1971-06-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. St. Pierre.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
Hon, Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the attention of the House has been drawn to the publication this week by the New York Times of a series of documents describing the involvement of the United States in Indochina up to 1968. In these documents are several references dealing with the activities of an officer in the Department of External Affairs serving on the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Viet Nam in 1964-65. I should like to give the House the facts about his activities which he carried out on instructions from the Canadian government.
On June 10, 1965, my predecessor, the Hon. Paul Martin, Secretary of State for External Affairs, in a statement before the Standing Committee on External Affairs said:
I informed the House on Monday that our role in Viet Nam has not been supine and that we have attempted to use the channels available to us by virtue of our commission membership to establish contact with North Viet Nam. Our commissioner in Saigon, over the past eight months, prior to May 31 made several trips to the capital of North Viet Nam, Hanoi.
During these visits he has had discussion with the local leaders and officials in an attempt to assess the North Viet Nam government's position. I asked him to go to Hanoi on May 31 and to see someone senior in the government of Viet Nam, the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister, and this he did.
This is the most recent contact that he has made and although his report is not an encouraging one, I want to say that we have not abandoned the probing process. Mr. Seaborn, who is our commissioner, is an officer of considerable experience and ability. He is well qualified for an important assignment of this delicate nature. He had an interview with the Foreign Minister on May 31 in which he expressed Canada's concern, and our willingness to play a helpful role if possible.
He sought clarification of the North Viet Nam government's position including its reaction to the recent pause in the bombings. Naturally I cannot go into any greater detail about it at this time; but I would like to say that the Foreign Minister stated repeatedly that the four conditions which had previously been outlined by the Prime Minister of North Viet Nam on April 8, taken as a whole, represented the Hanoi government's approach to a settlement.
I should now like to give a full account of the nature of our commissioner's mission to Hanoi during the time he was in Viet Nam in 1964-65. In the spring of 1964 following a meeting between the United States Secretary of State Dean Rusk and the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Hon. Paul Martin, the Canadian government agreed that the new Canadian commissioner on the ICC in Viet Nam might be instructed to probe what was in the minds of the leaders in Hanoi and help to dispel any misunderstanding they might have as to the future course the United States intended to follow, that is, that the Americans were not thinking of pulling out of Viet Nam and were prepared to increase their commitment there if this were considered necessary.
Canada's motive in agreeing to this special mission for the Canadian commissioner was to try to promote a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Viet Nam. Thus the Canadian government considered it entirely consistent with, and indeed reinforcing, our role in the ICC. I should like to emphasize that the commissioner acted at no time as a direct representative of the United States government or president but only as a part of a Canadian channel of communication. It was clearly understood of course that messages to be conveyed in this way would be passed via Ottawa, that Canada did not associate itself with the content of the messages and that Canada would be free to add its own comments to any message passed in either direction. Our only commitment was that there would be faithful transmission of messages in both directions. The Canadian government's purpose in agreeing to participate in this channel of communication was to provide an opportunity to reduce misunderstandings between the United States and North Viet Nam and was founded on a strong desire to ensure the return of peace to Viet Nam and to Southeast Asia. This position was understood by both the Americans and the North Vietnamese throughout.
In the course of his tour of duty in Viet Nam, Mr. J. Blair Seaborn, who was the Canadian commissioner at the time, made six visits to Hanoi. Not all of these were occasioned solely by his special mission. Canadian members of the ICC maintain contact on a regular basis with the authorities of both South and North Viet Nam.
On his first two visits to Hanoi the commissioner was received by the North Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Van Dong on June 18 and August 13, 1964. During his
[Stage Direction]
June 17, 1971
Message to Hanoi by Canadian Official
first interview with the North Vietnamese leader Mr. Seaborn explained his mission and the Canadian government's purpose which was to establish the Canadian commissioner's credentials with the North Vietnamese as an authoritative channel of communication with the United States. At the same time, he conveyed the first of a series of messages from the United States government. Mr. Seaborn reported to the North Vietnamese that United States policy was to see to it that North Viet Nam contained itself and its ambitions within the territory allocated to its administration by the 1954 Geneva agreements. He added that United States policy in South Viet Nam was to preserve the integrity of that state's territory against guerilla subversion. He stated that the United States had indicated that it was not seeking military bases in the area and was not seeking to overthrow the communist regime in Hanoi. The commissioner informed the North Vietnamese Prime Minister that the United States considered itself fully aware of the degree to which Hanoi controls and directs the guerilla action in South Viet Nam and that the United States held Hanoi directly responsible for that action. He also made it clear that the United States considered the confrontation with North Vietnamese subversive guerilla action as part of a general confrontation with this type of violent subversion in other lesser developed countries. Therefore, the United States regarded its stake in resisting a North Vietnamese victory in South Viet Nam as having a significance of worldwide proportions. The commissioner mentioned examples of United States policy of peaceful coexistence having benefited communist regimes, such as Yugoslavia and Poland. The commissioner also reported that American public and official patience with North Vietnamese aggression was growing extremely thin and he feared that if the conflict in the area should escalate, which he did not think was in anyone's interest, then the greatest devastation would result for the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam itself. Mr. Seaborn reported that he was convinced that Pham Van Dong understood the importance and the context of the message he conveyed, and the seriousness with which the United States viewed the situation in Southeast Asia. To that extent it was judged that the initial purpose of this first contact has been successfully accomplished.
The second visit, despite its timing, was not occasioned by the incidents of August 2 and 4 in the Gulf of Tonkin and the air strikes against North Vietnamese territory on August 5. These occurred after Mr. Seaborn had arranged to travel to Hanoi on August 10 on commission business. On August 8 the Canadian government agreed to relay to Mr. Seaborn a further message from the United States government repeating many of the points made in the previous message and making clear that, "if the DRVN persists in its present course it can expect to suffer the consequences". This message was based on the talking points which were published in the New York Times on June 13, 1971. This message was transmitted to Pham Van Dong on August 13, 1964. Despite its severity the Canadian government believed that because of its importance and in the interests of peace it should be transmitted faithfully in accordance with our undertaking to the United States. According to our commissioner's report, the North Vietnamese premier was clearly angered by it and said that if war came to North Viet Nam it would come to the whole of Indochina. Nevertheless, he said he wanted the Canadian channel kept open. Neither the United States nor North Viet Nam, however, took any initiative to make use of it in the following weeks.
The commissioner's third trip to Hanoi on regular commission business was planned for November, 1964, but we were asked by the United States government to delay it to permit the preparation of a further message to the North Vietnamese. This message which was relayed to Saigon on December 3 had nothing to add to the earlier messages beyond the statement that "the time is ripe for any message Hanoi may wish to convey", and the commissioner was instructed by the Canadian government to deliver passively so passive a message. It was conveyed, therefore, to the head of the North Vietnamese liaison mission for the ICC. This was the only North Vietnamese official whom Mr. Seaborn saw during this third visit from December 10 to 18, 1964. These was no response to the American invitation for communication from the North Vietnamese and in January, 1965, the State Department told us that it was unlikely that the United States would have anything to communicate to Hanoi "in the near future".
American air attacks on North Viet Nam began in February, 1965, following a major communist assault on American facilities at Pleiku, and on February 27 Mr. Seaborn was instructed by the Canadian government to go to Hanoi to discuss a new message with the North Vietnamese Prime Minister. He went on March 1 but Pham Van Dong would not receive him and the commissioner saw Colonel Ha Van Lau, the head of the liaison mission, on March 4. At that time the commissioner conveyed to him the substance of a general statement of United States policy and objectives which was also being made available to the North Vietnamese government through the United States Embassy in Warsaw. Mr. Seaborn concluded following this meeting that the North Vietnamese were unlikely to use the Canadian channel of communication with the United States.
On May 28, 1965, following the suspension of bombing from May 12 to 17, the United States asked if the Canadian government would instruct Mr. Seaborn to pass a further message to North Viet Nam saying that "the United States continues to consider the possibility of working toward a solution by reciprocal actions on each side", and seeking clarification of whether American recognition of North Viet Nam's "Four Points" of April 8 was regarded by Hanoi as a pre-condition to any discussions. Mr. Seaborn went to Hanoi for the fifth time on May 31 and saw both Ha Van Lau and North Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen Duy Trinh. I apologize for my Vietnamese pronunciation. He reported his impression that the North Vietnamese were not interested in talking to the United States at that time. The fact that Mr. Seaborn had seen the North Vietnamese Foreign Minister

