1970-05-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hopkins.
Ninth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Kaplan.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Ron Basford (Minisler of Consumer and Corporaie Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, as Registrar General, to make a short statement to the House that is of some historical significance. Yesterday afternoon in Great Britain the "proprietors", as the shareholders are called, of the Hudson's Bay Company met and approved a motion that has the effect of bringing the company to Canada. At 5.30 this morning, our time, the Privy Council of Great Britain met and, acting on the company's request, suspended the operation of the original Royal Charter granted by King Charles II on May 2, 1960-


An hon. Member:: 1960?


Mr. Hees:: That shows just how accurate the minister is.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I beg your pardon. I meant to say 1670. I am not sure what I said.
Acting on the advice of the Canadian Privy Council, His Excellency the Governor General this morning at 10.30 signed, and I sealed under the great seal of Canada, a supplementary Royal Charter to the Hudson's Bay Company which has the effect of continuing the company as a Canadian company.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
The Hudson's Bay Company, the oldest such body in North America, has had a special relationship with Canada, particularly with the exploration, growth and development of western Canada. We are happy that the company sought during the celebration of its 300th anniversary to become a Canadian company.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, following that announcement I wish to indicate it will be the intention of the government to introduce a bill in order to carry out the legal modalities in connection with this announcement, that is to say, to provide the governing Companies Act for that particular company. I will be discussing this with the House Leaders in due course.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALE OF WHEIAT TO BRAZIL

Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, because it has just
occurred and members will be interested in knowing about it this morning and because of the presence of some distinguished visitors, I am happy to advise that I have just witnessed the signing of an agreement between the Canadian Wheat Board and the Brazilian Wheat Board. Under this agreement, 900,000 metric tons of Canadian wheat will be shipped to Brazil over a four-year period, starting next month.
The value of this sale is in the order of $60 million, and there is an option for a further sale of 100,000 metric tons. This is Canada's first wheat sale to Brazil since the 1953-54 crop year.
This is certainly a major agreement between Canada and Brazil and marks an important step in developing closer relations following the ministerial mission a year and a half ago. Since that time, we have been examining areas in which our two countries can co-operate to increase trade to our mutual advantage.
I also wish to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in Your Honour's gal-
Sale of Wheat to Brazil lery oi a number of distinguished visitors from Brazil. They are: His Excellency the Minister of Finance, Mr. Delfim Neto; His Excellency the Brazilian Ambassador to Canada, Mr. Frank Moscoso; His Excellency Mr. Vilar de Kueiroz; Mr. Louis Henri Guit-ton, President of the Brazilian Wheat Board and Mr. Cyro Freire Cury, the Director General for International Financing.
Their presence emphasizes our hope for a closer relationship between Canada and Brazil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement just made indicates that we will be selling wheat to Brazil. Although we are not happy that Brazil, because of circumstances, finds itself in the position of having to buy wheat, we are always happy to sell wheat to any customer.
The armour of the minister appeared for a long time to be impenetrable. There are now signs that it is showing some weakness and is beginning to crack because of the good job done the other day by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: It appears there is now some hope of returning to the democratic practices that have been long established in this House.
The sale just announced by the minister will help a little; every little bit helps. The announcement indicates that 33 million bushels will be sold over a four-year period. This will mean an average of eight million bushels each year. The minister has predicted that we wifi sell 375 million bushels of wheat. I hope we will reach that objective this year. As a matter of fact, I hope it will be surpassed.
It appears that the government has been overly pessimistic. They have indicated by their negative policies that Canadian farmers should go out of the wheat business. We have made sales in the past and we will be able to make sales in the future. Sales eventually level off.
The weather conditions in the west this year will be a contributing factor. In fact, they will be perhaps one of the major reasons why there will be a great reduction in wheat acreage. I suggest to the minister that since 
May 29, 1970
we are having another year in which farmers will not be able to put in their usual crops he should take into account all those who willingly reduced their wheat acreage last year and perhaps apply the $6 per acre to them.
The minister has shown that he can be communicated with. Despite comments from across the way that the opposition is not effective, the opposition has obviously been effective because the minister came into the House and made his announcement in the proper way. Having seen the wisdom of this course, perhaps he will also show that he has a heart for those people who find themselves in dire need.
I understand that the minister is going to fly to Brazil. I hope he will take advantage of his long trip to visit other potential customers and that when he reports back to the House he will be able to tell us that he has made another sale.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that one swallow does not make a spring. However, it is encouraging to see that the government is taking a progressive approach to trade and to sales of wheat and that its credit policies, and now possibly its trade policies, are such as to make it more possible for us to go into the open markets that we require for the sale of our grain.
I hope that in the not too distant future the minister will be prepared to tell the House what the pricing policies of the Canadian Wheat Board are going to be so as to meet some of the new competitive situations that we face. I hope that the bill now before the standing committee will help ease our competitive position with regard to grading. I also think we should know very soon what the status of the International Grains Arrangement is going to be. We should also have a clear statement on the real prospects of cooperation as outcome of the first meeting of representatives of wheat exporting countries held in Ottawa and the meetings that are going to be held. We should know what preparations are being made to replace the International Grains Arrangement, which has not worked very well, with a new agreement, and whether and how soon new talks will be held which will include some of the other grain producing countries such as the U.S.S.R. as well as those countries whose representatives the minister talked to in Ottawa.



U.S. Energy Policy ENERGY
May 29, 1970
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
If the minister would be prepared to bring these various factors into focus, perhaps the western farmer would have a clearer idea where he is going and some of the confusion and lack of confidence now existing on the prairies regarding wheat and grain could be cleared up. We very much need a clear definition of policy so that the farmers will have complete confidence and will be in a position to become part of the wealth producing communities in Canada and not just simply a community that is standing still waiting to see what will happen next. Unfortunately this is the present situation.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the Ralliement creditiste was very happy to learn that Canada had signed an agreement with Brazil for the sale by the Canadian Wheat Board of over $60 million worth of Canadian wheat.
We also hope that similar negotiations will be carried out with other countries in order to find new markets for western wheat.
The agreement just signed is another indication that all market possibilities had not been fully explored. I hope that the government will carry on its efforts in order to find new markets for Canadian agricultural products, not only for those of western Canada but also for those of eastern Canada where there are surpluses of dairy products.
I hope to have in the near future the pleasure of hearing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) announce that a similar agreement has been signed with regard to the sale of dairy products.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table copies in English and in French of the report of proceedings under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1970.



U.S. OIL IMPORT RESTRICTIONS AND CONTINENTAL ENERGY POLICY-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move a motion under Standing Order 43. This permits me to make a brief statement concerning the purpose of the motion. It arises out of the publication yesterday of a letter from the office of President Nixon indicating that the restriction on the import of Canadian oil into the United States is definitely related to the insistence of the United States government on a continental energy policy. In view of the fact that this involves very serious implications in respect of the oil and gas industry in Canada I would move, seconded by the hon. member for York South:
That at four o'clock today the business for private members' hour be suspended, and that the House debate the serious situation arising out of the letter from President Nixon's office published yesterday, this debate, notwithstanding the provisions for adjourning the House, to continue for not more than three hours.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize that the motion is in proper form, but before putting the motion I suggest we have perhaps reached the point where the House might consider abandoning Standing Order 26 and using Standing Order 43 because obviously we are circumventing the rather restricted provisions of Standing Order 26 by proceeding under Standing Order 43 in respect of conditions similar to those under Standing Order 26. I immediately recognize that the motion is in absolutely proper form. However, I have some misgivings concerning whether we are embarking on a series of procedures which might lead to difficulty. It may be that the House Leaders and other members interested in the Standing Orders might give some thought to the situation. This having been said, I repeat that the motion is in order.
Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. It requires the unanimous agreement of the House under Standing Order 43. I must inquire whether there is such unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 29, 1970

Veterans Pensions and Allowances Mr. Speaker: As the hon. member can hear, there is no unanimity. In these circumstances the motion cannot be put.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!



FISHERIES ACT


Mr. Thomas S. Barneli (Comox-Alberni) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-219, to amend the Fisheries Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The purpose of this bill is to provide that leases and licences for a fishery or fishing shall be issued by the minister only on terms and conditions previously prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in Council and not in his absolute discretion as presently provided.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration under Standing Order 26, namely, that the plight of the war veterans of Canada as a consequence of the failure of the government to bring forth veterans legislation arising out of the Woods Committee report and the government's white paper continues to impose an increasing burden on incapacitated war veterans, not only because of the steadily increasing cost of living but owing to their advanced age and deterioration of condition.
Since the legislation is now being further delayed, I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to give this motion your consideration and acceptance.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has filed the notice required by the Standing Order. It
IMr. Speaker.]
is obvious that all members appreciate the importance of the matter raised by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. The fact that he himself has previously proposed a motion on the same subject under the provisions of Standing Order 43 indicates that the situation is one which has been of continuing concern to him personally as well as to other hon. members.
The decision the Chair has to make is whether the House should be adjourned because of an emergency related to a newly arisen problem. The Chair must also take into account the opportunity of a debate in the near future. Because this difficult situation has been before us for some time now and because there should be opportunity for debate in the near future, I do not think that the matter is one which falls under the purview of Standing Order 26.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement in Toronto on Wednesday by the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada that "policies during the next year or two should be aimed at avoiding any further building up of economic slack", does the government intend to take the advice of the man it appointed to advise it on economic matters and start relaxing the restraints it has placed upon the economy so that production and employment can again start to increase instead of continuing to decrease as they have for many months?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisier of Finance):: am sure we will all pay attention to what he has said over the next year or two.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: That is the same answer we have been getting month after month. I ask the minister: does his austerity program not permit him to buy a new record to replace the old, broken one he has been playing in response to questions concerning the economy?


Mr. Woolliams:: It is not only the record he should change but the needle.
May 29, 1970	COMMONS


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister's reply cannot be put on the record.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he would assure the House and the country that the $500,000 extravaganza at Osaka will not be repeated at a time when Canada suffers from a heavy burden of inflation and unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


Mr. Lewis:: I have a supplementary
question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Gander-Twillingate rises on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the question was not allowed or at least was not responded to, perhaps somebody in the House could explain to me, coming from a part of Canada where we have 20 per cent unemployment, how I can explain this kind of extravaganza to my constituents?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for York South.



INFLATION-EARLY CHANGE IN POLICIES BECAUSE OF TIME LAG BEFORE EFFECT IS FELT

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance following the question by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. I might indicate to the minister that I am asking this question seriously and I hope he will treat it seriously. In view of the fact that any monetary and fiscal policies inaugurated at any time will involve a considerable time lag, as Mr. Smith pointed out in his speech, before the effect of such policies is felt in the economy, can the Minister of Finance inform the House whether he will not merely give consideration to these questions in the next year or two but will change policy very soon in order that the time lag may be met?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in determining fiscal and monetary policy time is always a very important matter, and the selection of the right time to do certain things is always very difficult to decide.
DEBATES	7479
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: In view also of the fact, as Mr. Smith points out and as I am sure the economists of the minister have pointed out to him, if he does not know it himself, that if the slack in the economy becomes too big and unemployment too high then the recovery becomes a boom with consequent inflationary results two or three years from now, is the minister giving consideration to this timetable in economic and financial policy and do we not already have unemployment at a sufficiently high level to require adjustment immediately?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have given thought to the timetable.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, as I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he would look into the complaints of members of the Economic Council that the reason their requests for technical staff to look into important economic issues have not been met is that the council has expressed differences with the government's economic policy?


Edgar John Benson: am sure that is not the reason, Mr. Speaker, but I will be very pleased to look into it.



RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN U.S. OIL IMPORT RESTRICTIONS AND CONTINENTAL ENERGY POLICY-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister has repeatedly assured the House and the country that there was no relationship between the restriction on oil imports into the United States and the desire for a continental energy policy, may I ask the minister if the letter which has just been published emanating from the office of President Nixon requires a change in the minister's attitude and whether it will be followed by any change in government policy?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we are inquiring into the source of the letter and whether it represents the official policy of the United States.
May 29, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Good God!


John James Greene: The letter apparently came from a relatively minor level and there are contradictions in the letter itself such as the fact that we are relying, as I believe it is worded, on imports of petroleum requirements from potentially insecure sources overseas. As some 60 per cent of our imports come from Venezuela, which the United States in its own import policy declares to be a secure area, there are obviously great contradictions in the letter itself. Before we come to any conclusions in regard to my hon. friend's question we are investigating the matter in Washington to see if this is the policy of the United States government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: While the minister's answer dealt with some peripheral items in the letter from the President's office, it did not deal with the main question which definitely relates the imposition of controls on imports of Canadian oil to the insistence of the United States government on a continental energy policy. I want to ask the minister if all the denials he has made as to this relationship mean that he is extremely naive or is not conscious of the fact that his arm is being twisted and has been twisted for many months?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts as to the form of the question-I might even say as to the substance of the question-asked by the hon. member. Perhaps the hon. member would like to rephrase the question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I may rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if it is not now apparent from the main part of the letter in question that there is a direct relationship between the restriction on Canadian oil and the fact that the American government is using this restriction as a means of levering the Canadian government into agreeing to a continental energy policy?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to the main part of the letter but the reference to the question of all energy matters occurs in one sentence out of the total letter, the last sentence. I want to reassure my friend that both my arms are in excellent shape. If this is the official policy of the President or of Washington, then of course we will reconsider our views. But certainly before we come to any firm stands or conclusions I think we must discover whether this is the position

of the President and whether this is the position of the administration. I would point out to my hon. friend that this is a letter from someone in the President's office to a Senator. It is not a letter to the government of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When we are dealing with diplomacy, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should use muscle, we should use intellect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he would consider speaking to the Prime Minister when he returns in order to get a group of Canadian ministers to go to Washington at a high level and sort out trade relations, particularly in reference to our crude petroleum and natural gas and other matters, so that we may have that type of diplomacy between the two countries that will ensure trade, which in turn leads to full employment?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to pass on the hon. gentleman's suggestion to the Prime Minister on his return.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister not consider that the first step Canada should take to restore the good relations that normally exist between Canada and the United States, so essential to working out a satisfactory oil policy and other policies dealing with across-border trade, would be for the minister to formally apologize for the rude and antagonistic three paragraphs starting at page 31 of his ill-considered speech?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for York South.



POSITION OF DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether negotiations between Canada and the United States on the question of oil and other energy trade are still continuing and, if not, when they ceased and at whose request the negotiations were ended?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that negotiations at the ministerial
May 29, 1970	COMMONS
level or anything approaching the ministerial level ever commenced. There have been continuous associations and discussions at lower levels, certainly through our embassy in Washington, with the Department of the Interior and the Department of State, but no negotiations as such have ever commenced. Only the preliminaries to negotiations have taken place until now.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are these preliminaries continuing? Are there talks going on at any level or have they ceased and are there plans for ministerial talks in the near future?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the level of discussions in the last few weeks to the best of my knowledge, and there are no plans at the present time for ministerial discussions.



