summer. However, this trend may not continue, as the pollution of the river becomes more intense. No one would want to spend a large amount of money in the purchase of a lot in this beautiful area, and go to the expense of building a summer home on it, only to find sewage, garbage and oil from lake freighters and ocean-going ships washing up on the beach.
This report of the International Joint Commission indicates that the city of Sault Ste. Marie does have an adequate sewage treatment facility and that the industries which have been putting industrial waste into the river are taking steps to correct the pollution which has been caused by them in the past. It seems to me that the Ontario water resources commission is taking positive action by building a new sewage treatment plant in Sault Ste. Marie and by encouraging the offending industries to instal anti-pollution equipment in their plants.
Now it is up to the federal government to control the ships which are dumping garbage into this river. The main problem seems to
DEBATES	November 21. 1968
occur when there is heavy traffic and the boats have to anchor in the channel, or when there is a low hanging fog over the St. Mary's river valley and ships have to anchor overnight. It is during this period of time that the bilges are pumped and sewage as well as other refuse is dumped into the river. I believe the federal government, through its inspectors in the Department of Transport, should carry on a careful surveillance of these vessels during these periods of time.
The Navigable Waters Protection Act is the statute which controls this matter. Section 20 of chapter 193, the pertinent section, reads as follows:
No person shall throw or deposit, or cause or permit to be thrown or deposited any stone, gravel, earth, cinders, ashes or other material or rubbish liable to sink to the bottom in any navigable non-tidal waters of Canada where there are not at all times at least eight fathoms of water.
It seems to me that this act gives the department the authority to stop offending ships from dumping garbage into this river. I would like to see the minister, armed with this authority, take positive steps to stop this dumping of waste into the St. Mary's river by Great Lakes freighters and by ocean going ships.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Transport (Mr. Hellyer) is aware of the problem outlined by the hon. member for Algoma, and I know that I speak for the minister when I say that he is greatly concerned about this matter. In the Navigable Waters Protection Act, chapter 193, sections 19 and 20, it is stated that pollution caused in the manner described by the hon. member is an offence. Enforcement of this section of the act is at the present time the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries.
It is the intention of the Minister of Transport to introduce into the house at an early date amendments to the Canada Shipping Act to correct this situation. These amendments to the act will be enforced by Department of Transport inspectors.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Friday, November 22, 1968



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs-Mr. Clermont.
[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on regional development-Mr. Morison.
[Stage Direction]
First report, in French and in English, of standing committee on transport and communications-Mr. Blouin.
[Note: Text of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]