June 17, 1971
[Stage Direction]
was reported to the House by my predecessor, the Hon. Paul Martin, on June 7, 1965.
a.ra.)
Mr. Seaborn visited Hanoi for the last time from September 30 to October 4, 1965. We had told the United States government in advance that we had serious doubts about the usefulness of giving him special instructions and on this occasion he carried no message. His only official contact this time was at a low level in the North Vietnamese liaison mission and he detected no sign of interest in discussions or negotiations. Shortly thereafter Mr. Seaborn returned to Canada at the conclusion of his normal posting in Viet Nam.
It has been suggested that the Canadian government knew, or should have known, that some of the messages it conveyed amounted to statement of an American intention to bomb North Viet Nam. The Canadian government knew of no such intention on the part of the United States. The messages we carried were couched in general terms and related to the possible consequences for the North Vietnamese government of continued activities in South Viet Nam.
It has been implied that the Canadian government should not have carried any such messages on behalf of the United States. It was the view of the government of that time that this was entirely consistent with its role as a member of the ICC, and indeed that it was implicit in the role that Canada should endeavour to promote a dialogue between the main parties to the conflict. The North Vietnamese made it abundantly clear to Mr. Seaborn that they did not regard our activity as in any way improper or inconsistent with our ICC role.
It has also been implied that when the bombing of North Viet Nam began, the Canadian government should have made some public protest on the basis of what it is now claimed that it knew about American intentions. The Canadian government had no information that would have justified such a protest at that time. Canada, along with many others, accepted the United States government's version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
We were not allied to the United States in its operations in Indochina and were not fully informed by the United States on its various plans and intentions. Throughout, the record is clear that the government of that day acted in good faith and in a manner consistent with our responsibilities to the International Control Commission.
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, it would have been useful to be able to see a copy of the minister's statement before the House opened. I hope that very soon some system will be devised whereby the opposition parties will get such documents so that their responses can be useful to the House.
What the government must seek to do is to make clear that our position of neutrality on the International Control Commission for Viet Nam is assured and can be
Message to Hanoi by Canadian Official believed by other countries who have come to trust us. Canada did not stumble into membership on the ICC. There was a reason for our having been asked. I suggest that the reason was that we were trusted by the international community. We had the confidence of other nations. Such confidence and trust are priceless. Devoid of them, a country is a purposeless drifter upon the international scene.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairwealher:: This response to the minister's statement is not to be construed as another item in a long and puerile list of criticisms of the United States or its policies. The American people by a large majority have shown what they think of United States involvement in Indochina. Gratuitous comment from me would serve no useful purpose.
The point I wish to raise is this. Do the disclosures so forthrightly exposed by the New York Times call Canada's neutrality into question? Our representatives are on record as complaining that neither India nor Poland were maintaining their neutrality. Were those protests hypocritical? The former Secretary of State for External Affairs, speaking in the House on April 2, 1964, said that the failure of certain members of the commission to recognize the force of the Canadian claim that majority decisions of that commission were needed, was a serious detriment to the validity of the commission's work. I ask, were Poland and India informed of Canada's intention to deliver messages? Did they approve? In other words, was the Canadian stand in favour of majority decisions adhered to in this regard?
The minister has said that Mr. Seaborn, who is a distinguished public servant and who is in no way being personally criticized, did not pass on all or even the entire messages to Hanoi. In other words, a judgment was exercised as to the content of the messages. Whose judgment? That of the former Secretary of State for External Affairs, or of the government, or of Mr. Seaborn, the Canadian representative on the ICC? The Secretary of State for External Affairs also said that the bulk of the content of Mr. Seaborn's messages to Hanoi was delivered orally. I hope the minister will accept the suggestion I made yesterday that Mr. Seaborn, and, I would add today, Messrs. Pearson and Martin, be invited to give explanations and background before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I make this suggestion in an attempt to be constructive, because I am sure those gentlemen could and would wish to reassure the Canadian people that when the Right Hon. Lester Pearson attacked the United States bombing of North Viet Nam he did so without being aware of the intention of the United States to escalate the war as enunciated by Mr. Seaborn several times in his visits. We are entitled to these reassurances, just as we are entitled to have tabled any documents or letters exchanged between the government and Mr. Seaborn which contain or relate to the content or form of
6806

June 17, 1971
Message to Hanoi by Canadian Official
the United States messages. After all, an editorial judgment or a cabinet judgment was made with regard to the content of the messages, as indicated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs a few minutes ago. As the hon. gentleman said, Canada reserved the right to add to or subtract from the messages, and it would be interesting for the House to know what those additions and subtractions were.
Time and again Canada's spokesmen advocated a nonmilitary solution to this tragic war. They said that a purely military solution was neither desirable nor practicable. Were those words which were uttered by spokesmen in this House and outside transposed when we were acting as an emissary? Have our protests about neutrality and the need for majority decisions been found to be lacking in authenticity? In other words, has the emperor lost his clothes?
I say with great respect that Canada has found her membership on the ICC to be of great comfort and convenience over the years. Whenever Prime Ministers or Foreign Ministers were questioned about this or that example of extended bombing or search and destroy operations or any other aspect of the war they were able to hide behind the cloak of neutrality and our membership on the International Control Commission. They were able to trot out little homilies about neutrality preventing our making any attempt to protest. The record is loaded with these references.
If we cannot and do not intend to bring neutrality to our membership, how do we justify our continuing to be a member of the ICC? The reason for our involvement with the ICC was to promote peace; it was not to be an errand boy bearing threats of an expanded war.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to join the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) in asking that statements of this sort which require analysis before one can discuss them properly or fully should be supplied to the various parties in reasonable time. We saw a copy of this one just as we came into the House today.
I do not envy the task the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has undertaken, the task of defending the indefensible actions of the predecessor government. They are defended as promoting dialogue. What sort of promotion of dialogue is this? It appears that the dialogue consisted of transmitting messages from the United States threatening increased escalation of the war.
Canada's position on the International Control Commission demanded, if it was to be carried out properly and in a correct spirit, complete impartiality, a completely judicial attitude to the duties imposed upon it by the Geneva accord. Yet we find Canada occupying the position of a messenger boy for the disastrous policies of escalation undertaken by the United States of America.
To our way of thinking this was no promotion of a dialogue.
I cannot be thought that if the United States intended to make threats known to the government of North Viet Nam it had not other methods of doing so rather than using a member of what was supposed to be an impartial tribunal, the International Joint Commission, to do that very thing. I feel deep regret that Canada should have allowed itself to give evidence of subservience to the disastrous actions and purposes of the United States in Viet Nam.
I say nothing further except to add that I join with the hon. member for Fundy-Royal in urging that this whole matter be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so that all the documents can be produced and those who took part in this unhappy affair can tell the committee exactly what happened. I do not think that this House or the people of Canada will be satisfied until this has been done and the matter thoroughly and intensively investigated.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is a logical sequence of previous events and a justification of Canada's role as an active member of the International Control Commission.
Mr. Speaker, from the moment when Canada accepted to serve as a channel to transmit communications between two parties involved, such as North Viet Nam and the United States, it accepted to change the nature of its role within the International Control Commission, since it accepted to become involved, whereas its initial position in this Commission was neutral.
Mr. Speaker, this shows how little information is conveyed to us. What we do know, we have learned from the New York Times. We cannot get replies from the government, which shows that the role Canada accepted to play calls for some justification.
The minister says that our commissioner has unknowingly relayed United States war messages. This is a serious thing indeed and I am in agreement with the previous speakers in asking the government to allow the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, as well as the former Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Hon. Paul Martin, to appear before the External Affairs and National Defence Committee to clarify this situation.
In accepting to act as an intermediary for relaying messages between Indochina and the United States, Canada also accepted to become involved and to screen certain messages. I do not really understand how the Canadian commissioner could have been asked to transmit military messages. Was such a step truly in the interests of peace? Our membership in the International Control Commission, to be efficient and influential, should have consisted in ensuring peace in that part of the world.
Today, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is trying once again, though not very successfully, to justify