SOURCE OF OIL FOR EASTERN CANADA

Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise the House whether any contingency planning has been carried out to date with respect to eastern Canada's position vis-a-vis our traditional sources of crude oil? Could he also indicate whether the low level of prices we pay for oil in eastern Canada is to be preserved under any planning that has been done?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there are no plans at present to change the national oil policy which connotes that oil for the eastern market will be offshore oil. If there is any plan to change the national oil policy from its present course, then of course that would be announced in the House in the normal manner.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May we in eastern Canada infer from the minister's answer that he does not feel that our offshore sources are in any jeopardy, because this seems to be the basis of the fear in the discussion that has taken place?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite obvious that all governments which have subscribed to the present national oil policy do not concur in the conclusion that these offshore supplies are insecure. They must have concluded, as does this government, that Venezuelan oil in particular is a secure source of supply. Certainly no government would
DEBATES	7481
Inquiries of the Ministry leave a substantial proportion of its oil supplies, a basic energy source, at the mercy of insecure sources. Therefore we consider that these sources are secure.



BUILDING OF PIPELINE FROM WESTERN CANADA TO EASTERN MARKET

['Mr. Speaker, the facts are as follows: a note was delivered by the Department of External Affairs to the French government and the situation has remained unchanged.\nIMr. Paproski.l']
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question that arises out of the minister's answer. Have the minister and his officials been considering the building of a pipeline from the western Canadian source of supply to Montreal and the eastern market, so that crude petroleum may be able to compete in that market with petroleum imported from elsewhere?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, no consideration has been given by the government to the building of such a pipeline, but there is nothing to prevent any entrepreneur from building such a pipeline if he deems it commercially viable. He would apply to the National Energy Board in the normal course, but my instructions are that there has been no such application to the National Energy Board.


David Orlikow: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the policy of the United States government with regard to the movement of western oil into the United States seems to be fixed for the time being at least, will the government not consider giving active leadership in the building of a pipeline so that western oil can be moved to Montreal and other eastern markets?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting suggestion. It is not being considered at the present time. In view of the very good potential of large quantities of economically priced oil being made available to eastern markets from offshore, where considerable exploration is being undertaken off the coast of Nova Scotia, and in view of the possibility that very shortly large quantities of economically priced oil may be available from the Mackenzie Basin, a decision by government to build a pipeline from Alberta at present would, I think, be premature. I do not think that decision should be made until we have greater knowledge of the potentials of offshore and Mackenzie Basin oil.


Mr. Steven Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since
May 29. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry the government has been carrying on negotiations with the United States on the matter o 1 a continental resource policy, will the minister make a detailed statement next week?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think the premise of the hon. gentleman's question is incorrect. There have been no negotiations at any time between ourselves and the United States as to a continental energy policy, whatever that may mean. I point out that it means different things to different people.



Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) a question.
Can he tell the House if this week's meeting with the French Secretary of State for National Defence has been the occasion for discussions on the refunding by France of the cost of facilities at the military bases of Gros-tenquin and Marville which were vacated at France's request?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Can the minister inform the House if one or several representatives of the Canadian government have been invited to pay an official visit to France?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the matter was not mentioned in the conversations I had with Mr. Fanton.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell the House whether the Canadian government has given up the idea of obtaining a refund from France for the Canadian military bases vacated in that country?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the facts are as follows: a note was delivered by the Department of External Affairs to the French government and the situation has remained unchanged.
IMr. Paproski.l



FINANCE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the genial Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who appears to be somewhat neglected. It relates to the recent decision of the Tariff Board regarding the exemption from federal sales tax of ventilating equipment for use underground. Originally the minister said he would take note of my suggestion. I asked him to review the situation and report back to the House. This equipment has important uses underground in coal mines for the elimination of danger from methane gas and will save lives. Is the minister in a position to report on the matter?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the question. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce brought this matter to my attention. We are, of course, reviewing the decision of the Tariff Board. Any change in the decision would require a change in the statute or a remission. We are looking into the matter currently.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It has to do with a statement that United States Senator Warren Magnusson made a couple of days ago about the intention of the United States to build United States icebreakers which would operate in the Canadian Arctic. Has Canada received any requests from the United States in which permission was sought for United States coastguard forces to operate in Canadian waters?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that no such request has been made for permission for these ships that are not yet built to operate in Canadian waters. May I add that I will check further to make certain of the accuracy of the answer I have just given.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouih-Halifax
Easf): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to
May 29, 1970
[Stage Direction]
the Minister of National Defence. It arises from the embarrassment being caused in connection with our NATO commitments and the lack of a Canadian facility for the next few weeks to maintain our Argus aircraft and other maritime patrol aircraft. Can the minister indicate, because of the very serious situation resulting from the breakdown in negotiations between Bell and Fairey Aviation of Canada, how long the Canadian Armed Forces will be without a repair facility in view of the very critical role being carried out by the Argus and other patrol aircraft?
Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what the hon. member is referring to.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister knows exactly what I am talking about.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I can reassure the hon. member that the operations of Argus aircraft are being carried out properly. We do not feel that any particular emergency has arisen at this moment.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Supply and Services? What negotiations are being conducted by his department to effect or reimplement a viable contract for the maintenance and repair not only of Argus patrol aircraft but of Tracker aircraft?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the breakdown in negotiations to which the hon. member has referred involves two private companies. We have not been directly involved.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Because of the lack of good faith shown by the parent company of Bell Aerospace in dealing with Fairey Aviation, thus wasting everybody's time, including thousands of hours of many public servants, would the government join with the provincial government in telling such adventurers from other lands that usurious freebooters are not welcome in Canada?



POLLUTION


Thomas Speakman Barnett: wish to direct my question to the President of 22375-551
Inquiries of the Ministry the Treasury Board who reports to Parliament on scientific matters. It concerns the proposed use of nitrilo tri acetate as a substitute for phosphates in laundry detergents. My question arises from a statement attributed to an official of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that additional research is needed into the chemical oxygen demand of this substance and indicating that the present research facilities are inadequate. Will the minister immediately arrange to have the government initiate, in the appropriate way, a research program to study all aspects of this very important matter?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: I am sure the House is aware that there is currently under way a great deal of research, not only by the government but by a number of outside agencies, regarding a substitute for the basic element phosphorus or phosphates in the whole detergent field. If the hon. member feels that in respect to any particular aspect there is an insufficiency, I will be glad to discuss it with him.



BAY OF FUNDY-FURTHER EXAMINATION OF TIDAL POWER DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the week long conference on tidal power in Halifax, partially sponsored by the minister's department, and the many cogent arguments that have been proposed for a further indepth examination of the Fundy tides, is it the intention of the government to give consideration to a further examination of the Fundy tides from a power point of view?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there is no such intention at the present time. We feel that the present report for the time being is comprehensive, complete and definitive. Until the economics or the philosophies in respect of pollution free energy change, there is no intention of a review. I might also point out to the hon. member, who had some concern about the representation of the government at that conference, that 1 checked into this matter. I found that three of our very high level people attended that conference.


Robert Carman Coates: A supplementary question. Will the minister inform the House whether an
May 29, 1970

Inquiries oj the Ministry assistant to an assistant deputy minister is, in his opinion, a high level representative from his department?


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question. Will the minister give consideration to reviewing those parts of the study not necessarily compromising the present position from an economic point of view, which have come under serious question by internationally respected experts in this field, either internally or under the sponsorship of the department?


Mr, Greene:: I would be glad to direct the suggestion of the hon. member to my officials, along with the conclusions of the present conference, to see whether a valid review could be undertaken along these lines.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: My question is directed to the hon. member for Ottawa West in his capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Is the draft report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs now ready? If not, when will it be ready? Also, when will the committee meet to consider such a report? I ask these questions because the report is a necessary preliminary step to get the much needed legislation to help our veterans before the House.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the committee has been called for 9.30 a.m., Thursday, June 4, to consider the draft report.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeer.a):: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Because of the optimism the minister indicated a couple of days ago about progress in the talks regarding the towboat strike in British Columbia, can the minister give the House up-to-date information about the prospects of a settlement being reached?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, both parties are meeting in Vancouver again this morning. My optimism was based on the knowledge that they are again meeting for the first time in two weeks. With-

out showing any bias-and I do not intend to because of my role which must be impartial- in view of the fact that regulations have now been adopted and there is a unanimous conciliation report, and taking into consideration the tremendous economic hardships that the strike is having on the economy of British Columbia with 40,000 to 50,000 innocent people unemployed, I would imagine that people of good will should be able to settle the strike over a long weekend.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-fer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, particularly in view of the fact that this is his last day in that position. Before I ask my question, I am sure all hon. members want me to congratulate him on the tremendous job he has done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: George for leader!


Thomas Miller Bell: Can the Acting Prime Minister report any progress in the last few days on outstanding Ottawa matters such as pollution, the takeover of Harrington Lake and the Fullerton situation?



FISHERIES


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry or his Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the fungus growth found on a number of spawning rainbow trout in the Kootenay Lake area this spring, has the minister received a report on the research being carried out at the fisheries research station at Nanaimo? If so, has the cause of the fungus growth been determined?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secreiary to Minisler of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I know that this problem is being studied. I do not know if the report has been completed. I will check and advise the hon. member.



INDUSTRY


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: My
question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the proposed mea-
May 29, 1970	COMMONS
sures to alleviate some of the difficulties of Canadian manufacturing firms announced by the minister last Tuesday, can he inform the House what steps, if any, he has taken to relieve the difficulties of the footwear industry which is experiencing a constantly increasing amount of unemployment?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I will be meeting with this group in the coming days, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: My question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Calgary Centre regarding the meeting next week with the footwear manufacturers. Will the minister be kind enough to invite those members who have footwear factories in their ridings to attend these meetings and advise us when the meetings will be held?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Although this entails some difficulty, I think I am known as a person who is very eager to speak to all members of this House, including members of the opposition. I will ensure that there is such a meeting.



SHIPBUILDING


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinlhe):: should like also to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Some time ago he took as notice a question I asked him on the construction of the Mar-garee. Is the minister today in a position to make clear to which shipyard the contract has been awarded?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have referred that question to the Minister of Supply and Services, since he is responsible for that decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister, who has apparently now been seized with the question, might want to reply.


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As far as I am aware the repairs to the Mar gar ee are to be carried out at the Vickers plant.
DEBATES	7485
Inquiries of the Ministry


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A supplementary question. Can the minister tell the House if this company presented the lowest bid or was there a bid from another company which was lower?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this kind of information could be obtained by putting the question on the Order Paper.



CANADA LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE PROVISION FOR ADVANCE NOTICE OF MASS LAY-OFFS

Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lambfon-Keni):: Is
it the intention of the Department of Labour to introduce changes in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code which would ensure advance notice of mass lay-offs?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think this would be a very desirable addition to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. Any changes made in the code, however, will not be until fall.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's answer, can I take it that the department has been charged with undertaking studies regarding what length of advance notice might be reasonably required? If so, will those studies be released to members of the House so that we may study the matter intelligently?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance. However, I do know that a complete study of all aspects of the Labour (Standards) Code has been completed and is now before the departmental committee for assessment and evaluation. We will, I am sure, be glad to co-operate with the hon. gentleman and with other hon, gentlemen at the appropriate moment, and provide them with all the background material they may want when the bill comes forward.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Acting Prime Minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to a complaint made by the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured Peoples that racial discrimination is
May 29, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry rampant at the United States air force base at Goose Eay, Labrador. This complaint claims that there have been attempts to set up a little Ku Klux Klan there, and that the security police are keeping track of the names of white women in the community who go out with Negro servicemen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon.
member kindly ask his question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact the U.S. air force base is in Labrador under an agreement with the Canadian government, may I ask the minister whether an investigation will be made to see whether or not racial discrimination is being practised on Canadian soil?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to have that question looked into. As the hon. member has indicated, part of the base is under the authority of the United States government, and as to that part we may not have any jurisdiction to look into the matter. As to the part that is under Canadian jurisdiction, I will look into the question and bring forward a further answer at a later date.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that recent reports indicate that the unemployment situation is as chronic as or worse than last month so far as eastern Canada is concerned, is the government planning any new initiatives or programs to help alleviate the deadening effect of this almost diseased situation?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will recognize that what he is now seeking is a statement that is so general in nature that it should be made on motions. The hon. member might ask the minister whether a statement will be made.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I was really asking for a simple yes or no answer, but I will rephrase my question. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister, in view of the fact that many eastern Canadians who traditionally travel to Toronto and central Canada have been unable to obtain employment in the seasonal construction industry and have been
[Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.) 1
forced to return home, whether he would have Information Canada supply these people with information indicating that the unemployment situation is just as deadly across the whole nation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



EFFECT ON CANADIAN FOOTBALL OF POSSIBLE U.S. FRANCHISE IN MONTREAL

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister, particularly since he is one of the major representatives of the second major football city in Canada. Hoping that he is as equally pleased at the 1976 Olympics coming to the city of Montreal, may I ask him whether he is aware of the far-reaching implications which would adversely affect Canadian football and the Grey Cup classic if Montreal were to get an 80,000-seat stadium for the 1976 Olympics and then successfully bid for a United States football franchise?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this question should be placed on the Order Paper, and that is my suggestion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker? Could the minister assure the House that during the negotiations for subsidies for the 1976 Olympics the government will give consideration to the importance of Canadian football and the Grey Cup classic in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I suggest to the hon. member that he is making a representation to the government. We are, after all, dealing with something that is not going to happen tomorrow. I suggest that his supplementary question also be placed on the Order Paper.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Although this matter is in the future, in 1976, I think it is sufficiently important that the government be apprised of the concern of many people in Canada who are football fans and would not like to see the Grey Cup classic, which is part of our heritage, unnecessarily interfered with by a United States football franchise which would probably ruin-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made a representation, both in his question and during the course of his point of order.
May 29, 1970	COMMONS



POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF SUBSTANTIAL QUANTITIES OF BRAZILIAN COFFEE

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the statement made by the minister on motions earlier today, can the minister inform the House whether trade talks wi h Brazil are under way at the present time and whether such talks include discussion of the prospect of the purchase by Canada of substantial quantities of Brazilian coffee on a cash or barter basis?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is in Canada at the present time a delegation from Brazil which is pursuing the question of greater access to the Canadian market for Brazilian coffee. The government is certainly prepared to do everything it can to facilitate the efforts of these gentlemen, and I personally have resolved to drink a lot more Brazilian coffee.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister set a price on HMCS Bonaven-turel If he has not, would he like to calculate a price f.o.b. Edmonton, landed on the North Saskatchewan River, so we could-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-136, respecting the expropriation of land.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.
DEBATES	7487
Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage CANADA LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (for the Minister of Labour), moved that Bill C-214, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Would the minister permit a question? Would it not have saved time and a lot of trouble for the minister if Bill C-99 had been called rather than the present bill?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I was hoping to go along in this rather gentle and philosophical vein for a basic reason, but if the hon. member wishes me to enter into the political arena I will suggest that he send that bill to the premier of Manitoba, who is having a very difficult time in arriving at a decent minimum wage for that province, in spite of election promises.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How do you know I have not?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Those of us familiar with the Swedish package know that this excuse is rarely tolerated by management, government or labour in that country. It is not a valid excuse because, in the end, inefficient industries will be bankrupt if they continue to offset inefficiency by starvation wages, perhaps supplemented once a week by welfare benefits or an abnormal amount of moonlighting. There are many ways industry can absorb the minimum wage in any province, provided it is a realistic figure.
First of all, and quite surprisingly, it can be absorbed by a greater degree of managerial efficiency. Quite often when an increase in wages is introduced into a company or indus-
May 29, 1970	COMMONS
try, it forces management to become more efficient. This is usually reflected in higher productivity, particularly if that efficiency is coupled with a degree of humanity, understanding and respect. In the final analysis, workers are equally as important as the bloody machine. When you combine this humanitarian aspect with the dignity of man, and a degree of efficiency, then you will improve productivity. As a result of this, many employers find themselves able to absorb the higher rate of pay.
Another thing that can be achieved through better management is improved labour efficiency. When I hear the port of Montreal bleating about lack of productivity in the port, that the port is going to pot and that people are diverting from Montreal, I ask the reason. The reason is that management refuses to manage. All too often after signing a collective agreement management does not take advantage of the clauses giving them the right to manage. When people complain about labour, they forget that sometimes management does not have the courage to enforce the collective agreement. By and large labour is very responsible. If you indicate that you intend to manage they accept that; if they have grievances and there is a procedure, they will respect the procedure.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we have to be careful in establishing a figure for minimum wages is that in many of the provinces there comes a trade-off point when it becomes desirable for management to offset an abnormally high increase by automation. I think this is desirable in the long run, but it can have a rather disastrous effect in marginal industries when introduced too radically. However, we should be working toward it in all industries. The textile industry is a good example. This minimum wage must be phased in over a period of time in such a way as to create minimum unrest in the labour force. If the minimum wage is set high enough, then it will not create an unexpected problem by being below the guaranteed income. Even when this concept is adopted, the provinces will realize that if the minimum wage is realistic it will reduce the strain on the welfare programs of the country
There are a few other points I would have liked to mention, Mr. Speaker, but I know there are many people who wish to speak on this subject. I apologize for having to introduce this bill in this way. Without in any way trying to stifle debate, I should like to remind the House that I wish to make this 22375-56J
DEBATES	7491
Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage legislation effective on July 1, which is not too far away. In fairness to employers who have accepted this increase in the minimum wage, we must give them the opportunity of making the necessary adjustments in payroll and any automated equipment they may have.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the maximum co-operation, without in any way attempting to stifle debate, on this very important subject of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would permit a question? The minister mentioned that he has received submissions from employers regarding this bill, as have many members. I wonder if the minister could take a minute to inform the House just what employees will be affected by this bill. Will every employee working for every firm in every province of Canada be affected?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to answer all these question about the Labour (Standards) Code at the end of second reading, but I will answer this one now and take note of the others as they are asked.
This bill applies exclusively to those people who come under IRDI Act-railways, airlines, railway hotels-these are disputed but we will include railway hotels-various field of communications such as radio and television, chartered banks constitute a very big portion, food mills, certain mining industries, but not the public service. The public service traditionally goes along with the changes. There are a few people in restaurants, maybe in this very building, who will benefit from this increase in the minimum wage.
* (12:40 p.m.)


Mr. Benjamin:: Mostly unorganized.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It will affect people who are almost completely unorganized. I think that there may be a few hundred people in Canada who bargain collectively and whose wages still come below the minimum. There are other groups which I have not mentioned because on second reading we talk of the principle of the bill. Under the regulations there has been some leeway with respect to younger people and those who are physically handicapped, and I intend to adjust these rates upward as well.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware how anxious the minister is about this legislation which amends the Canada Labour (Standards)
7492	COMMONS
Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage Code. He ought to be anxious, because in this affluent country so many suffer from poverty. We have frequently heard that about four million of our people are poor. Of course, we do not wish to prolong this debate and do not wish to see any possibility of the minister not being able to meet his deadline. I am not particularly interested in the minister's welfare, however; he is doing all right. I am more interested in those who may be able to take advantage of the new legislation.
Some people may misunderstand the significance of the legislation. The other day, while I was in a hotel that is not a government hotel, a waitress asked me if the increase in the basic minimum wage would apply to her; I told her that it would not. I suggest that the minister and members of the committee ought to advise the people of Canada that this legislation will not affect everyone in Canada but only those who are involved with federal services.
I did not particularly like the minister's statement regarding marginal industries. His suggestion was that they might find it difficult to meet the minimum wage and left me with the impression that he thought they should get out of business. The tax proposals in the white paper of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will do that well enough, and there is no need for the minister to throw in his two cents' worth in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If the minister is really interested in marginal employers, may I refer him to an article by Wilfred List, dated May 6, 1970? I do not know in what newspaper it appeared.


George Harris Hees: He writes for the Globe and Mail.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The article quotes the words of Frank Whittingham, a chief research officer for the Ontario Department of Labour, and reads in part:
Alternatives would be short-term government aid to low-wage industries to help them re-organize, adopt new production techniques or develop new product lines so that they could improve profitability and their ability to pay higher wages.
Instead of telling marginal industries to get out of business, the minister should recommend to his colleagues on the treasury benches an incentive program whereby such industries would be enabled to meet technological changes. They would then be better able to meet minimum wage standards.

DEBATES	May 29, 1970
I am concerned about what has happened as a result of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, and about the effect of dumping. The other day I directed a question to the government on the subject. I asked for a statement so that we could determine what is happening as a result of dumping in this country. I understand that dumping is seriously affecting many of our secondary manufacturing industries. There is no sense in our talking about increasing the minimum wage if, in the long run, we adopt policies which will lead to increased unemployment. The minister ought to consider this, because such policies are part and parcel of the government's entire program.
Although I am pleased to see the minimum wage jump from $1.25 to $1.65 per hour, I wonder why this reform has been so long in coming. I understand that the minimum wage was last increased in 1965, when it jumped from $1.00 to $1.25 an horn-. The present increase will not come into effect until July 1. Unfortunately, the cost of living is outstripping increases in wages, and that concerns me.
I did not hear all the minister's speech. Perhaps the minister might consider tying the minimum wage to some index. Perhaps some guide might be referred to. In other words, I do not think that we should wait for another five years before hearing the sort of announcement the minister has just made. We ought not to wait for another five years before hearing that the minimum wage has been raised to $2.00 or whatever the figure may be. In this field the federal government is the pace setter, because the provinces will follow its lead. Actually, I am beginning to wonder whether $1.65 an hour is not too little and too late, to use an old cliche. Frankly, I think the new minimum is too little, and it has come too late.
A report in the Toronto Telegram of May 20, 1970 by Richard Mackie indicates that the minister has been experiencing difficulty with respect to the decision to implement a new minimum wage. Perhaps the difficulties stem from the Minister of Finance, who seems to be interested in five television sets at a time and who has told the country that one could live on $30 a week. He is now known as 30 buck a week Benson. Perhaps he would not go along with the minister's suggestion. Of course, one can only speculate on the matter. The report in the Telegram reads in part:
Mr. Mackasey is understood to have pushed for an increase to $1.75, but the Cabinet held it for $1.65.
May 29, 1970	COMMONS
I do not see the minister shaking his head. But he is too smooth a minister to acknowledge the truth of that statement. The cabinet held the increase to the $1.65 level, whereas the minister recommended $1.75.


An hon. Member:: Don't get carried away.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The article continues:
The increase was delayed for several months because many senior government officials believed it would be inflationary.
Who are these officials? Are they people who sit on the treasury benches, or are they in the bureaucracy.


George Harris Hees: They are people like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Was it the Prime Minister, or was it thirty buck a week Benson? The government seems to be adopting twin policies. One policy moves us in one direction, and the other is aimed at creating more unemployment. This is a sad state of affairs. Could there not be a comprehensive study of this entire matter?
The Woods Task Force Report on labour relations indicates at page 202, paragraph 714:
We recommend that the government review its objectives for establishing and raising minimum wages to ensure that they are consistent with current needs-
The minister himself has indicated that $66 a week, which would result from a rate of $1.65 an hour, is inadequate. The task force report recommends that the government ought to be concerned with current needs in this field. I continue:
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
-and that it explore alternative methods for pursuing the objectives more effectively. In this review, consideration should be given to establishing minimum wage levels consistent with a minimum standard of living,-
The minister has apparently failed to meet the requirements of the Woods task force. He has failed to meet the very basic requirement that the minimum wage should meet the minimum standard of living.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Will the hon. member
permit a question? The hon. member is quoting from the Woods report. Does he agree with the Woods task force that minimum wages should be set on a regional basis?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If I recall correctly, I think the task force indicated that there should be a
DEBATES	7493
Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage standard taking into consideration the regional inequities. If the minister will let me finish, I will continue quoting:
In this review, consideration should be given to establishing minimum wage levels consistent with a minimum standard of living, set in consultation with public and private welfare agencies. A minimum wage policy should be adopted in order to contribute to the establishment of a uniform living wage across the country. We do not necessarily recommend a universal minimum wage rate,-
I think this is the point the minister was trying to make.
[DOT]-because experience indicates that where there are wide economic disparities a universal standard tends to be lower. It should be possible to have a basic minimum standard subject to upward regional adjustments.
I believe this is the point to which the minister was alluding. I was going to get to that.
An automatic adjustment factor-
I do not know whether the minister has that in mind. If he mentioned it in his speech, I did not hear it.
An automatic adjustment factor should also be incorporated to ensure regular revisions of the minimum wage to keep it in line with changes in the cost of living, if not with living standards in the economy as a whole.
That is the point I am trying to make. Other of my colleagues will have more to say with respect to this matter. I hope the minister will include this in his over-all review. When he returns I hope he will say, as a result of further deliberations we are now going to be able to attach this federal minimum wage to some particular guideline so it will not be necessary for 500,000 workers to get satisfaction only once every five years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, possibly the House would agree to call it one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-214 has as its
purpose to raise the amount of the minimum wage for those who come under federal labour jurisdiction from $1.25 an hour to
May 29. 1970

Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage $1.65 an hour. This is a step in the right direction. Therefore, even though the bill does not go far enough, and even though it fails to deal with some of the other matters that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) said this morning he would like to deal with, we shall, of course, vote for the bill.
I confess I am a little surprised that a government that is practising austerity and economy bothered to print Bill C-214. After all, Bill C-99 was printed last October and has been available for these many months.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Whose bill is that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bill
C-99 is perfectly drawn as far as procedure is concerned. In fact, it looks as though the minister has made an exact copy of that bill, with the exception of one change. He put in a new minimum wage of $1.65 an hour instead of a minimum wage of $2 an hour, as set out in Bill C-99, which as I say has been before the House in my name since last October.
I shall come in a few moments to my arguments as to why $1.65 an hour is not an adequate figure to be introducing at this time, but may I first point out that the alleged dislocations than this bill might create are really very minimal. According to such figures as I have been able to obtain, there are about 550,000 workers in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction. These are workers in such industries as the railways and transportation generally, in the communications field, in banks and a number of other fields.
I am told, however, that something of the order of 10,000, perhaps fewer, of these employees are presently earning less than $1.65 an hour. In other words, this bill, asking for a minimum wage of $1.65 an hour, will affect only about 2 per cent of those employees under federal labour jurisdiction, which is an infinitesimal percentage of the total work force in Canada, at least so far as the direct application of this bill is concerned.
Therefore, what we are concerned with in this bill is a matter of principle, as well as the whole question of giving a lead to the provinces and to the economy of this country generally. I know the Minister of Labour is not happy with the bill. That was pretty obvious from the take-it-easy manner in which he presented the bill this morning and also from the effort that he made to say that this figure had been arrived at scientifically. When a figure of $1.65 has been arrived at scientifical-