June 17, 1971

Canada's position on the maintenance of peace, and the results are apparent to us today. Peace has not come yet and some light is being shed on the situation.
But considering the information published in the New York Times and the clumsy attempt made by the government to justify its actions, I believe that it is essential that the government agree to have those who have had some real part in this, together with Mr. Seaborn, appear before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Hon. Oito E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies in both official languages of a press release of the Canadian Wheat Board outlining the final payment to Canadian wheat producers during the crop year 1969-70.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table, in both official languages, a release on the regulations on assistance to automotive products manufacturers.



RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-250, respecting the right of the public to information concerning the public business.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, this bill concerns the right of the public to be adequately informed about public business and seeks to inhibit attempts by government to hide incompetence and arrogance behind a wall of secrecy. The bill provides, very simply, that Canadians who are refused access to the records of public business may apply for a court order and, if that court order is not complied with, that there may be a penalty of up to five years in jail.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for the first five months of this year being 6.2 per cent, 6.2 per cent, 6 per cent, 6.7 per cent and 6.3 per cent, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, in the view of the government, this constitutes a satisfactory downward trend in the rate of unemployment, particularly in view of the fact that actual unemployment for the month of May, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, was 30,000 above a year ago and some 157,000 above the same period two years ago?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, concerned about the level of unemployment. I have stated that I believe there will be a downward trend this year. Incidentally, in the month of May new employment involving 347,000 new jobs was the highest since the labour force survey started. The decrease in unemployment of 116,000 in May is the largest decrease in any May since 1963.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of these, to the minister, very satisfactory trends, would he indicate to the House what the objective of the government is regarding the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment to be achieved by the end of the year?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the objective of this government is that ultimately everyone who is looking for a job will be able to find one.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the forecasts being made by the government in respect of improved employment are being made by the same persons who a year ago forecast that the government would have a surplus of some $300 million whereas in fact there is a deficit of $400 million?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the supplementary question in that form is argumentative.


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, while the improvement in the figures will be welcomed I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has examined the statement made by a study group of the Economic Council of Canada that the unemployment figures may be somewhat misleading because in times of high unemployment people do not enter the labour force and therefore do not show up as statistics, and has he examined whether the government's policy of encouraging young people to travel throughout Canada has had the effect of them not appearing in the unemployment statistics?


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could advise the
24171-m

June 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
House if the advisers on whose advice he made the very optimistic forecast shown in the budget papers tabled yesterday are the same advisers on whose advice the Prime Minister told us at the first of the year that inflation had been licked?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this kind of question serves no purpose at all. This is debate. The hon. member is not seeking information. I suggest that his question and the one asked previously along the same lines are not the kind of questions which can be recognized by the Chair. The hon. member might like to rephrase his question.


George Harris Hees: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a very important matter, and the reason I asked the question is that the forecast made yesterday will have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have only 40 minutes. I allowed the hon. member to rephrase his original question. It might be much easier to proceed in this way than by raising a point of order.


George Harris Hees: I would then ask the minister whether these are the same gentlemen on whose advice he has made completely incorrect economic forecasts in every budget he has presented during the last three years?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is not the kind of question which is procedurally acceptable.



UNEMPLOYMENT-DESIGNATION OF ONTARIO AS DEPRESSED AREA

Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance seemed somewhat reluctant to answer my previous question perhaps he will answer this one. As the figures indicate that the province of Ontario is not showing any improvement or reduction in unemployment and there is a considerable increase in unemployment over last year from May to May, will he indicate whether he intends to designate the province of Ontario as a depressed region?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, part of Ontario is designated as a depressed area.



UNEMPLOYMENT-REVIEW OF POLICY RESPECTING DESIGNATED AREA

Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere wish to ask a supplementary?


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to direct a supplementary to the hon. Minister of Finance concerning the unemployment situation. In view of the fact that quite recently the Dominion Bureau of Statistics published the conclusions of a study by the Department of Manpower and Immigration to the effect that more than 152,000 workers have been unemployed for over seven months and in view of the fact that unemployment has become a continuing problem, I
should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the government intends to revise its economic expansion policy on designated areas in an effort to find an immediate solution to this problem which has already existed for too long?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the figures which came out today he will see that a large part of the decrease in unemployment relates to people who had been unemployed for more than three months.



INCLUSION OF THOSE WORKING ON CENSUS IN TOTAL EMPLOYMENT FIGURES

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister indicate to the House whether these total employment figures take into account those who were employed to work on the census?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I intended to rise on this matter and perhaps I might do so now. I should like to correct one aspect of the answer I gave on Tuesday in reply to a question by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lamb-ton as to whether the May unemployment statistics were gathered before or after the census takers were hired. I had been informed by Statistics Canada that most of the people in question were hired after the reference week for the May labour force survey. However, Statistics Canada now informs me that this is not so. While actual work did not begin until after the reference week, training sessions were in fact held that week. Strictly speaking, therefore, those people would, by definition, be counted as employed. I also said on behalf of Statistics Canada that as these census takers were mostly housewives and students, most of them would not have been expected to be on the unemployment list. This is a fact and it is, of course, still valid.


An hon. Member:: You can't get around it that way.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Information Canada, for which I report faithfully, also says that the figures for the month of May are much greater than could possibly be accounted for by the census taking.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is now making a statement. If he wishes to revert to motions for the purpose of making this kind of a statement he has the right to ask for permission, but I do feel that this is a statement rather than an answer to a question.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would it not be much easier to simply add 40,000 to the unemployment figures?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order. I believe the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate is rising on a question of privilege.

June 17, 1971


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, in the statement by the minister correcting an answer he gave to a question asked by the hon. member tor Sarnia-Lambton earlier this week he referred to census workers and their place on the unemployment rolls. He has now referred to Information Canada, to Statistics Canada and to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. What is he talking about? I do not know about Statistics Canada at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is certainly not a question of privilege. It may be a matter for debate but I really do not see how the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate can suggest his parliamentary privileges have been affected by the statement of the minister.


George Harris Hees: I know what it is; it is the old "Martin" Bureau of Statistics.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ATLANTIC PROVINCES UNEMPLOYMENT-ACCEPTANCE OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact there has been no appreciable change in the figures for the Atlantic provinces, especially if you take into account the fact that the census takers are not included, is the government now prepared to accept the recommendations of the Atlantic Development Council for a new plan of strategy regarding development of the Atlantic provinces?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think this matter is being considered by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether this matter was discussed with the Atlantic province premiers at Victoria and whether the government has taken a decision in respect of the recommendations of the Atlantic Development Council?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have no direct knowledge of what went on at Victoria. I expect the Prime Minister will be back soon and he can answer these questions.



UNEMPLOYMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING SEASONALLY ADJUSTED RATE OVER LAST 12 MONTHS

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment has now been 6 per cent or over for 12 consecutive months, does this mean the government accepts this is a figure which it cannot get below?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry



INCLUSION OF PERSONS TAKING RETRAINING IN UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance a supplementary question.
Does the number of unemployed include people engaged in retraining and technical courses financed by the federal government?


Edgar John Benson: As I recall the situation, Mr. Speaker, these people are not included in the labour force.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the
Minister of Finance a supplementary question that is clear and precise.
Are these persons included in the number of unemployed workers?


Edgar John Benson: As I recall, Mr. Speaker, and this is subject to correction, they are not included either as employed or unemployed.



UNEMPLOYMENT-PRIOR RELEASE OF MAY STATISTICS TO MINISTER OF FINANCE FOR PREPARATION OF BUDGET

John Howard Lundrigan: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he was in possession of the unemployment figures which were released today before the compilation and preparation of his final budget?


Edgar John Benson: I received the figures this morning, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Which budget?


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the minister whether he can give the House the assurance that the realities of the economic situation in Canada, namely, the 6.3 per cent unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis, will still be the basis for the final budgetary statement and not the bloat and gloat attitude we have had exemplified here today?


Edgar John Benson: By whom? By you?



INDUSTRY


Max Saltsman: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the concern in the auto parts industry about the future of the Canada-United States auto agreement, has he received any assurances from his counterpart in the United States that the auto pact will be continued in its present form over an extended period of time?

June 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: The document that I tabled this morning announces an extension of the regulations under the automobile adjustment assistance program, and this will be, I think, of great assistance to the auto parts makers. They will be pleased to hear that. The extension is for two years. It is well known that the United States government has made requests to Canada for the elimination of two so-called safeguards. This discussion is still continuing. I have not heard from anyone in the United States suggesting a denunciation of the agreement, which would be the way to put an end to it. I have not heard that expressed by anyone in the U.S. government.


Max Saltsman: In order to clarify what the minister has said, while he has heard no denunciation, can the minister indicate whether he has recieved assurances that the auto pact will be continued in its present form with the Canadian safeguards in it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not know how to answer this question. The fact that they have not talked about putting an end to the pact is considered by me as an indication that they intend to continue with it. But I said on a number of occasions that it is official U.S. government policy to request elimination of the two safeguards, that is, the ratio and the Canadian value-added safeguards.



AUTOMOBILES-ALLEGED COMPANY POLICY TO TRANSFER JOBS TO UNITED STATES

Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent-Essex):: I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of the growing concern that the events in Windsor and the indication of a further 2,000 lay-offs in other cities in Ontario may be the result of a direct program of job export to the United States to compensate for the import of foreign cars, can the minister say whether he has investigated this policy and can he indicate whether definite action is planned to counteract such a serious possibility?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Two cases were brought recently to my attention, one of them by the hon. member for Kent-Essex. I had them checked and I was assured by Ford that they had no plans to utilize facilities in the United States, such as the Flat Rock, Michigan, foundry, to replace existing production in Windsor. I had checked previously regarding the engine plant. This is the firm statement made by the Ford company with respect to the two cases that were brought to my attention.



AUTOMOBILES-SUGGESTED DUTY-FREE IMPORTATION FROM UNITED STATES

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I would like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce dealing with the pricing of cars. In view of the fact that United States citizens are allowed to import cars from Canada duty free, will the minister make it possible for the same privilege to be given to Canadian citizens so they can import cars from the United States into Canada duty free?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This would not be considered to be in the Canadian interest, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: That is a typical answer. He does not know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Waterloo, who introduced this subject, for a last supplementary and then go to the hon. member for Bellechasse.



AUTOMOBILES-ALLEGED COMPANY POLICY TO TRANSFER JOBS TO UNITED STATES-UNION REPRESENTATIONS

Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, officials of Windsor Local 220 came to see the minister. They spoke to him and expressed their concern that the rationalization of Canada-United States auto production is being used as a guise for the transfer of Canadian jobs to the United States. May I ask the minister whether his department has set up machinery for surveying the conduct of the auto industry under the Canada-U.S. auto agreement and whether he is in a position to assure the House that the charges made by this union local are being examined?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was somewhat distracted at the beginning of my hon. friend's question because I was not the minister whom these gentlemen saw. They saw the Minister of National Revenue. May I say in answer to the substance of the question that we have a system. We check and analyse every bit of news that is brought to our attention, as we have done in the case I have just mentioned, and we keep a very interested and open eye on developments in this industry.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Is the minister in a position to tell this House whether according to the legislation setting up the Textile and Clothing Board and under the attendant regulations, those workers aged 54 or over who have been employed for some years with the Chemcell factory in Montmagny and who are threatened with dismissal, might possibly enjoy a pre-retirement pension up until they are 65 years old?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question could easily be put on the order paper or debated on adjournment. On the other hand, I agree this is an important issue and the minister might answer briefly.
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I answered this question a few days ago at the request of the hon. member's party,

June 17, 1971

saying that indeed the Chemcell Company employees at Montmagny were eligible lor social benefits provided under the legislation. Of course it will be necessary for them to meet the criteria set forth in the regulations.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I want to direct a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the minister's answer, but as very precise questions are asked us by the people concerned, the point would be to know whether the pensions provided under this legislation will be such as to allow these workers to receive an income during a given time, until they have found another job.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, an official from my department went to Quebec City or Montmagny-1 could not say which-in order to meet union leaders and give them explanations about this legislation and its regulations.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister regarding the very serious plight in which Ontario finds itself in view of the fact that the DBS report has indicated that it is notable that the increase in unemployment over the year was largely concentrated in Ontario, which I submit has a very drastic and damaging effect on the economic growth of that province. Can the Acting Prime Minister advise the House, and particularly Ontario, whether any definite steps are being contemplated in order to alleviate this very serious situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the
Minister of Finance has said, the whole purpose of the Canadian government's policy is to reduce the level of unemployment in Canada, and when the general level of unemployment goes down Ontario, as the central province, is likely to go with it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: They will all sink together.