ly, then I suggest this is a word we should look at. He did not say in that paragraph of his remarks what he meant, but to be fair to him I think I know what he had in mind.
Earlier in his remarks he made a statement, with which I thoroughly agree, on a matter I have spoken about a good many times on the floor of the House, namely that it is not enough to talk about increasing wages or pensions on the basis only of the increase that takes place in the cost of living index. This is a popular notion with which we have to deal all the time. Many people, even many who are affected, think that if only they can get their incomes or their pensions geared to the cost of living index, all will be well.
The fact of the matter is-the Minister of Labour in fact said so this morning-that this approach is not good enough. All you have when a wage or a pension is indexed by the rise in the cost of living is a scheme that keeps you in the same position that you were before relative to the goods and services that are available. But this can actually depress your position with respect to that of other workers and members of society. I am happy to see the Minister of Labour nodding his head up and down, and also his parliamentary secretary, which shows that there are two members at least on the government benches who agree with me. When one considers the fact that any indexing the government has done has not only been confined to the cost of living figures but has also been put under a 2 per cent ceiling per year, then it becomes a bit of a hoax. So I agree with the Minister of Labour that we must look at other statistics when we talk about indexing such a factor, as the minimum wage.
o (2:10p.m.)
The minister spoke about an average wage and wage increases in other sectors of the economy. He also referred of course to the wage index. I do not know whether this morning he referred to the fact that the wage index is used in one or two other places, notably in the Canada Pension Plan, but whether or not he did I shall mention it now. The wage index is used in the Canada Pension Plan in computing the pension a person will receive under that legislation up to the point of retirement. Even in that legislation, however, those who have retired have their pensions indexed only according to the rise in the cost of living. But in this one place in federal legislation, namely in respect of the earlier stages of the Canada Pension Plan, we
May 29. 1970	COMMONS
do have a recognition that there is something better than the cost of living index, namely the wage index.
While I regret that this bill does not include some provision for automatic increases in the amount of the minimum wage, I would rather not have it at all than have one of these arrangements that is geared to the cost of living index with the kind of ceiling this government can place on such legislation. Nevertheless, it is still regrettable that the minister was not able to persuade his colleagues that this is the time to accept the principle of escalating the amount of the minimum wage on the basis of a concept or a formula that is fair. I take it that because the minister took his stand on this principle-a principle with which I agree-he wants me to believe, and I do believe him, that when he said he arrived at the figure of $1.65 on a scientific basis he means he arrived at it not only by looking at increases in the cost of living since the $1.25 was established but also by looking at other things such as the wage index and so on. That is fine, but how fair was the $1.25 minimum wage when it was established?
Any statistical computation that suggests that $1.65 today is as good in terms of purchasing power or wages as $1.25 was a few years ago does not face up to the fact that $1.25 was not sufficient at that time. What really bothers me about this kind of thing is that it goes on all the time in our society. We are trying to improve things for everybody but we always make much greater improvements for those in the middle and upper brackets than we do for those in the lower brackets. We justify this sometimes by using the percentage formula. So, if we give a 5 per cent increase to those in the upper brackets we say we will give only the same 5 per cent increase to those in the lower brackets. This goes on all the time, and the result is that we are forever widening the gap in our society between those at the bottom and those at the top. As I have said frequently this goes on not only in our society but in the world at large. All the things we do by way of external aid are pretty well nullified by the fact that the gap between the developing and the developed countries keeps getting wider and wider.
I think some day we must come to an era in our country where we concentrate not on doing things across the board to make sure those at the top receive their increases but where we concentrate on those at the bottom of the scale. This is the reason I would have
DEBATES	7495
Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage liked to have seen the minister today, instead of bringing in a figure of $1.65 in Bill C-214, bring in, if not my bill, one in his own name which would provide for $2 as the minimum wage. We feel very strongly about this and therefore at the appropriate time we intend to move the appropriate amendment. It is not our intention to move any amendment at this second reading stage because all that could be moved would be something to the effect that the bill be not now read a second time but that some thing or other be resolved. We do this sometimes when it is our only opportunity. But in the course of dealing with this bill we will have at least two clearcut opportunities to deal with the question of the amount. When the bill reaches the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, we will be in a position to move an amendment that $2 be substituted for $1.65.
I hope by that time the minister will have been able to persuade his colleagues that this is one of those progressive liberal moves that the party to which he belongs ought to support. I hope if he is unable to persuade his cabinet colleagues to that effect, enough small "1" liberals among the big "L" Liberals on the committee will agree that the figure should be $2 instead of $1.65 an hour. If it should turn out that they are not yet persuaded at the standing committee stage to deal with this matter, there is of course the report stage. As I have said before, I believe one of the main improvements we made when we changed our rules a few years ago was the introduction of the report stage. It will be possible for us at that point-and I give notice now that I shall be doing so-to bring in an amendment to change the figure from $1.65 to $2 an hour. The advantage of an amendment of this type at the report stage is that one does not have to say that the bill be not now read. One does not have to take any negative action. One can just make the positive point by itself that the figure be $2 an hour rather than $1.65 an hour. I plead with members on all sides of the House, who after all are favourable to increases of various kinds, to support the proposition that these people at the bottom of the economic ladder in our country should receive more than is involved in the increase from $1.25 to $.1.65 an hour.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) made some reference to dislocations that any increase in the minimum wage might bring about. We agree with his statement that these dislocations should not deter us from acting in the way proposed or even more so. The hon.
May 29, 1970

Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) seemed a little unhappy about the things the minister said in the course of his remarks and quoted some sentences from the Woods task force report on labour relations. I should like to remind the hon. member for Hamilton West and the Minister of Labour that there is another paragraph in that report, or in fact two or three, numbers 715, 716 and 717, which face up to the fact that increases in minimum wages can result in unemployment or rises in the cost of doing business and can possibly result in some dislocations.
The Woods task force report, however, said that is no reason for not taking such steps and that the thing to do is to take other steps in terms of welfare, investment planning, regional development programs, industrial incentives and other activities to improve the economy generally and to make these things possible. I commend this to the hon. member for Hamilton West but I commend it also to the Minister of Labour. I was glad to hear him say it is better that some of these marginal businesses should be out of business than that people be paid wages which are lower than those on which humans can live. But because he and certain progressive members of the cabinet across the way hold that philosophy I hope he will go all the way with it and say it is time we have a figure which at least bears some resemblance to the realities of life today.
e (2:20p.m.)
The Economic Council of Canada puts the poverty line today at about $4,200 a year for a family. The figure in the minister's bill for a worker who gets 50 weeks work a year would give that worker $3,300 a year, and if he got in all 52 weeks without any holidays at all, he would only get a little over $3,400. Does the Minister of Labour feel happy about the fact that he, a progressive member of the cabinet, is shortchanging these people by $800 or $900 a year below what the Economic Council of Canada says is the poverty line at the present time?
I am not all that happy about the $2 an hour that is proposed in my Bill C-99, and that I shall move in the committee and at the report stage, but at least it produces an annual income of around $4,100 or $4,200, which is just about dead on-and that is a good phrase to use in this context-with the poverty line established by the Economic Council. I was glad to hear the minister say this morning that he is going to close the

second reading debate. Come on, Mr. Minister-I know we are not supposed to talk that way here but other members do it so why can I not look him in the eye too and say to him, come on, Mr. Minister. Surely, you are not going to stand in the House and defend a bill in your name that asks people to work for $800 or $900 a year less than the Economic Council says is the poverty line in this country. The minister does not have to do that. All he has to do is either say he withdraws Bill C-214 and takes Bill C-99 or tell his Liberal friends in the committee to vote for our amendment to raise the figure to $2 an hour.
It is just as simple and straight forward as that. Never mind this scientific, academic nonsense. It is not scientific or academic for workers who have to live on these wages. They have families to support and a life to live in this great, supposedly free country where we are all united and all looking to the future. They cannot do any of these things on these levels of income.
The minister may come back to me and say that I pointed out myself that this is going to affect only about 10,000 workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction. It might affect a few more if we get it up to $2 an hour. But he has also admitted that this is a pace setting operation, that what we are trying to do here is to get the provinces to move as well. He admits it takes the provinces four or five years to catch up with changes made in federal labour legislation. He chided me about Manitoba. Of course, the Manitoba government is having difficulty trying to get the minimum wage up where it wants it to be.
The minister suggested I might talk to the premier of Manitoba about this. Does he think I have not? Does he not realize that any influence I have with the premier of Manitoba and the members of his government is on the side of getting them to push the minimum wage up as high as they can? Yes, they have difficulties, and they have to cope with them, but the difficulties this minister has are nothing compared with the difficulties the provinces have, because this minister is dealing with a work force about 97 per cent or 98 per cent of which is already above the level that he proposes, namely, that at $1.65 an hour.
It is always good to get improvements in labour legislation. I have been bringing in bills and making speeches on labour code matters for a quarter of a century or so and it is always a red letter day when some pro-
May 29, 1970

gress is made. The $1.65 an hour is better than $1.25, so this is a red letter day. But why not make it a really worthwhile day and come all the way with a bill that goes at least to $2 an hour?
There are two or three things more that I wish to say while I am on my feet, and I do not want to use my full time. I am sorry that the minister still leaves those below 17 years of age unprotected. There are people of that age who have to work and they do not get even the protection of this legislation. I agree with his statement that the important way to solve these problems is through collective bargaining, through trade union organizations. He says the trade union membership of Canada comprises about 35 per cent of the work force. Even that is a generous figure; it is somewhere between 30 per cent and 35 per cent. So, we need this kind of legislation to cover those who are not protected.
What about all these people below the age of 17 who are not protected anywhere by collective bargaining or even by the minister's legislation? I am also surprised that we still have no action by the federal government to make its rules applicable in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories where this government has the complete say. The only people they cover in those areas are the categories of those who work on the railroad, communication workers and so on. But to all intents and purposes provincial laws for those areas are made by the federal government, and we think this should extend to all of them.
I am also sorry to note that although here we are amending the Canada Labour (Standards) Code there are still some sections of it which have not been fully implemented, notably the sections having to do with the hours of work. I must also draw the minister's attention to the fact that the companion piece, the Canada Labour (Safety) Code, which was rushed through because we had to get it into effect two or three years ago last December, still is not in effect except in very narrow sectors of Canadian industry. The government has not yet even drawn the regulations under it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let hon. members say that louder. It is a shame that this kind of thing drags on. I have not been surprised at how slowly things moved with some of the labour ministers we had in the past, and I will not name them although
Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage their names come to my mind. But this man, this labour man, this Liberal, this progressive who says the right things and does a good job when he gets into contract negotiations, should take some action. It is too bad that the law prevents him from getting into the postal dispute. He has done a good job. We like him. We call him brother. We almost call him comrade.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Here we have an important piece of legislation. The minister made it clear in his speech this morning that he wishes it were a lot better. Here is his chance. I give the minister this one more chance to cut the ground from under me and to make it impossible for me to move my amendment for a $2 minimum wage in the standing committee or at the report stage. I will be quite happy to have that ground wiped out from under me if only the minister will accept the $2 figure and make this bill one of which he and all of us can be justly proud.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, upon reading Bill C-214, I can easily see that it is meant to change the minimum wage.
Naturally, the Canadian Labour Code could be improved with regard to industrial security and protection of young workers under 17 years of age.
However, what we are dealing with now is an amendment to the provisions of the Canadian Labour Code with regard to the minimum wage.
In businesses under federal jurisdiction, the hourly minimum wage will be raised from $1.25 to $1.65 if the bill before us is passed. The adjustment of 40 cents an hour is necessary and I do not know who could oppose it.
The measure will mostly benefit employees in broadcasting and shipping. It is normal that workers who are not protected under collective bargaining should get decent wages. It would also be appropriate if the minimum wage were revised regularly so as to correspond to the economic reality. I am convinced that the minister is keeping a close watch on this aspect of the problem.
Since the minimum wage was set at $1.25 an hour in 1965, it is obvious that an adjustment is necessary in 1970. However, a survey
May 29, 1970

Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage of minimum wage rates in the various provinces of Canada reveals that British Columbia, for instance, has a minimum wage rate of $1.50 an hour as compared with $1.40 in Alberta-it will be boosted to $1.55 next October 1. In Manitoba, the minimum rate is $1.35 and will be increased to $1.50 next October 1. In Quebec, it is now set at $1.35 in Montreal and $1.30 elsewhere in the province. I have noticed that in some other provinces there is a difference between urban and rural rates, in my opinion, this is not normal. In Ontario, the minimum wage is $1.30 an hour. As for Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, they have two minimum rates, a $1.25 urban rate and a $1.15 rural rate. Their minimum wage for women is $1.00 in towns and 90 cents in rural areas.
Prince Edward Island applies a minimum rate of $1.25 for men and 90 cents for women, and in New Brunswick the minimum rate is $1.15.
Nova Scotia has the lowest minimum rate, $1.10 for men and 85 cents for women.
We feel that the change to the minimum wage brought about through Bill C-214 will set a practical example to all those whose responsibility it is to take decisions in this field.
e (2:30 p.m.)


Robert Muir: I have been looking forward to the opportunity to say a few words on the Bill C-214, Mr. Speaker, mainly because of the importance I attach to the responsibility of Parliament to make sure that the Canadian worker receives a just and equitable wage for his labours. I wish to commend the minister for bringing in the legislation which, although delayed is still welcome. If I am not in error, I believe this is the first piece of legislation to be introduced by the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). This is not through any fault of his. He was unable to lead earlier legislation through the House because of illness in his family. We all understood that and I am sure we are glad to see him back in the House after his recent visit to the hospital. We hope he will have his health restored so that he can continue to fight against the millionaires row in the cabinet on issues like this and can bring in some really good legislation.
I hope that the next legislation will be of greater value than this and much more important. However, this is a step in the right direction.
The minister mentioned that the academic economists take a dim view of minimum wages in this country but possibly they never had to work for $1.25 a day and therefore the subject does not bother them too much. I fully agree with the minister's comments that there were some misgivings about the minimum wage being uniform across the country, and I listened with interest to his dissertation in that area. He should realize, however, there are a lot of hard-nosed men, some of them in his cabinet, who have never worked, far less worked for $1.25 an hour. I think he should use his persuasive powers on them, as he is a persuasive minister and there is no question that he has worked very hard on this bill.
The minister mentioned that some people think that the raising of the minimum wage will put certain plants or firms out of business. I agree with his comment that if they are unable to work efficiently enough to pay the minimum wage then certainly they should be out of business. Of course, we should keep in mind the effect that the white paper may have on small businesses. We hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will not go forward with his measures in that particular field because it will certainly affect many small businesses.
As has already been mentioned, Mr. Speaker, this legislation covers approximately 532,000 government employees or those interwoven with government, and this is a small portion of the work force of the country. The minister also mentioned that in Toronto, a man with four children can draw $53 a week on welfare. Even with this increase in the minimum wage, he can only earn $66 a week so it is not a great step forward, though we are grateful for it.
There are two reasons why I have been anxious to enter the debate on this bill, Mr. Speaker, and if my second reason appears to contradict the first, it is because the bill is so typical of the legislation often proposed by the present government. There is an expression we use in the Maritimes that is familiar to members from other parts of the country: "You're darned if you do and you're darned if you don't." This expression applies to every bill that we have been asked to debate in recent months, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is time the government took the time and the trouble to examine the problems we are facing before it proposes the answers.
Over and over again, we are asked to consider legislation that is designed to solve a

May 29, 1970	COMMONS
vital problem, and then when we read the bill it is immediately apparent that no one in the government has taken the time or the trouble to make a thorough analysis of problems they are attempting to solve. I say that they are attempting to solve problems because I feel charitable at this moment. I want this government to continue to think of me as a friend. I want them to think of me as an understanding colleague, someone they can turn to for sympathy and a kind word as they drift around aimlessly trying to keep out of each other's way.
I must confess that at times I am moved to laughter, Mr. Speaker, such as is resounding in this chamber at the moment, but I want to assure my friends across the floor that it is not malicious laughter. It is just that at times I am reminded of the technique used by farmers in my riding to get their cattle from the fields to the barn. The trick is to take one of the cows, a leader, and turn her in the direction of the barn. The rest of the cows follow blindly. In fairness to my friends squirming around on the government benches-or maybe mooing-I must admit that the technique works. I hear another sheep over there whimpering. We are dealing with people, Canadian People, who expect us to come up with solutions to serious problems, not stop-gap measures.
Before I deal with the deficiencies in Bill C-214, Mr. Speaker, and before I offer constructive criticism as to how this problem might have been handled, I would like to say that I am in favour of this bill as I have already intimated. I intend to vote in favour of the bill at this stage, when we are considering the principle of it. Yet, I intend to ask this question: is this the best that the government can propose? I am surprised that the government did not fix the miminum wage rate at $2 per hour, as suggested by the Canadian Labour Congress approximately two years ago.