Mr. Muir:: Your thinking is as bad as that of Marchand.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There is no question about the province of Ontario going down, but in light of the fact it has been recently reported that some 20 companies will be laying off some 2,000 employees, which of course will have further detrimental effects, can the minister now assure the House that he will discuss this very serious matter at the earliest opportunity with the province of Ontario in order that some sort of agreement can be reached whereby the situation can be relieved and alleviated?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman is aware that the Ministers of Finance are meeting on July 12, and Ontario will be there to lay its problems before the federal government and the other provinces.
Inquiries of the Ministry



INDUSTRY


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a question related to that which my colleague has just asked.
Since the province of Quebec is particularly hard hit by unemployment and that it is also rumoured that the Northern Electric Company intends to move its work force and transfer its secondary contracts to Ontario, can the minister inform us whether the managers of that company have been approached by his department and what measures he proposes to take to avoid the transfer to Ontario of the Northern Electric Company Ltd.?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the government cannot forbid the transfer of companies from one province to another.
I have personally been in touch with the president of this company and he has assured me that none of his decisions was dictated by any unfavourable disposition toward Quebec or by the desire to reduce the work force of the company in that province.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce if he would approach the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and ascertain what the seasonally adjusted figures would have been for the month of May had the old formula been used instead of the new formula introduced in January? Would he make this information available to the House so hon. members can make comparisons?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do that if it would be useful, but on a number of occasions I have been assured that the difference would be marginal and immaterial. En passant, may I remind the hon. member that Statistics Canada is the official name of the institution-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that he should not pursue that. I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members that we are running short of time and many members will be disappointed. We have considered only two subjects since the beginning of the question period.

June 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



ALLEGED INABILITY OF PARIS EMBASSY OFFICIALS TO SPEAK ENGLISH

Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of a specific complaint I have received to the effect that officials of the Canadian Embassy in Paris are unable to communicate with English-speaking Canadians. Would the minister undertake to investigate this matter and report to the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will do so, but I was in Paris recently and conversed in English with members of the embassy staff.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure the House that there are English-speaking Canadians on duty at all times to serve Canadians in Paris so that they do not have to be sent to Rome to have their needs looked after, as was the case in the complaint I received?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the details from the hon. member. I always investigate such complaints, and I would be happy to do so in this case if he can supply me with the details.
*	sis *



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the well-being of women. In view of the finding by a member of the Liberal party's task force on the Status of Women Report that the federal government and Crown corporations are the worst offenders in the area of inequality for working women, would he look into these charges with a view to eliminating discrimination if and where it exists?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad and happy to note the hon. member's recommendation.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, will the minister undertake to make a statement on this matter to the House before it adjourns for the summer recess?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that would be premature.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweafher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of
State for External Affairs. Was the decision for Canada to carry messages to Hanoi from the United States made by a majority of the members of the International Control Commissision?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the commission was not consulted about this any more than the other members of the commission would consult us about their endeavours to promote understanding between the contending parties. This was a responsibility the Canadian government took which was exercised through our member, and it was so recognized in North Viet Nam which welcomed the use of Canada as a channel of communications.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the simple form of my first question would remove the necessity to ask a supplementary, but did Poland and India know Canada was bearing messages to Hanoi?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure. Perhaps I could get an answer to this question but, as I said yesterday, it is part of the functions of the ICC, and we certainly did not object that Poland was carrying similar messages. We did not protest that. We felt that was quite in accordance with their functions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the Acting Prime Minister now prepared to have this matter referred to the appropriate committee of the House as has been requested a number of times?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I endeavoured in my statement today to give a full account of what went on. If there are any suggestions that I was deficient in anything I explained I would be very happy to supplement the information if I can do so. I really do not think that it will be necessary to have any such inquiry, and certainly I would not think that one would want to interrupt the work that is going on in the committee for this purpose. But if in the future there appears to be some lack of clarity or lack of candour on the part of the government, I would be prepared to consider the suggestion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question, is the Acting Prime Minister prepared to put the House in a position to judge these matters by tabling copies of what was communicated by Mr. Seaborn to Hanoi?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I was completely candid in what I revealed in my statement, and it is quite clear from the discussion here that I was very candid because the activities at that time have been subject to some criticism.

June 17, 1971



INDUSTRY


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could he tell us whether, following my many previous requests made in private, he sent one of his officials to hold discussions with the management of St. Louis Knitting Mills in Princeville, which employ 75 persons, and if so whether he received a report from that official?


Mr. Speaker:: I really feel such a question should not be put at this time. Normally it seems to me-and I suggest that respectfully to the hon. member-that such a question should be placed on the order paper. At any rate, the question having been put, the hon. minister might wish to give a brief reply.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the information received resulted from a personal visit or a telephone conversation, but I did get a report on the company involved.
I can assure the hon. member of my department's keen concern with this matter. In fact, if I remember well, we are sending the president of the company on a study tour of U.S. markets.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he tell us if the Canadian government supports or would be ready to support the separation of East Pakistan from the Republic of Pakistan?


Mr. Speaker:: I still doubt very much that such a question is acceptable. However, if the minister wants to reply briefly to it, I do not see any objection.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it quite clear that the government of Canada is not supporting any movement for the separation of East Pakistan from Pakistan.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: I have a supplementary question to one asked a moment or two ago with regard to the comments of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the House yesterday about the position of East Pakistan. In light of the minister's remarks a few moments ago, is he in effect withdrawing the remarks he made yesterday afternoon, and has he had any communication from the government of East Pakistan with reference to his remarks in the House?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday my remarks were apparently misconstrued and it was for this reason I wanted to make it quite plain today on my own initiative that I had no intention of supporting separation in saying as I did yesterday that I supported the restoration of democratic government under civilian rule in East Pakistan and preferably on the basis of those who had been elected in the last election.


James Aloysius McGrath: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, has the government of Canada requested permission from the government of Pakistan to send observers into East Pakistan to determine whether or not the charges of genocide, against the Hindus especially, have any foundation in fact?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, a complaint has been made to the Secretary General of the United Nations that genocide was involved, and the Secretary General has not considered it necessary to have inquiries made. I should think it would be incumbent upon the Secretary General, if he felt there was justification, to have such an inquiry made.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has he anything to report in regard to the meetings currently taking place in Winnipeg between labour and management in relation to the very lengthy work stoppage at the operations of Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company at Flin Flon and Snow Lake in northern Manitoba?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Mackenzie, has taken a very active interest in this particular labour dispute. Shortly before coming into the House I was notified by the federal mediators, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Gunn, that an agreement has been reached and that later today a memorandum of agreement will be signed by both parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, has the minister had any indication yet when operations at the two plants will recommence?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I cannot say definitely, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the strike has been going on for four months now and the harm that has been done to that particular community, I would urge both parties to resume work as soon as possible, preferably as soon as Monday.
6814

June 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



TORONTO-PROVISION OF GRANTS TO CITIZENS GROUPS

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing, Mr. Speaker. In view of the neanderthal comments of the mayor of the city of Toronto that citizens' groups should not be financed from federal funds, would the minister assure the House that he will continue to finance citizens' groups so that we may have participatory democracy?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed at the time the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities presented a brief to cabinet. It is generally our position that where we respect, perhaps, the need to consult, we are not going to surrender the power of veto over these grants. We want to maintain the right of a relationship and access between any individual and or citizens' groups and the government.



FISHERIES


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It is true as reported that he will be spending June 25 in Newfoundland talking to and meeting with the fishermen and taking a first-hand look at the fishing industry, and will the minister say what he intends to do in the afternoon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. R. R. Soufham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: have a question for the Minister of National Defence who according to the roster was supposed to be in the House today. In his absence I should like to direct it to the acting minister. In view of the number of complaints emanating from officers and men usually involved in the Canadian militia summer training program to the effect that the budget normally applied to this program has been drastically reduced with a consequent serious cutback in manpower training, can the minister indicate whether he plans to re-establish the regular appropriation for this summer militia program at an early date?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce about difficulties arising in pulp and paper mills in Canada. Can the hon. minister tell us what measures are contemplated, or at least if his department is prepared to offer solutions to the difficulties now experienced by the mills?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that question was asked in the course of the last few days and answered by the minister. If I am wrong and the minister wishes to add something to the answer he has already given, I will gladly allow him to do so now.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House whether any of his officials are presently on the job or are about to be sent in to see that there is a solution to the continuing dispute between the CNR and the CPR and the United Transport Workers Union as far as the yardmen are concerned? This dispute remains unresolved and could upset the whole agreement that was reached earlier.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the problem which is one of ratification of a national bargaining unit agreement and the dissatisfaction of a regional group within that unit. If we are to preserve the national bargaining unit concept I do not think it is logical that the regional group should have more than they are entitled to under their own constitution, that is, a voice in the ratification. I do believe the matter will resolve itself very shortly.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a question for the Acting Prime Minister regarding the news from Victoria that substantial changes of a constitutional nature must be approved by the federal and provincial governments by June 28. Can the minister inform the House whether it is the intention of the

June 17, 1971

government to place before the House any measure relating to constitutional change prior to that date?


Mitchell William Sharp: The
Prime Minister I hope will be in the House soon and will give a full report. I would point out that in the communique issued at the conclusion of the meeting the first step is for the first ministers to report the charter to their governments for consideration. If the charter, which is to be treated as a whole, is accepted and this acceptance is communicated to the secretary of the conference by Monday, June 28, the governments will recommend the charter to their legislative assemblies. So the first step in this process will be the report by first ministers to their respective governments.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: A supplementary question. I appreciate that the Prime Minister may be reporting at great length, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister as the acting head of government today could indicate to the House if there is any special significance in the date, June 28?


Mitchell William Sharp: No. It is Monday, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-UNITED STATES INTENTION TO SELL TO MAINLAND CHINA AND U.S.S.R.-CANADIAN ACTION TO PROTECT POSITION

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is for the
Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. As it is apparent that the United States is going to go hard after wheat sales to Mainland China and the U.S.S.R., does the minister foresee increased wheat production and cut export prices by the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I doubt whether the hon. member's question is in order. The hon. member is inviting the minister to look into the future. I am not sure whether it is proper for the Chair to suggest that a question should not be asked on that basis, but it does seem weak procedurally. The hon. member may like to rephrase the question.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: In view of this very serious development across the border, what steps does the minister intend to take?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board has been staying in close touch with our principal customers and of course will continue this work. We also, as indicated the last day, believe in the principle of orderly marketing and will be continuing to take what steps we can to ensure that principle is safeguarded in the world.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board arising out of the question
Inquiries of the Ministry
which was asked by the hon. member for Spadina. In the absence of any pricing arrangement following the last conference dealing with the International Grains Arrangement, will the minister, or his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, take it upon himself to consult with the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and discuss the recent announcement in regard to the United States entry into the Chinese market so that we may avoid any price war in future?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we will be pursuing every possible avenue to maintain orderly marketing. The parties to the International Grains Arrangement agreed to keep this matter very carefully under review and to discuss again specific pricing arrangements when it seemed possible to reach agreement.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Minister of Labour informed the member for Winnipeg North that the minister had authorized an investigation into the Demicher case which involved an allegation of discrimination in the Public Service. Can the minister inform us whether that investigation has been completed and whether he has anything yet to report to the House about it?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this case has had wide publicity. It is a case of Mr. Demicher alleging discrimination within the Public Service. Pursuant to the authority vested in the Minister of Labour under the Fair Employment Practices Act, I delegated authority to Professor Tarnopolsky to conduct an investigation. I was informed before I entered the House today that the professor had concluded his investigation. However, I have not had an opportunity to analyze the document which I presume is waiting for me in my office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the report be tabled?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The normal practice in this type of investigation is not to table the documents or make them public, but in view of the publicity which has surrounded this case more harm may be done to Mr. Demicher and other people involved if, for some reason, the report is not tabled. I would want to evaluate the report, following our usual custom, to see if harm could unintentionally be done to anybody and I will render a decision not later than tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time and actually have just about reached the end of the question period. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants and the hon. member for Mackenzie on one supplementary before calling orders of the day.

June 17, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF PASSPORT OFFICE IN MARITIME PROVINCES

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that regional passport offices have been in operation for some time and presumably their worth has been established, would the minister reconsider and hopefully establish one for Atlantic Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are keeping this situation under constant review. Obviously the establishment of regional offices has been very useful and we will be considering whether they should be extended. Certainly the Atllantic provinces would be high on the list.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-228, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, be amended by deleting from clause 7 the words "one dollar and seventy-five cents an hour" and by substituting therefor the words "two dollars an hour".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment ought to be so readily acceptable that I should not need to speak for very long in support of it. I am happy to see opposite me this morning my good friend, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy). A few days ago, in addition to the motion in my name which has just been moved there was an amendment on the order paper in his name asking for the same increase that my motion seeks. Since my motion happened to be ahead of his, I suppose he thought he might as well withdraw his. If his had remained on the order paper, I would have been happy to ask him to second my motion. I trust that his presence in the House this morning means that he will support my motion.
May I in just a sentence or two say that we regard Bill C-228 as a good piece of legislation. It is one of those bills in which there is practically nothing that we can oppose. The only thing wrong with it is that certain provisions are not included in it and, in some instances, the bill does not go far enough. My motion focuses on one of the major shortcoming of the bill in that it provides for the minimum wage to be set at only $1.75 an hour. My motion proposes that that figure should be set at $2 an hour.
I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) will argue that not many months ago the, minimum wage was $1.25 an hour and that it was pretty good for the Liberal party to have raised it in two jumps to $1.75 an hour. I suppose that was pretty good for the Liberal party but it is not very good for those who have to live on the minimum wage.


Mr. Whelan:: What do the provinces do?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear my good friend from down Windsor way who, like me, prefers to stay in this House-we welcome his vote cast yesterday against the Senate-asking what the provinces do. No doubt that will be one of the arguments raised in this debate. May I say that it is the job of this House to give a lead in these matters. I do not think we should hold back because any province, whether its government is Liberal, Conservative, NDP or what have you, has not come up to this standard. I hope that this House will set a high enough standard so that the governments of Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and all the rest of the provinces of Canada will follow suit.