An hon. Member:: 
Robert Muir: This government suffers from a fixation in setting round figures, especially where they are colossal figures. It likes round figures such as $500,000 for a one day party at Expo; 500,000 people who are unemployed. Although the official figure is 544,000, I am sure that at least 600,000 people must be unemployed. Many people become tired of waiting around

Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage at Canada Manpower Centres. Finding no employment, they do not turn up after a while and are not included in the active files. Consider also the $8 million spent for the B and B Commission, and the $50 million low cost loan for Malaysia, a loan which will probably never be repaid. At the same time, the government has turned down a request to lend money to the Atlantic provinces for the Fundy tidal power project. Some day perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will come to the Atlantic provinces crazily dressed and perform a few crazy dances, and then perhaps the Atlantic provinces will have access to the money necessary for this tidal power project.


J. Michael Forrestall: Not a chance.


Robert Muir: I am
surprised the government did not consider the $2 figure proposed by the CLC. Perhaps the figure was dropped into the government's legislative grinder and, with the Minister of Finance turning the crank, the $1.65 minimum wage came out. I do not doubt that the Minister of Labour who has been shown to be a pretty good minister, tried his best in cabinet to obtain a larger figure. It is too bad that he should be over-ruled by the Drurys, the Bensons, the Goldwaters, the Trudeaus and those others of this world who do not know what it is to work for either $1.25 or $1.65 an hour. Having worked around the Montreal docks and in other jobs, the minister I am sure has a much better appreciation of the problems in this field. That is why he has been called in successfully to resolve so many labour disputes in this country. Somebody said it is unfortunate that people like the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) must make a mess of the postal service of this country when a man of the calibre of the Minister of Labour could resolve the situation. But he has not been involved.
Why did the government choose $1.65 an hour? One may be forgiven for wondering if that figure was selected on the toss of a coin. A few years ago that wage might have been acceptable to those workers who are represented by large and able unions. Not since 1965 has the basic minimum wage been increased, and in the interval we have had to suffer under three successive Liberal governments.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.

Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys): I
appreciate that applause because it shows that the hon. member is applauding runaway inflation, the astronomical rise in the cost of living, the rise in taxation and in unemployment, and this country's general economic malaise. Perhaps the government justifies the new low minimum wage by saying to itself that since so many people are out of work, those fortunate enough to retain their jobs ought to be satisfied with the $1.65 an hour provided by that great white father who is the Marco Polo of the day-and I am not referring to the Minister of Labour. Perhaps this is the government's view of the matter.
It has been pointed out that the head of a family of four who earns $1.65 an hour will, in one year, earn an income that will be $400 below the poverty line set by the Economic Council of Canada. A.s time goes on, his condition will become worse and worse because every passing day the dollar buys less and less. I cannot understand why the government did not consider a minimum wage level in keeping with our economic and social climate. Even if $1.65 were adequate today, in the light of what is happening in the economy it would be inadequate in a short time. Inflation has severely restricted the national economy and has changed the wage picture drastically in the last four years, as I am sure the minister will agree. This processing continuing at an alarming rate. A wage that might have been considered good four years ago will barely enable one to exist today, and I am not thinking of any wage as low as the $1.65 minimum. Naturally, I should like to see this bill pass, so that after July 1 we may at least enable some Canadians workers to enjoy a slightly better standard of living. However, I would have been in favour of this bill two years ago or even four years ago, and I had no idea then that we might be in such dire economic straits today. I must say, however, that even though I shall vote in favour of the bill I am frustrated by the government's failure to study this problem in detail and propose solutions.
One point that strikes me is this. Why will the minimum wage be paid only to those who are 17 and over and not to those who are younger? Many workers, especially male workers, are full grown and fully developed at 16. Why should one man who is 17 receive $1.65 an hour minimum while the man working next to him who is 16 receives less? I understand that the minimum wage of $1 an hour for those under 17 is to be retained- 
DEBATES	May 29, 1970
Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage why I cannot fathom. I hope the minister will explain this to us when he replies. Often a boy of 16 becomes the head of his home. When a father passes away, the burden of caring for a family often devolves on a 16-year old boy, and why he should be debarred from being paid the minimum wage I fail to understand. I think this matter ought to be reviewed and changed.
Our party is most anxious to pass this legislation but at the same time it condemns the government for not having brought in a larger figure. We wish the legislation to be passed as quickly as possible and hope that some changes will be introduced. If the minister could have persuaded his cabinet colleagues to adopt a $2 minimum figure the legislation would have been that much better.


George Harris Hees: Hear, hear.


Robert Muir: know that some members of the cabinet think that anyone who complains he is not receiving enough money for the job he is doing is being unreasonable. They find this incomprehensible. They cannot understand why people should complain about unemployment or being paid the minimum wage of $1.65. They have not been unemployed and therefore have not been faced with the problem. The first minister of this country said that he would not worry if unemployment went beyond 6 per cent. This would not cause him any sleepless nights. Unemployment has gone beyond 6 per cent. In many areas of this country it is 20 per cent and more. This is a terrible disgrace.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
In conclusion, I wish to commend the minister for what he has done. He is doing a good job, but he must have some sleepless nights trying to figure out this cabinet with which he is forced to work.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate, I find it somewhat difficult to be enthused about passing this legislation quickly in light of the experience we have had with similar types of legislation proposed by this government on previous occasions. We are amending a measure which was enacted in the 1964-65 session of Parliament, at which time we set the minimum wage for all employees covered by the federal jurisdiction at $1.25 an hour. A number of things were done by this legislation, including setting cer-
May 29, 1970

tain standards for hours of work. The then minister of labour urged us to co-operate in passing the legislation quickly so that the living standards of the 500,000 workers under the federal jurisdiction would be protected. What do we find five years later? A very substantial number of the workers who are theoretically and ostensibly covered by this legislation still are not protected by the hours of work provisions of the act.
Employers were given an opportunity to appeal against the implementation of the minimum hours of work provisions as it applied to their industry. When some of us protested at that time we were told that we ought not to worry or protest very much because there had to be a transitional period. The government, the minister and the department were given a year in which to bring all industry under the provisions of the act. What the then minister knew, and what we did not know, was that he had the right to not only give a year's extension but the right to consider ad infinitum whether he should deal with the application. No changes could take place during the period the minister was studying the matter.
We have a situation which is a disgrace. I thought the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), who has spoken so frequently and eloquently about his concern for the working people of this country, would have done something to clear this up. I think I am right in saying that railway workers still are not covered by the 40-hour work week provision of this act. The present minister was once a railway employee. How long is he going to permit this to go on? It has gone on too long. Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I remember a former minister of labour, now the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, appealing to this House to pass the Canada Labour (Safety) Code without debate. He wanted to begin immediately protecting the rights, working and safety conditions of the workers who came under the federal jurisdictiion. He wanted that bill passed with no debate whatsoever. The bill to which I am referring was passed two or more years ago. If I am wrong, the minister can set the record straight. I understand that the safety regulations under that act have only been applied to the workers who came under the Devco operation.
The railway workers of Canada still do not have the protection which they would have if they were under provincial jurisdiction. There are no standards for the heating facili-
Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage ties or the air in the shops in which they work. The government is still working on the problem. It is a disgraceful situation. The minister has not corrected the situation even at this late date. If I were not so sorry for the minister having to introduce such a miserable proposal, I would be amused. Under this bill the minimum wage for employees under federal jurisdiction will be raised from $1.25 an hour, which was set five years ago, to $1.65 an hour. I am sure the minister is aware that the Economic Council of Canada has set the poverty line for a family of four at $4,200 a year. Yet the minister is proposing that we only raise the minimum wage to $1.65 an hour.
I have made some rough calculations. I admit my arithmetic is not the best but my calculations show that $1.65 an hour, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year amounts to between $3,300 and $3,400 a year. That is $700 or $800 below the poverty line set by the Economic Council of Canada. The minister and the government ought to be ashamed of this proposal.
The minister must have read the brief prepared by the Department of Labour. He must know that organization. This brief was submitted to the special Senate Committee on Poverty on May 22, 1969. Possibly someone else wrote this brief and the minister simply read it into the record, if he even did that. I wish to quote from page 248 of the committee evidence where the department's submission to the Senate committee is set out:
One should hope that minimum wage rates should be maintained at levels that will enable workers to support their families and maintain their health, dignity, efficiency and self-respect.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I do not expect the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to know whether a worker can maintain his family in health, dignity and self-respect on $1.65 an hour. After all, they were born with silver spoons in their mouths; they never had to worry about where the next meal was coming from. But we expected more from the Minister of Labour. Let me read another paragraph from the same submission:
How do humanitarian considerations affect minimum wages? The critical dilemma is in choosing a minimum wage rate that would provide adequate protection and fair treatment for unskilled workers generally, without excluding from part-time and full-time employment a great number of physically handicapped, illiterate and culturally deprived
May 29, 1970

Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage people who still have the desire, the need and the ability for productive work, yet cannot compete effectively for the least skilled jobs.
Will this objective be achieved by fixing the minimum wage at $1.65 an hour? I suggest it will not. I can see no reason for this figure except the refusal of the government in this as in nearly every other case to fight entrenched interests which are simply not prepared to pay an adequate wage.
The government has calculated that not more than 10,000 people who come under federal jurisdiction will be affected by this proposal. Most of the employees concerned are in industries which have been organized by trade unions and, as the minister has stated, they have long since been able to raise their wages to substantially more than $1.65 an hour. So the new rate will have little effect on federal employees. Even had the rate been fixed at $2.00 an hour, few employees under federal jurisdiction would have been affected, I submit-perhaps with the exception of some working in banks and in grain milling.
One of the good effects of the legislation passed five years ago, when we set the rate at $1.25 an hour, was that it acted as a spur to the provinces and encouraged them to increase their minimum wage rates. There are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of employees under provincial jurisdiction who receive less than the federal minimum wage-people who work in hotels, in service industries, in the garment industry; people who do housework, people who operate elevators, and so on. When the rate of $1.25 an hour was set five years ago we were doing something not only for federal employees but for workers under provincial jurisdiction.
This bill to raise the minimum wage to $1.65 an hour does virtually nothing to set an example for provincial authorities to follow. What is the situation? In British Columbia the minimum wage is already $1.50 an hour; in Alberta it is $1.50 and it will be $1.55 on October 1; in Manitoba, the rate is now $1.35 and this will increase to $1.55 on October 1. In Ontario the rate is $1.30; $1.50 in the construction industry. Quebec has a Montreal area rate of $1.35 effective from May 1 but this will be increased to $1.50 or more in the months to come. So we are not really doing anything, as we did last time, to set an example for the provinces, and I say this ought to be done.
The minister was urging my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre to persuade the

government of Manitoba to raise the minimum wage in that province. I think he knows better than that. I think he knows that the government of Manitoba would be happy to raise the minimum wage, but, like any other provincial government it has to face the probability that if it raises the minimum wage higher than the minimum in other provinces, particularly neighbouring provinces, certain types of industry which traditionally pay low wages will migrate. The government of Manitoba is no different in this sense from any other government. The way to bring about an increase in the minimum wage in the provinces is to set the federal minimum wage at a point which gives the provinces a reason for raising theirs. This is what happened last time, and it is what should be happening now.
There is one further point I wish to make; I do not intend to go into it in any great detail today. It is that neither the rate of $1.65 an hour or even the rate of $2 an hour suggested by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre would be sufficient to meet the problem of poverty which is faced by so many people in this country. Poverty is of various types. There are the working poor who will be affected by an increase in the minimum wage; the hundreds of thousands who make less than $1.65 an hour will be affected by a general increase in the minimum wage. But there are hundreds of thousands who are not working at all-old age pensioners, veterans, people who are ill and incapacitated. There are hundreds of thousands of Indians and Metis people who have never been able to find a place in our work-oriented economy.
I noticed an article written by James Gray in one of the Calgary newspapers; I believe it appeared as a reprint in the Ottawa Journal yesterday. It contained an estimate that 90 per cent of the 10,000 Indian people who have moved into Calgary are now living on welfare. For them an increase of this type in the minimum wage is of no benefit at all. What is needed is a redistribution of income. What we need, in fact, is a social security policy to guarantee every Canadian citizen an annual minimum income.
e (3:10p.m.)
Some of us who thought that there were a few small "1" liberals in this government- very few, but nevertheless a few, including the Minister of Labour-were hopeful that the study on social security matters headed by Dr. Willard, Deputy Minister of National
May 29, 1970	COMMONS
Health and Welfare, would have been completed, published and discussed by the people of Canada, as a result of which would have come forth government legislation or at least a statement of policy to the effect that in the not too distant future we would enact a law to guarantee to every person in Canada that they would not fall below a certain minimum standard of living. We now know that the report has been completed. Those who know Dr. Willard better than I have assured me that because Dr. Willard has been working on the report, it is a good one and one which, if it is biased at all, will be biased on the side of humanity; that it will be a report that will show the people of Canada what can and what should be done.
Although it is obvious that the report has been completed, unfortunately it has not been published or tabled. It is locked away in the cabinet because it is obvious that the cabinet is divided on the matter: it is divided between the view of ministers like the Minister of Labour, who I hope wants to do the right thing, and the view of ministers like the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) who are wedded to the illusion that the way to deal with inflation is to have more unemployed and to put the lid on improvements to the pension plan, whether for old age pensioners or veterans. They subscribe to the view that the way to put the lid on inflation is to put the lid on any new proposals for extending our system of social security. As a result, we are not being given this report.
I am not critical of what the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir)- who spoke before me-said, or of the question asked by one of the members from Newfoundland during the question period today in connection with the $500,000 spent on Canada Day at Expo at Osaka. I am not opposed to our being represented at Expo in Japan. I am not opposed to our putting on a good demonstration at Oska of the kind of talent that we -have, though I must say I was a little disturbed at spending $500,000 and arranging for a live television transmission via satellite. About 10 of the 60 minutes of the program was taken up with some pretty crummy commercials. But, as I say, I am not opposed to that expenditure. Neither am I opposed to foreign aid. I will always support foreign aid for countries that are much poorer than Canada. We have to do our share for these countries and the members of this party have
DEBATES	7503
Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage always urged the government of Canada to increase the contribution we make by way of foreign aid programs.
At the same time, I cannot condemn or be critical of Members of Parliament who come from depressed areas in Canada, or of ordinary citizens in Canada who ask, as they are asking increasingly, how we can spend this amount of money on a luxury at Osaka or how we can give aid to French Equatorial Africa when the Indian people of northern Manitoba or northern Quebec are living on a per capita income of less than $100 a year.
This is the kind of problem we have to face up to but have not done so. Neither are we facing up to it in this bill. I suggest we get on with the job instead of waiting for some mythical date when so-called inflation will be licked, because that day may be 25 years or more away. I suggest we get on with the job right now by publishing the white paper on social security. Let us set our goals for improving our system of social security. Let us set as the objective what ministers of the Crown, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and we in this party have been talking about now for a number of years, namely, the establishment of a guaranteed annual income for every person in Canada. In addition, let us set the minimum wage at a rate of which we ought not to be ashamed.
In closing, let me say that I will be ashamed of voting for a proposal that sets the minimum wage in Canada in the year 1970, the cost of living being what it is, at the rate of $1.65 an hour. As my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre said, we are going to move an amendment which if accepted would increase the minimum rate to $2 an hour. I am certain that this amendment will be turned down. We will then be faced, of course, with the problem of what to do. Should we vote for the $1.65 an hour rate which we consider inadequate

there is no doubt it is inadequate-or should we vote for it simply because it is better than the present rate of $1.25? I suspect we will vote for it; but nevertheless we will not be happy about voting for a minimum wage that will give to those who have to live with the rate an income substantially below the poverty line estimated by the Economic Council of Canada.
I ask the Minister of Labour to adopt the slogan that was made popular some years ago by the Unemployment Insurance Commission-"Why wait for spring? Do it now!" I ask, why wait till later to bring in a measure setting the minimum wage at the rate
May 29, 1970

Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage that it ought to be? Do it now. Let the government accept the proposal put forward not only by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre but advanced for several years by the Canadian Labour Congress, that of a minimum wage rate of $2 an hour.


Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the hon. members who have preceded me in supporting this intiative on the part of the government to increase the minimum wage rate for employees in Canada who come under the direct control of the federal government. As was pointed out by the previous speaker, it should be emphasized that this legislation will directly affect very few Canadians, roughly 7,000 out of a total of approximately half a million who are presently covered by the federal minimum wage rate legislation.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
There are certain things about this bill with which I disagree. Like the hon. member who preceded me, I hold firmly to the view that if there is to be a fairly uniform code of justice for the workers of Canada, the federal government will have to take the initiative, though I realize, of course, the federal government is limited in this respect by the con-sti ution. However, there is not much point in this government bringing in a minimum wage rate of $1.65 an hour, inadequate as it is in my opinion, although it is better than the previous rate. There is little consolation for us in supporting legislation which brings the minimum wage rate for employees under federal jurisdiction up to $1.65 an hour when we have in this country ten different standards affecting our workers.
In my province of Newfoundland we have the lowest minimum wage rate in Canada. Statistics have been placed on the record during the course of this debate which give the minimum wage rates for the various provinces of Canada. I shall not burden the House by repeating them, although repetition of this nature should serve the useful purpose of driving the point home to the minister and the government. The government must not only raise its own minimum wage rate to reasonable level-it is still not high enough-but must go further and use the influence it has with the provinces to encourage, coerce or by whatever means possible influence the provinces to raise their minimum wage rates to an acceptable standard.
The rate to be established by the bill now before us will mean that the pay of a federal government employee will amount to $66 for a 40-hour week. In this day and age of inflation which is rampant across the country, and with the cost of living taking its toll in varying degree, especially in the regionally disadvantaged areas of the country, such a wage is not enough for a man to sustain himself and his dependants. This is on the basis of $1.65 an hour, the rate proposed by this bill. What about the situation in the province of Newfoundland where the rate is set at $1.10 an hour for men and at the discriminatory figure of 85 cents an hour for women. This is in a province where the per capita cost of living is the highest in the country.
The injustice of this situation becomes readily apparent. In addition to that discriminatory rate for women, who in many instances do the same work as men, there are unjust and unfair exceptions. Up until a few weeks ago, people engaged in work in fish plants were excluded from the provincial minimum wage law. Females engaged in domestic work are still excluded from the provincial minimum wage law. Now, however, the exclusion in respect of fish plants has been eliminated.
The majority of the people who work in the fresh frozen fish plants in my province are women. They perform very hard work while standing in a chilled room, handling fish which come out of the refrigerated lockers of a ship. They work ten hours a day. Imagine working ten hours a day at a rate of 85 cents an hour and having a take-home pay for one day of $8.50! The injustice of this situation is apparent, particularly in a province where in many instances the people have to pay 45 cents or 50 cents for a quart of milk and where the ordinary means of obtaining protein through the use of beef or other meat is practically cut off because they cannot afford it. This is an injustice about which I am sure the minister is aware, because I know from his background that he does care. However, I wish he could find some way to transmit his concern and the concern of Members of Parliament to his provincial counterparts so that they would do something about provincial minimum wage rates.
We might consider for a moment the anomaly of five of the ten provinces of our country paying more in direct welfare payments than in wages under their minimum wage laws. These interesting statistics, which reveal what can be described as a paradox, were brought

May 29, 1970	COMMONS
out during the hearings of the Senate Committee on Poverty. The provinces are Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. The statistics show that the total payment for a family of four on the welfare rolls ranges from $2,100 a year in Nova Scotia to $2,953 a year in Manitoba, with Ontario coming a close second to Manitoba. Here is an area in which the federal government has a direct responsibility under the Canada Assistance Plan. This is perhaps an area wherein the federal government could use its influence with a province by saying that we can no longer continue the anomalous situation in which provincial welfare payments-which are the consequence of federal participation and in which we pick up 50 per cent of the shot-exceed the amount a worker can receive under the minimum wage law of the province.
I suggest it would be logical for the federal government to expect the provincial governments to at least bring their minimum wage rates up to a point where people would be encouraged to work rather than to sit at home and accept welfare payments. If I were working for the minimum wage in my province, and had a family of five or six and could only hope to receive the minimum wage of $3.10 an hour which would give me a take-home pay of less than $50 a week, I too would be encouraged to give up my job. As a matter of fact, I would be a fool if I did not do that, and apply for welfare, since in my province the welfare payment would exceed the weekly pay cheque I would receive as a result of my labour because of the unjust minimum wage rate which, as everybody knows, in many cases becomes the maximum wage rate. This is the type of injustice with which we live in this country. Whether we have to live with it is another question entirely.
I believe it is a waste of the taxpayers' time for we in this Parliament to speak about increasing the minimum wage rate for employees under federal jurisdiction when we know this measure will affect only half a million workers and that only 7,000 of those people will be directly affected because the vast majority of Canadians come under the jurisdiction of provincial minimum wage laws. The minister has some feelings in this regard. I know he is less enthusiastic about this legislation because of the paradoxical situation which exists all across the country.
I was not in the chamber for all the minister's speech, but I understand that we are to

Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage draw some encouragement from the fact that there will be a plan to tie the minimum wage law to the cost of living. I hope that the percentage rates that will be used will be in excess of those presently used for old age pensioners. I hope that plan will soon be effected. I repeat that the number of Canadians directly affected by this legislation is only a small percentage of the whole population in a country where we have a different standard for each of the ten provinces. We have different minimum wage laws and different methods of applying them.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I do not know whether a conference of provincial ministers of labour has ever taken place at the federal initiative, but the time is ripe for one to take place. This minister should use his initiative in calling such a conference to try to bring uniformity into the minimum wage laws of the country and to try to tie the minimum wage laws to a national criterion. I think the national criterion that should be used is the cost of living. It should be based on the province with the highest per capita cost of living. That is the only way in which a minimum wage can be applied across the country with any degree of justice.
I, too, am sorry to see the unjust exception of young people carried into this supposedly enlightened age. I cannot figure out, for the life of me, why we would exclude people 17 years of age and under. Many of us in this House started our working careers at an earlier age than that. I remember that my first job paid $11 a fortnight. We were not part of Canada at that time. My total pay cheque was $22 a month. Even today there is no law to protect unscrupulous entrepreneurs and companies of various types taking advantage of young people who are forced to work because of circumstances over which they have no control, young people who have to obtain employment to help sustain large families, as was my situation. I know that the minister's background indicates that he, too, had to earn a living at an early age. For this reason I fail to understand why the minister has not eliminated this unjust provision from the act. I hope that when he replies he will be able to tell us the reason for this anomaly.
I welcome this bill. I am sorry that it does not propose $2 an hour because I think that would be a fair start. I am not as confident as the hon. gentleman who preceded me that this legislation will stir the provinces into bringing in similar increases. It has not been
May 29, 1970

Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage the case in the past and I doubt if it will be the case in the future, unless we take steps and set up the means whereby there will be a national formula, a national program so that we can have a standard right across this country to ensure that Canadians, whether they are working in St. John's, Newfoundland, or Saskatoon, Saska'.chewan, will receive justice and will be guaranteed enough take-home pay to sustain them and their dependants.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their courtesy in permitting me to bring the debate to an end at a rather early hour this afternoon. I was particularly pleased at the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) in welcoming me back to the House and pointing out that on a previous occasion when I had intended to bring in legislation I was called away at the last moment through illness. I could not help recalling, when he spoke about my recent illness, one of the favourite expressions of the late Premier of the province of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis, who said whenever one alluded to his health, "I am dangerously well".
I was very impressed by all the contributions, particularly that of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who in wrapping up for his party the whole problem of poverty in this country indicated a feeling which I can understand and which I think is felt by more people, regardless of their background, than we realize. It is true that when I started work my salary amounted to 30 cents an hour, which I am almost ashamed to mention these days. It was $12 a week. I remember that my pay when I married and worked on the railways was 79 cents an hour, roughly $32 a week, because I think one got an extra cent an hour if one happened to be there and punched the clock on time in the morning, not my strongest suit, I am afraid.
There has been a tendency here this afternoon to look on a standard minimum wage as the only solution in the fight against poverty.
I am sure that this is unintentional. It is one of the many tools at the disposal not only of the federal government but of provincial governments in the fight against poverty. I think this has been a common theme in all the speeches that have been made today from all parts of the House. We all have a growing 
apprehension of increasing poverty because of the high rate of unemployment in this country.
I sensed, from what most hon. members said, the realization of the need for a greater degree of co-operation between the federal departments and their provincial counterparts in order that we make the war against poverty as fruitful and as effective as possible. The suggestion that I meet with the provincial ministers of labour is, of course, a very progressive one. I say that after having the experience of initiating such a move last year. I well remember the suspicion of some of the ministers, when we called the meeting, as to what I was out to sell them. But we established a very healthy and happy relationship early in the meeting when it became apparent to all of us that the purpose of the meeting was to exchange ideas and experiences.
I think on balance I left the meeting a much wiser Minister of Labour than when I first attended because the ministers of labour of many of our provinces, regardless of their political background, brought a great depth of experience to the conference. We were able to review, for instance, the Woods task force report and find out that many of the provinces are further ahead than the federal government in the implementation of some of its recommendations.
I say that the minimum wage is only one of a number of steps to be taken to fight poverty. I think another point that the hon. member for St. John's East made quite forcibly, and which is all too often forgotten in this country, is that there is a very mistaken conception about the cost of living across Canada. To the people in the Atlantic provinces the cost of living is much lower than the cost of living in large metropolitan areas such as Montreal and Toronto. As the hon. member pointed out, this is due to geography and the high cost of transportation. But where or not there are reasons for it, this is small consolation to a person who must live on a provincial minimum wage of $1.10 or 85 cents an hour. I think we have to look at the minimum wage in the context of the other programs that are available. We have to look at it, for instance, in the context of an overall fight to remove disparity to as great a degree as possible. As the hon. member for St. John's East said, the cost of living is almost uniform across this country but the advantages of being a Canadian are not equal. The
May 29, 1970	COMMONS
pockets of poverty which we dismiss all too easily for geographic reasons are no longer acceptable to many Canadians.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Coupled with objective and effective legislation on a minimum wage must come a greater rationalization of certain industries. The textile industry is a good example of where inefficiency has been permitted to exist for too long. Because it is a labour-incentive industry it has been able to survive and compete to a degree behind a high tariff wall and lower than average wages. Two or three weeks ago, in announcing a new textile policy the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) made it quite clear that over the next couple of years ra ionalization in the tex'ile industry will permit that industry to become more automated. That is not a word to fear. The textile industry must accept technological change and the unions must accept disruption caused by jurisdictional conflicts.
Out of this rationalization should come a viable industry, one better equipped to compete with the other textile manufacturing countries of the world. It should then be able to support better paid workers who will no longer be relying on federal or minimum wage standards to bring home any kind of tolerable wage. This, of course, must happen and is happening to some degree in the fishing industry under legislation which the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) has proposed or is about to propose.
As I said earlier Mr. Speaker, having reviewed the Labour (Standards) Code I found the main defect in our approach to the minimum wage at the federal level was not in the amount but perhaps was in the very logical point made by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. It has been five years since the last increase. In fact, it has been five years since the bill was incorporated, and that was the first time in federal history that we had any minimum standard. I thought perhaps this was more significant, in the last analysis, than the amount. If a minimum wage is to have its major impact on the economy in the sense that it helps to redistribute the economy, it should be something that is adjusted annually.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker-and the House can take this as the word of the Minister of Labour-in the fall when the Labour (Standards) Code comes forward it will include provisions that will make it pos-
DEBATES	7507
Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage sible to adjust the minimum wage automatically every year. Furthermore, that increase will not be a hit and miss affair but will be based on a formula that goes beyond just the cost of living as is suggested here. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) mentioned, this would perpetuate poverty and would never close the gap.
The formula used in arriving at $1.65 an hour from $1.25 was a culmination of the cost of living index and the productivity index. If we had used the cost of living index alone, we would have arrived at a figure between $1.45 and $1.50. By adding the productivity index we were able to come to the figure of $1.65, which is about 6 per cent more per annum since 1965. For these reasons, Mr. speaker, I am more insistent on the importance of an annual increase rather than one just when the House gets down to it. We do get unforeseen events such as elections and other things that sometimes make it impossible to act on schedule.
According to the formula I have in mind there will be at least an annual increase in the minimum wage. Some of the economists to whom I have spoken approve the minimum wage as a weapon against poverty. Those who do not, claim that one of the reasons it is ineffective is that it is so seldom raised. I think we can remove this objection by finding a formula that will be predictable in the amount of increase, perhaps once a year in July tied in with a formula that goes beyond the cost of living index. I have not forgotten the question of salary increases across the country as one of the indexes.
Perhaps earlier I should have spoken a little more elaborately on the question of people under the age of 17 whose rate is set by regulation at the present time. The philosophy behind that proposal was that we did not want to neutralize other incentives. The desirable social goal in 1965 was to make sure that as many as possible under the age of 17 would remain in high school or university and that only those who were motivated by reasons beyond their control would be induced into the work force by what appeared to be attractive wages. Regulation provides some flexibility and it is my intention to increase the minimum wage for people under 17 in the same proportion or perhaps by the same amount.
I have the same attitude toward people who are handicapped mentally to some degree and physically. We have not forgotten the young people. I am just repeating, as requested, the
May 29, 1970