Eugene Whelan: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend and I are on good terms this morning. I now have two supporters on the other side of the House. I thank the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie for proposing an amendment similar to mine and I thank the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) for saying that he is in agreement with me. If I can get the support of the Minister of Labour I will not need to go any farther.
A wage of $1.75 an hour for a person working a full week of 40 hours provides an income of only $70 a week. If that person were to work for 50 weeks in the year, allowing him a couple of weeks for holidays-I do not know how anybody earning that little could afford a holiday-that person would earn only $3,500 a year. Surely I do not have to make the point that this is below the poverty line.
I remind the Minister of Labour that he himself was responsible for a piece of legislation that we passed a few days ago which provides for unemployment insurance benefits of up to $100 a week. I readily admit that that figure applies only in the case of those who normally earn $150 a week. At any rate, the nvnister did his best to provide unemployment insurance at the level of $100 a week. Surely it is not good enough for him now to be asking us to be satisfied with a minimum wage that provides only $70 a week for a man who works a full week or $3,500 for a man working a 50-week work year.
I remind the House that, although labour legislation is partly federal and partly provincial and although 90 per cent of the work force of Canada comes under provincial jurisdiction, some very important areas of our economy come entirely under federal labour jurisdiction. If I may name some of them, they include railway transport and services, air transport and services, water transport and services, services incidental to transportation, telephone
[Mr. Speaker.)
June 17, 1971

communication, cable communication, radio and television, grain operation and milling, banking, railway hotels, uranium and other mining, and so on. I point out that these industries are not in the poverty class. The banks certainly would not regard themselves as a depressed industry. Employees in industries of the kind I have listed are employees coming under federal labour jurisdiction. To pass a bill in 1971 saying that these industries are meeting the law by paying not less than $1.75 an hour to their employees is just not good enough.
When the Minister of Labour, under the last piece of legislation on this matter, raised the minimum wage to $1.65 an hour we had quite a bit to say about the inadequacy of that amount. We pointed out that the banks at that time were employing a large number of employees who were earning less than $1.65 an hour. This fact was put on the record and received some publicity, and I was sent a personal letter from the president of one of the large chartered banks complaining that the global figure for all banks did not take into account the fact that some banks were not as bad as others. I am not trying to pillory any particular bank; yet even that letter said-and this is the president of that chartered bank defending his position

that there were only 550 employees who were below the $1.65 an hour figure. Why should the banks of this country have had anybody working for less than $1.65 an hour? If under the former legislat.on they had people working for less than $1.65 an hour, we can be sure that when this new legislation comes into force all they are going to get is an increase to $1.75 an hour. I submit it is a minimal request that the minimum wage level for all those employees who come under the federal labour code should be set at $2 an hour. The case for this is so clear that I do not think it requires extensive debate.
I hope there will be wide support for the motion on this side of the House among all parties. The only members opposite I have been able to identify so far as to where they stand are the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy) and the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan). They both agree with me. Maybe with a short debate we can get an affirmative vote and take this sensible and reasonable step of making our federal minimum wage not less than $2 an hour.


Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sault Ste. Maria):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to participate in this debate. This bill will affect all workers under federal jurisdiction. That is common knowledge.
The federal government has jurisdiction over 7 per cent to 10 per cent of the labour force in Canada. In other words, this bill will have a direct effect on between 560,000 and 800,000 Canadians. Assuming that 50 per cent of the workers under federal jurisdiction are represented by organized labour, this bill is of the utmost importance to between 280,000 and 400,000 Canadian workers who are not represented by organized labour and therefore are without a voice at any bargaining table in the coun-
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
try. Because of this, Mr. Speaker I feel that we in this House should provide the voice for unorganized labour and look upon this bill as we would look upon a collective agreement submitted to us for approval as representatives of the voiceless working poor.
Looking at it in this way, we must agree that this bill has many good features. There are provisions for group termination of employment, individual termination of employment, severance pay and the very novel and long awaited provision which will prohibit the dismissal of any individual because a garnishee proceeding has been instituted against him. The bill also provides for vacations with pay, statutory holidays, and 17 weeks of pregnancy leave which is a very forward-looking and progressive move.
As the last speaker pointed out, the bill has one bad feature. That is the minimum wage. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, the bill provides for an increase of only 10 cents an hour to $1.65. This is an increase of only 6.06 per cent or $208 a year. This increase will provide a grand total of only $3,640 per year for those working at the minimum wage. That is a very interesting figure because the Economic Council of Canada has pointed out that the poverty line in this country for the average Canadian family is $3,750 per year. If this legislation is passed it will provide an amount less than what the Economic Council of Canada has stated to be the minimum poverty line in this country.
If we consider ourselves as bargainers for the working poor and if we accept this 10 per cent per hour increase, we are actually saying that we are ready and willing to perpetuate poverty for all those working at the minimum level. How many are working at this level? The latest count of those working under federal jurisdiction was 11,519 employees. These are only the workers. Many thousands more are also affected because they are members of the families of these working poor.
Where do these 11,519 work? We do not know where all of them work but, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, one year ago no less than 40 per cent of them were working in chartered banks throughout the country. The statements of the chartered banks which I have noticed during the past few years, at least during the past 14 months, certainly do not indicate that they are being beleaguered by creditors or anything of that sort. They are showing increases in profits ranging from 20 per cent to 35 per cent per year.
Many arguments will be advanced to support the proposition that the raise should only be 10 cents per hour. I suppose the main reason, and this is a very serious point to the government, is the fact that we will be outstripping the provincial governments which have minimal wage standards throughout the country and we will be embarrassing them if we get too far ahead. I say to the government, if that is the case it is about time we embarrassed them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 17, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code


Charles Terrence Murphy: Any provincial government that attempts to seduce industry with slave labour should be forced into an embarrassing position. It should be forced to debate the matter before the people of those provinces, not in the confines of cabinet rooms or local provincial legislatures. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, we in this House should be leaders in this field, not followers. We cannot sit around and wait for the ten provinces to get together to bring wages up bit by bit until they reach a proper level. We must be the leaders.
The provincial governments will never get together because of interprovincial rivalries. A premier of the province of Newfoundland may not want to increase the minimum wage because certain industries may leave that province and move to Nova Scotia. A premier of Nova Scotia will not increase his minimum wage for the same reason. The industries in his province may move to Quebec, and so on. The interprovincial rivalries are too deepseated. This will continue for time immemorial if the provinces are left to their own devices. We must be the leaders. We can do this by increasing the minimum wage in the federal area to a figure that is at least a bit above the defined poverty line.
Another argument is that there has been no political pressure on either the federal or provincial legislatures for a larger increase. If this bill passes, it will be argued that we have increased the minimum wage from $1.25 to $1.75 within one year. It will be argued that within one year the minimum wage was increased by 50 cents an hour. That may be true, Mr. Speaker, but we must consider the length of time that has elapsed since the minimum wage was increased to $1.25. If we calculate 6 per cent per year during that period, we will see how the government arrived at the figure of $1.75 per hour. The calculation works out at 6 per cent or within hundredths of a percentage point of that.
I know that guidelines were set last year or the year before indicating that we should keep all increases to 6 per cent. But it is significant that when these guidelines were set wage earners earning less than $2.50 an hour were supposedly excluded from the effects of those guidelines. To establish guidelines at the bottom of the heap for those people is unfair. They are not organized and can exert no political pressure. The only political pressure which can be applied on their behalf must be applied in this chamber.
Another argument which will be made is that the $1.75 will constitute the highest minimum wage in the western hemisphere, at any rate, higher than in the United States where the minimum wage is $1.60. As far as the United States is concerned, may I say that we do not have in this country a southern power bloc which takes advantage of slave labour. It is nothing more than that. That is the only reason the minimum wage is not higher in the United States. The southern bloc of both Democrats and Republicans is able to exert sufficient pressure on the government to maintain the minimum wage at a dis-