Increase in Minimum Hourly Wage philosophy for not establishing a minimum wage in 1965 for people under 17. We believe that wherever possible our whole effort should be directed toward fighting the war on poverty and that we should help those who have traditionally been handicapped by a lack of education. The Senate Committee hearings have been extremely valuable in pointing out the pattern with which these people inevitably or all too frequently conform. People with a minimum education usually come from the lower-income brackets, if for no other reason than that there is no incentive or opportunity for them to obtain a better education.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion will be able to do much in the field of vocational training through programs in certain parts of the country. There are other programs, such as textile rationalization. The battle against poverty must be won, not strictly through minimum wages by trying to provide what is considered a liveable wage but by eliminating the whole problem by a concentrated and co-ordinated effort in all existing programs. The hon. member for St. John's East pointed out one of the weaknesses in our approach, that of insufficient co-operation and co-ordination in the past with our provincial counterparts to do something about the degrading problem of poverty.
I could defend the $1.65 minimum wage- indeed, I think I am doing just that-simply because I do not regard it as the only tool to combat poverty but only one of the many. As I said, I am satisfied that introducing the annual increase to the minimum wage will exert the type of pressure we want on the provinces so that they in turn will increase their minimum wage. As has been pointed out-and this was another of my considerations-a $2 level in Newfoundland or the other Atlantic provinces would have caused a real distortion in some industries to the point where so much havoc could be created that an industry would have simply moved into the centre of Canada where it was closer to the market and had the advantage of a lower wage package; alternatively, it might switch to automation. So there are delicate balances in arriving at a figure. I have no illusions, Mr. Speaker, that if I had come in with a $2 an hour minimum wage someone would have suggested it should be $2.25.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I gather, from having listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that he enjoys no more influence with the Premier of 
Manitoba than he does with the Minister of Labour in Ottawa. He tried to sell the $2 figure to that province but was not able to convince the Premier, who is a humanitarian at heart. Certainly he is a Liberal if he is not a Socialist. Perhaps that has been the reason for his success. He knew how far to go and did not go farther. Perhaps that is why some looked on him with suspicion. At any rate, he lives next to the province of Alberta and the minimum wage of his province is higher than that of Alberta.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister not know his geography?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I deliberately skipped the province governed by a Liberal government, for various reasons. I know their minimum wage rate. I think we exert a greater influence on the provinces than the sheer size of the federal government might imply. We use our minimum wage standards in federal contracts that are awarded for public works, for instance. We insist on minimum wages being paid in highway construction projects in those areas coming under federal jurisdiction. The minimum wages are reflected in the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which governs minimum standards involved in the awarding of tenders. So we have a substantial and effective influence in this field.
I hope that once we have defeated future NDP amendments we shall pass the bill as quickly as possible in order to allow those enlightened employers who may have accepted this concept the opportunity to make the necessary adjustments to payrolls and to computers used in calculating wages, and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the minister permit a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is not about my
geography?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
not about the minister's geography. Since he has referred to possible problems of computing, does he not think it would be much simpler if the computers could work with a round figure like $2 an hour instead of the awkward figure of $1.65?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Working with $2 may be much easier but it would not be realistic. Perhaps that shows the difference between myself and the hon. member. I must be realistic in what I am doing and, being realistic, I have set the minimum wage at $1.65 an hour. That is not a figure for which I apologize. It is
May 29, 1970	COMMONS
not a figure with which I have been saddled. It is one that is accepted by cabinet, and I am responsible for it. We took the $1.25 previous minimum wage, calculated the increase in the cost of living as well as the increase in national productivity during the past five years, and arrived at the figure of $1.65, a figure which has the support of my cabinet colleagues. In the fall I shall bring in some more substantial changes to the code that will enable the minimum wage rate to be adjusted annually.
This, of course, will affect all the provinces and provincial ministers of labour. We must not forget that the actions of the federal government in this field influence the provinces. It is important that we enjoy a uniform minimum wage across the country. As I said earlier, I do not believe in regional differences in the minimum wage and I do not think that the people in different parts of Canada should accept a lesser or lower rate of wages, where that is unnecessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not believe that the cost of living of the people of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia or the Maritimes generally is any lower than that of the people of central Canada, and any alleged differences in living costs are exaggerated. I often wonder why this myth has not been more forcefully dispelled in public, because the cost of living in the more remote areas of Canada is as great as it is in central Canada. There is no particular reason, therefore, why minimum wages in one end of the country should be different from those paid in the central provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Certainly, I do not subscribe to the idea that living costs in those parts of the country are lower than elsewhere. That is not the basis of my thinking.
As hon. members have said, and as I have pointed out, the level of the federally set minimum wage exerts an influence on the provinces. We must be careful, therefore, not to set an unrealistic rate, because if the level is too high problems will be created for some industries in some of the provinces before they have had the opportunity to take advantage of existing programs that departments of government have put at their disposal.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), who is not here at present, raised the question of marginal industries. I suggest

Aeronautics Act Regulations Bill that most marginal industries in this country of the kind the hon. member alluded to ought to take a second look at some of the programs available from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. They should take advantage of assistance offered, rationalize operations, take advantage of financial assistance and the advice of experts in the field and introduce technological changes which will make them more competitive and enable them to rely less on the payment of starvation wages in order to survive.
In conclusion, I thank the House for its courtesy. I hope hon. members will co-operate in the various stages the bill must pass through before it becomes law.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Loiselle:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Saint-Henri on a point of order.


Gérard Loiselle: I think that the House would agree to take a few minutes of the private members' hour to discuss Bill C-218, which is of some importance.


Thomas Miller Bell: We agree, Mr. Speaker, provided the matter takes only five minutes or so.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



AERONAUTICS ACT REGULATIONS BILL


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: that Bill C-218, respecting regulations made pursuant to section 4 of the Aeronautics Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, Notices of Motions, Public Bills and Private Bills.

May 29, 1970
External Affairs



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Healh Macquarrie (Hillsborough) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of taking an initiative in seeking to promote closer relations with the former British possessions in the West Indies which have not yet attained independence and further that, if the residents of these islands so desire it, economic and political union of these islands with the Dominion of Canada be negotiated at an early date at the proper constitutional levels.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as one who tries to appear as young as possible, I am reluctant to point out that this is the fourth time in recent years that I have presented this particular resolution or one in similar terms. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the halfcentury mark can give the semblance of having fun at 50, possibly I can appear something less than a geronton among the group here.
This nation's foreign policy may very properly be judged by its success or failure in dealing with the neighbouring communities to which this motion refers. There are many reasons why Canada should be especially interested in the Commonwealth Caribbean, reasons more profound than those of some of us, like my colleagues to the right, who have a fondness for rum and other derivatives of molasses and sugar which come from that part of the world.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: There are many reasons why Canada should be interested in the Commonwealth Caribbean. It has pained me greatly that in recent months, and in particular in recent weeks, we seemed to have failed to strengthen our ties with these people or to retain the good will which we once had with the people of the Commonwealth Caribbean. In fact, we have lost esteem and regard in this area, an area which in my opinion must be one of major concern and high priority.
A few days ago I read an article in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald by a leading expert in the Canadian academic field and Canada-West Indian relations, Professor Duncan Fraser. The article was headlined, "Canada-West Indian Relations Worsening". I hope

those who have responsibility in this field will carefully note and inwardly digest the pertinent comments of Professor Fraser. A most distinguished and highly informed expert on and from the West Indies recently declared before a committee of the other place:
I would say at the moment there is stronger resentment and hostility to Canada as a power than against any other power that I know of in recent years.
These are the words of Dr. George E. Eaton, professor of economics and director of professional studies, Atkinson College, York University, a native of Jamaica and a most lucid and well informed expert on West Indian affairs. It was with great sorrow that I heard the testimony of this man. Dr. Eaton's remarks are not isolated comments; they are typical of the appraisals of many thoughtful people who care about our relations with our Caribbean neighbours. While not wishing to inject excessive partisanship into the private members' hour which on Friday afternoon should be a tranquil exercise in good fellowship, I cannot but observe that the decline in our diplomacy in this area is too sadly akin to recent contractions of the Canadian role in respect of other parts of the world.
Only the most bitter partisan or the most myopic observer would deny that in our relations with the United States we have hit a new low in co-operation which fearfully may lead to a new high in disadvantage for this country when the final excesses of nationalistic bombast have been delivered. The real facts will come home to underwrite the folly of loose-lipping. Who really believes that our influence in Europe has been increased or made more meaningful in the last two years? I have not heard that testimony from any observer or authoritative person on or about the scene. Would anyone suggest, even task force personnel, that we have played even a minor role in Commonwealth affairs after the last Prime Ministers' conference and our "last-minuteism" regarding Nigeria and Biafra?
Do we play a meaningful role in the Far East? Highly publicized charismatic adventures are not diplomatic triumphs. Have we made any contribution in the Middle East? At limes it seems we are not even able to retain a balanced state of non-involvement or nonpreference in this area of non-activity. Has anyone heard recently of a major Canadian contribution to the United Nations or any of its agencies?
May 29, 1970

I am afraid in the year 1970 we are suffering from the kind of excess of non-involvement or withdrawal which distinguished the Mackenzie King era which will not go down in the annals of great statesmanship when Canadian history is finally written. Most painful of all is our failure to deal in terms of friendship and helpfulness with those people whom we should be able to understand best, our Caribbean neighbours, whose institutions in many ways are similar to ours and whose contacts with us have been close and long established.
The people in eastern Canada, the Mari-times, have had associations with the people in the West Indies, associations which have benefited both groups. Perhaps, as I said in a previous debate, they get the worst of the bargain when we send them salt cod and they send back rum. However, new dietary science has indicated that the lowly cod is in fact a highly beneficial nutritious food. The contacts between our people were valuable. It is a shame they have been lost. A more imaginative government could have done much more through the development of a seaborne commerce with these people, with the more advanced technology in reference to refrigerated ships to stimulate the trade that could exist between the two areas.
It has long been my contention that in our external aid program, to use the old-fashioned expression, we have been giving too little to too many. A country like Canada cannot mount a meaningful program of aid to nearly 70 countries flung across the globe. We must choose those areas where our aid could be effective, perhaps even decisive. In those countries it is very difficult to guarantee that Canadian aid, assistance and co-operation should command first priority.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Give me a list.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If at another time the interjecting minister will give me an opportunity to give him a list, I will be glad to do so. Right now I am trying, as a reasonably good Member of Parliament, to stay within the terms of the resolution. When he comes forward with his Trade and Commerce estimates before the committee of the whole, I will give him some advice; but I do not think he will be doing that.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
If we cannot give meaningful help to these small islands with which we share a common heritage and generations of friendly associa-
External Affairs
tion, I wonder whether we can really do it effectively anywhere. If we fail here, ought we not to consider carefully whether or not there is a grave flaw in our exercise of programs of this type?
It is easy to point to the islands in the south and say the current coolness of attitude arises from a certain maladroilness in connection with events at Sir George Williams University. It is easy to say it is the result of excesses among black power advocates or that it is due to insensitivity on the part of some Canadian business institutions. In my view we would be less than candid and would be serving our national interests less than well if we assumed that in saying these things we were giving an adequate analysis of the situation. Much more serious, I believe, is that in this area for too long we have been too insensitive to the values of the people in the Caribbean region and we are now reaping the consequences of some of the insincerity we have shown for so many years.
Our sugar policy alone has injured their economy, and we have sharply debased our credibility by unilaterally repudiating the agreement with respect to sugar subsidies. I hear the minister of anti-Americanism, the minister in charge of resources, talking constantly about unilateral action on the part of the United States. Apparently it is perfectly in order for Canada to act unilaterally in reference to sugar subsidies-to turn away from the commitment given here in 1966 at the Caribbean Conference held in Ottawa. I think our action in this regard was totally shameful; it is one which no Canadian should accept without feelings of chagrin and shame. I quote from a recent article by Professor Fraser in which he says:
During the 1966 Canada-Commonwealth Caribbean Conference in Ottawa a West Indian cabinet minister deeply involved in negotiations for a more realistic and generous Canadian policy toward West Indian sugar assured me that he was confident that the Canadian government was about to give West Indian sugar producers the fair deal and fair prices they had long sought.
Lester Pearson's government in fact gave the West Indies a sum the equivalent to the duty collected on West Indian sugar imported into Canada of 29 cents a hundredweight.
This 29 cents has recently been unilaterally revoked by Canada.
The Professor goes on to point out that by this one act alone, Canada diminished its credibility, its popularity and its effectiveness.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is it not true that Canada still

May 29, 1370
External Affairs
buys sugar from the West Indies at a price above the world market price?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It is true that Canada is buying sugar at a price below the price at which we indicated we would buy it. I think this is significant. It is all very well to honour commitments when the price of sugar is high. However, the defenders of unilateral repudiation will be able to explain their position as soon as I am through. If this is the new diplomacy, I want none of it. Having once given a commitment of this kind I believe we should honour it, no matter what happens to the world price of sugar. It was not geared thereto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: This unilateralism on our part ill-becomes a government which at times seeks to present itself as the great honourer of commitments, the great international crusader. There are always problems in these small communities, many of them serious enough to stagger their polity. They present immense challenges to the political leaders. I should like to see us declare in this Parliament that we regard these people as important and their problems as paramount, that we look upon the Caribbean area as being something more than a place where Canadians can have fun in the sun or make a few easy dollars in quick investments. Contrary to a suggestion made by a Liberal member last session, my motion does not contain any attitude of superiority or any reincarnation of colonialism. I ask that we extend to these, our neighbours, the fullest measure of goodwill and co-operation and, if they desire it, that we go even to the point of being willing to share with them a common political entity.
In eastern Canada some people, not many, are talking about maritime union. I think the project of uniting the three old maritime provinces is stillborn; I do not think it will get anywhere. But if we could include Newfoundland, with its great northern frontier, which has always since Confederation been denied the old maritime provinces, that would be a different situation. And if there were included, along with that, some of the communities of the Caribbean which might wish to throw their lot in with us, and if we had a province which to throw their lot in with us, and if we had a province which extended from Grenada to Labrador, we would have a concept which would ruffled up our spirits and give new verve to the imagination. For maritime union as now presented I am among 
the unconvinced and the unenthusiastic, but for a maritime or Atlantic province stretching from Grenada to Labrador I would be a starry-eyed zealot. Whatever the political configuration, we must move and move soon or we shall have to chalk up as a failure our activities in one of the most potentially favourable areas of our foreign policy.
So I would ask hon. members to give careful consideration to the failures which have recently been dramatised, but which are not so recent in their development, in connection with the Canadian presence in the Caribbean and the attitude of the Caribbean people toward this country. For too long Canadians have been easy and relaxed, rejoicing that they were not as other people were, notably the Americans. But here in the Caribbean, the area in which we can do the most and should be doing the most, we find that our attitudes, our aspirations and our values are being questioned. The time has come to stop taking one another for granted, to look again at this area and to question our policies. If we cannot be successful with the Commonwealth Caribbean, I think we can right write "finis to our ambition for any successful outreach in our foreign policies.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the mover of this motion, who indicated that this is the fourth time he has presented it to the House. There is no question that the debate provoked by a discussion of this motion is a most useful exercise. In my exchange with the hon. member a few minutes ago I was not seeking to engage in partisan comment with him, because without question I share the motives and objectives behind his motion.
Along with the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCuteheon) I recently had the opportunity, thanks to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, to attend a seminar on parliamentary procedure in the United Kingdom. At that parliamentary seminar were represented a number of countries of the Caribbean, those that have achieved independence and some that expect and hope to do so in the near future. I note that the hon. member's motion deals with those countries that have not yet achieved independence. There is no question that we have to look at the economy of the Caribbean and at the problems in that area bearing in mind that this is a regional problem and that our policy must have aspects broader than merely relating to the small number of countries in
May 29, 1970

that area which have not yet achieved total independence.
Democracy in Canada as we know it is a little over 100 years old. Prior to that time there were representative institutions in the provinces and in the Atlantic seaboard. The countries of the Caribbean had representative institutions even prior to the Atlantic provinces. Indeed, they have a tradition of democratic representation of which they are properly and justly proud. Since then the evolution of those democratic institutions has assumed different forms. Today we are a nation of over 21 million, highly industrialized, with an aid program we have attempted to extend to this particular part of the world and encompassing the type of assistance that would enable the people there to achieve the kind of standard of living that every country wants to have in the twentieth century.
Where I differ from the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) who moved the motion is on the question of adjustment between Canada and the Caribbean area. I know the hon. member for Lambton-Kent and I share some close personal friendships that we had the opportunity of establishing with some mature parliamentarians who would properly be accorded a place in any Parliament in the Commonwealth. I think of men like the Speaker in St. Lucia, a very sophisticated and mature student of parliamentary procedure. I know that today these people are fighting within the Caribbean communities a battle which as recently as two or three years ago was not even a challenge to them.
The hon. member for Hillsborough painted the picture for us by quoting the view of some of those who assess Canadian development potential that our popularity in the Caribbean has changed within a short period of time. Just a little while ago we were a country to which the Caribbean was looking to replace the United Kingdom as far as external relations are concerned, to give aid in defence matters, foreign policy and national development. But today we are an imperialistic nation whose banks are attacked, whose private investment is subjected to criticism and whose motives are suspect.
There is no question that two matters in particular are a source of aggravation. The first relates to immigration. Here it seems that we cannot do the right thing. Apparently Canada attracts about 14,000 immigrants a year from the Caribbean area. These people are, generally speaking, skilled-nurses, 22375-57
External Affairs
professional people, students who have taken training in Canada and have come here under our aid program. Yet we are accused of subjecting the Caribbean to a brain drain. We are accused of robbing them of their investment in social capital. We are accused of being the kind of nation that is depriving them of the leadership they will need to achieve the kind of society that they have set as their objective.
Let us look at the other side of the coin. If Canada were not to extend aid to the countries of the Caribbean, if we were not to open our universities to them, if we were not to have a program of development equal to $24 million annually for four million people, or $6 per year for every man, woman and child in the area-contrasted with 15 cents per year for the populations of those countries in the Colombo plan-what would be the charge against us? The difficulty is that when students from this area come to Canada, take their training and spend some time here, a number of them seek permanent admission. Now, we do not want to deny them. We do not want to discriminate in our admission policy. We do not want to tell them they must go back home and serve in their own country, because it is not for us to impose that kind of decision upon them. So we will be damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
There is no easy way to make this kind of adjustment in a difficult period. As a member of this House I say without qualification that I am proud of our program and that I hope it will be extended. I hope we will do more. I also hope we will not allow the pinpricks of an incident like that at McGill to distort our objectives. As a Canadian I do not think there is anything wrong with charging any person who comes to this country and destroys property and who riots. Our courts have an obligation to enforce our laws without fear or favour, with impunity, with impartiality. When fines are assessed as a result of a proceeding before the court in which there is full process of law, I do not like the representative of another country paying those fines and thereby condoning actions which were condemned in a Canadian court. This incident will not in any way affect the attitude I take as a member of this House toward our aid program and the wish I express that it be more extensive next year than this year. Similarly, I hope our universities will accept larger numbers of students from the Caribbean area because it is here that we have a very great challenge to demonstrate what we can do.

May 29, 1970
External Affairs
The other area where difficulty has arisen is trade. My exchange with the hon. member for Hillsborough related to one aspect of trade, sugar. As I understand the background of this situation, Canada unilaterally undertook voluntarily to rebate the 29 cents per 100 pounds duty that was imposed on sugar imports. This was in anticipation of a world sugar agreement. I understand we now buy our sugar under this world sugar agreement; we do not make our purchases on the same basis as the United States or the United Kingdom. I am also given to understand that we have decided that this policy is not achieving its objective: it is not coping with the basic problem of the sugar producers in the Caribbean area. At the moment we have put in its place a $5 million development fund proposal. We have not entirely closed our minds; we are still talking about the problem.
In the minds of some, this constitutes a repudiation of an agreement, an agreement that was all one-sided. It was what we agreed we would pay and what we agreed we would do to be of help and assistance. As a Canadian I know that I have a stake in the Caribbean. I also know Canadian businesses and enterprises have a stake there of-who knows -half a billion dollars. Canadian banks have been there, along with tourist agencies, and so on.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The aluminum processing industry has a stake in bauxite processing in Jamaica. I know that the Canadian name is known and respected throughout the whole Caribbean area. I am confident that over the years it will continue to be known and respected in spite of what has been going on. The fact is that this is an area of heavy unemployment and one in which educational institutions for higher learning are lacking. It is an area of underdevelopment and one in which there are people who aspire to the good life we all want to have. It is also an area in which black power recently has made inroads. We have seen on the television screens and in many other places the demonstrations that are taking place. These are things we must expect so long as poverty and substandard conditions of life exist and so long as underdevelopment is an unfortunate but apparently inescapable fact of life in that part of the world.
There is no simple way in which a nation such as Canada, Great Britain, the United States or any one of the major industrialized
[Mr. Francis.)
areas of the world can develop its trade relations, aid programs and its representation on a voluntary basis without having certain difficulties arise. I submit that the difficulties we know now would have arisen no matter which party formed the government of our country at this time. These are difficulties of a type which is inherent in the relationship of a more mature industrialized area with an underdeveloped area.
I believe we all understand the desire for closer relationships with the countries of the Caribbean. I am completely in sympathy with the motion of the hon. member. I am under no illusion, however, that the path either in terms of our relationship with the public officials of these newly-emerging states or in respect of the public opinion of Canadians themselves will be an easy one. It will test the forebearance, tolerance, patience and longterm view of all of us.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in complete sympathy with the motion now before us. I should like to refresh the minds of hon. members concerning what the motion actually states. The motion is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of taking an initiative in seeking to promote closer relations with the former British possessions in the West Indies which have not yet attained independence and further that, if the residents of these islands so desire it, economic and political union of these islands with the Dominion of Canada be negotiated at an early date at the proper constitutional levels.
I do not wish to appear to be egotistical, but I have had the privilege of being a member of this House of Commons for 17 years. As a member of the House of Commons I am not aware of any approach which has been made either through diplomatic channels or by members of the Caribbean or West Indies countries in respect of a political union with Canada. In addition, I have had the great honour and privilege during the past 14 years of being the vice-chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. As such it has been my privilege to entertain as guests elected members from the Caribbean countries. Never in my 17 years as a member of the House of Commons, nor in my 14 years as vice-chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, have I heard one person from the Caribbean area request political union with Canada. Therefore I just cannot understand this part of the resolution moved by the hon. member. I say it would be wrong for Canada, by the adoption
May 29, 1970

of a resolution of this kind, to take such a step. If members of the West Indies or Caribbean countries have any such thought in mind, they should approach us.
Any motion in respect of political union should come from these countries and should not come from Canada in the form of an expression of opinion from the House of Commons. Of course, I completely agree with the section dealing with economic aid. Although on occasion we may have thought we were not doing enough, I believe if we consider our assistance on a per capita, Commonwealth basis we will discover that Canada has never turned down any request for economic aid from the Caribbean nations. I am rather proud of this fact. I repeat that on a per capita basis, Canada has perhaps given more assistance than has any other nation of the world. This is my belief. If more economic aid should be required I would hope they would request it. I sincerely hope, however, that it would be done on the basis of Canada assisting the West Indies and Caribbean nations in their development rather than in the form of a double-barrelled motion which includes political union with Canada. It is up to the Caribbean nations to approach Canada in this regard; it is not up to us to pass a motion inviting them to do so. If they should make such an approach, we would consider it; we might even welcome it. But we have enough problems without expanding our dominion.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) for having the forethought to bring forward the notice of motion which is before us. I am particularly taken with the second line of the motion which says that we should consider the advisability of taking an initiative in seeking to promote closer relations with the Caribbean area and that we should consider opening our doors and giving them an invitation. In the fourth line of the motion we find the following phrase, "if the residents of these islands so desire it". I take the greatest exception to the remarks of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, because after telling us very positively how many years he had spent in the CPA and in the House of Commons he completely neglected to notice this part of the motion. If I were to invite someone to my home, I would leave to them the decision of whether or not they wished to come.
22375-57*
External Affairs
I agree with the remarks of my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis),, who commented on the conference which he-and I attended. During those four weeks we lived with many people from the Caribbean area. I admit, as did the hon. member for Hillsborough, that there are problems. But I also suggest, being an optimist, that there is a great reservoir of good will toward Canada in the Caribbean area. Of course, this good will is not increased by uninformed and unsympathetic reporting such as that found in the article which I have in my hand and from which I propose to quote extensively. It is written by Mr. Clyde Sanger, a leader writer for the Globe and Mail. The following is an excerpt:
Riots in Trinidad in March brought home to Canadians an unpleasant new fact: Canada is not seen by everyone in the Caribbean as a kindly friend and elder brother.
In fact, a strange and critical phrase began to be heard inside Ottawa's Parliament Buildings, where the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee has been studying Caribbean relations. Witnesses and Senators began talking worriedly about "a Canadian empire".
Is this exaggerated talk? It is certainly different from any ideas current here before this last year.
Eastern Canada has had close connections with the West Indies for most of a century. Schooners carrying salted cod south went first. In their wake came businessmen and bankers. The Bank of Nova Scotia has been established in Jamaica since 1889, now runs half the island's banking business.
Alcan (Aluminum Company of Canada) was the first firm to explore Jamaica's bauxite, and claims credit for semi-processing the red earth on the spot from 1952. American firms, in contrast, persisted until recently in shipping the raw bauxite immediately away.
Canadian governments-particularly that of Lester Pearson from 1963 to 1968-looked on the islands as an area of special concern. Last year development assistance to the Commonwealth Caribbean involved an allocation of $24 million.
This works out at $6 per head for the four million people there. In contrast, Canadian "aid" to Colombo Plan countries-including India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Malaysia-amounted to an average of 15 cents per person in that area.
In July 1966 Mr. Pearson held a special conference in Ottawa with a dozen heads of Caribbean governments to discuss more "fruitful collaboration."
It was all very flattering to Canada. There was hardly a cloud in the sky.
The horizon has changed dramatically in recent months. The growth of black power groups in the Caribbean is one factor. Another is the protracted trial in Montreal of students who, in the culmination of a protest against a professor's alleged racialism, first occupied and later smashed up a computer centre at Sir George Williams university.

May 29, 1970
External Affairs
This is the prize passage:
With extraordinary tactlessness the Canadian authorities decided to try, first of all the 97 students who had been charged (including white Canadians), a group of ten Trinidadians. The charges in Caribbean papers that Canada was more concerned about computers, and the $1.5 million damage assessed, than about human relations gained substance.
The article goes on to tell about the fire bombing in Port of Spain. Then it tells of Dr. Eric Williams' action in nationalizing the Bank of London and Montreal which, according to this article, set Canadian editors back. I quote again as follows:
The Senate committee will soon be writing its report. Since the government's white paper on Canada's foreign policy, due by June, is apparently mot going into much detail on the Caribbean, the Senate report will be exceptionally important.
But the Senators so far have failed to unearth some basic facts. Despite asking every witness, committee members are still unclear how much Canadian investment has gone into the Caribbean. They think about $500 million is there. They have no idea how much profit is being taken out-
Some Senators, too, believe it was a politically insensitive move to send Canadian infantry battalions down to Jamaica, three times during the past year, for tropical training. The Canadian chief of defence staff, General Sharp, roundly denies any idea of a secret pact with the Shearer government; but he thinks Canada should give something in return-some roadworks done by army engineers, perhaps.
Then we come to the sugar proposition. The article continues as follows:
Little has come of benefit to the Caribbean from the 1966 conference. Canada pays six pounds and ten shillings a ton above the world price for West Indian sugar-considerably less than Britain or the United States.


Thomas Miller Bell: Hear, hear!


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Before we say "Hear, hear" too loudly, I would like to say that I would be in favour of Canada doubling that price if the benefit of the increased price of sugar found its way into the pockets of the workers in the Caribbean instead of showing up in some of the financial houses in London.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: In my opinion this article is uninformed and unsympathetic reporting and was written with bias. I support the motion of the hon. member for Hillsborough. I suggest to the House that if we are going to aid anyone under our world aid program, we should concentrate on an area such as the Caribbean instead of spreading our resources so thinly that they are miniscule-and they can be nothing else when spread all over the

world. If we concentrated on the Caribbean area perhaps we could see what we are doing.
I should like to come back to what I said earlier, that I deplore such editorializing as we find in Mr. Sanger's article in the phrase "extraordinary tactlessness". I find that expression most distasteful. If people break the laws in this country they should be called upon to pay the penalty. I would also mention that Canadian industry down there could do more than it is doing and we could assist in the development of that area. I congratulate the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) on his foresight.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member? Has the hon. member any figures to demonstrate that Canada is only paying half the cost of production for its sugar? No matter where the cost of the sugar is going, Canada is paying a lot less than the United Kingdom and everybody else for this sugar.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: That is an excellent question, but I wish the hon. member would repeat it because I did not hear the first part of it.


An hon. Member:: Put it on the Order Paper!


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, much of the debate this afternoon has dealt with the federated group of West Indian islands and has avoided discussing the point raised by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). In fact, the hon. member himself gave us no information on what group of West Indian or Caribbean islands he was talking about. His oratory on the other aspect of the West Indies was interesting. As always, I was entranced by his oratory but I think this afternoon he may have been blown down by some gusts of his own oratory because he missed dealing with this subject in his speech. I would draw his attention to one or other of the four occasions on which he has discussed this subject in the House. In 1968 he discussed it and the Halifax Chronicle reported at that time as follows: The islands involved are St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Grenada, Antigua, St. Kitts, Montserrat and Dominica, which, together, have a population of 700,000. At present, they are responsible for their internal affairs; the burden of their external relations (trade, defence, and so on) are borne by the United Kingdom.
May 29, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It grieves me that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour assigned for the consideration of private members' business has expired.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 1, 1970