graceful level in that country. I hope it does not happen here.
It will also be said that the new minimum wage will be higher than it is in the provinces. I do not believe we should take satisfaction in standing here and feeling like a giant among pygmies. We are only five feet tall compared with the pygmies and we may feel big. But we should be six feet tall.
The 6 per cent guideline has been respected. It has been respected by the government in its application to the particular wage group to which I have referred. Where else has it been respected in labour negotiations? I know of no area, with the possible exception of some sections of the Public Service, where organized labour has been prepared to accept a 6 per cent increase in the past few years. In London a few days ago the electricians signed a new contract which will give them a $2.53 an hour raise; they will end up getting $8.82 an hour over a two-year period. This will constitute a 40 per cent increase in salaries over the two-year period. These electricians will be performing services somewhere. They will work in houses in London. No doubt there are people in London working at the minimum wage. Those people will be charged the same $8.82 an hour as the organized workers will be charged, or the businessmen or the professional men.
These people at the bottom face increases in costs every day. The only people who can give them an increase are the members of this chamber and if we tie them down at the bottom we are doing nothing more than perpetuating poverty. Unions and governments do not respect differentials of area, areas of slow development or backward areas. When the government negotiates contracts with postal workers it does not pay less to workers in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Quebec than it does to postal workers in Toronto or Vancouver. When the railways companies negotiate contracts with workers in the Maritimes or in areas of slow development, the workers employed under those contracts do not receive less than their counterparts in provinces such as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia where standards are higher. But because of provincial bickering we expect that these poor people at the bottom, those who are in a depressed area, so to speak, should remain depressed and work for less wages than is the case anywhere else.
The only question we should ask ourselves is: what is a fair minimum wage? Never mind the provinces. Never mind the United States. To my mind, $2 is a fair minimum wage. This raise of 25 cents an hour adds up to a full $624 a year if worked out on the basis of a 40-hour week and 52 weeks a year. The poor man who works for this rate will receive $4,160 a year, between $150 and $300 above the poverty line established by the Economic Council of Canada and other organizations. Surely we in this House can afford to legislate an increase of $624 a year to those working under its jurisdiction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 17, 1971


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with Bill C-228 now before us and entitled "An Act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code", I recently received a copy of the brief of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and I mention that I am aware of the good work done by that organization. I am grateful for their brief, but I think they insist too much on the rights of employers.
After having stated in their brief that nobody can reasonably criticize the regulations made under the Labour Code-regulations which are fair and objective- they do criticize them, wishing in fact to deny members of unions the protection given to them by the Code. The argument that employees have freely chosen a union to represent them-the provisions of the collective agreement negociated in goodwill with the employer should prevail, and the regulations of the Labour Code should no longer apply-does not take into account the union fact.
The popular image of unions would have us believe that they have powers without compare when negociat-ing a collective agreement. Yet, in fact, most of them have no influence on employers. Strikes seem to occur in quick succession, but in fact unions seldom decide to strike.
Finally, in spite of what the non-syndicated imagine those organizations to be, a union seldom has power comparable to that of the employer.
So there is a lack of logic in the reasoning expressed by the Chamber of Commerce to the effect that a beautiful policy would agree with the principle whereby individuals have a say in the rules governing them.
According to this argument, the coverage offered by the Code should no longer apply to non-organized workers in order to allow them to speak their mind. The Chamber of Commerce is wrong when it implies that unions can negociate the terms they like whereas individual workers cannot. Both are under coercion through parameters which are beyond their control, even though it must be admitted that unions can do more in this field than a worker alone.
So the Chamber of Commerce assumes that collective agreements are conducted in good faith, which is not always true. Indeed, a collective agreement is very often the result of a bitter compromise between untimely requests from the union and a stern stand by the employer. In many cases, the collective agreement does not bring out the most appropriate answer to a given situation, but reflects the balance of power of the industrial group.
Some workers may have voted against the union's certification and even though they may still be opposed to that union, they are nevertheless represented by it and their rights will be spelled out in any future collective agreement. In my view, it is unfair to deprive these people of their rights by preventing them from being
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
represented by the union they would have preferred in the first place.
This is why I cannot fully endorse the arguments put forward by the Chamber of Commerce. I think the rights under the Canadian Labour Code should be given to every worker, without regard to his affiliation to any union.
In cases where the rights given under the Labour Code are not suitable, I fully agree with the union or the employer being able to disregard its proposals. However, in general, I would like to see the provisions of the Canada Labour Code take precedence over those of the collective agreement when they are more advantageous than the latter to the workers concerned. If we go for a system other than the one proposed in the Canada Labour Code we may be affecting normal relations between employers and employees and free development of the negotiation processus between parties.
The fact that the Code applies to labour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but after listening to him for a few moments it seems to me his remarks relate much more to the principle of the bill than to the motion before us. In fact, I think it is a statement that should have been made during second or third reading. I remind hon. members that during the report stage they must try to confine themselves to the amendments or the proposed motion. In this case, it is a motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) dealing exclusively with the minimum wage. The hon. member for Win-nipeg-North-Centre suggested that the act be amended by deleting the words "one dollar and seventy-five cents," and by substituting therefor the words "two dollars an hour". It is possible, of course, that the remarks made by the hon. member for Portneuf were by way of introduction and that he will eventually bring forward in the House his comments on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Anyway, I urge the hon. member for Portneuf and other hon. members to limit themselves at this stage to the consideration of the amendment.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I shall follow your advice but I have almost finished my speech. I would like to take the opportunity to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We must admit that the minimum hourly wage rate of $1.75 is not exaggerated, and I believe that it is quite alright that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), who is perfectly aware of the needs of the workers and who has been himself a negotiator, should recognize the importance and the relevance of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Once again, I urge the minister to pay attention to these recommendations and to vote this once for the amendment side by side with the members of the opposition.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on the amendment put before

June 17, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
the House by the Hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to increase the proposed minimum wage under federal jurisdiction from $1.75 to $2 an hour. I suggest that even a $2 minimum wage is not too much in this day and age and I would gladly have seen the amendment propose a little higher figure.
I should like to point out, as have other hon. members, that this proposal relates only to a very small proportion of the workers of Canada. It does not affect workers under provincial jurisdiction, as the bulk are, but it does cover those in the labour sphere who are under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.
It seems to me that we often set minimum standards without really examining the problem involved. I think that the first thing that a federal government particularly should do is to set adequate income standards that it feels must be established throughout Canada. It should then set wage rates to achieve those standards over the period of a year, assuming that an individual is going to get one year's work.
I would point out to the minister and the government that the increase from $1.65 to $1.75 in the present bill is certainly an improvement. But it does not reach the standard we should be setting for workers all over the nation. One of the problems we are continually running into both in the provincial and in the federal sphere is that quite frequently there is a clash between the amount of money a worker can make on a given job and the amount of money he would receive if he were on welfare. The reason we are getting into so much trouble in this respect in many instances is because minimum wage rates are so low, both provincially and federally, and this problem thus comes to the surface.
I see absolutely no reason at all for not setting, first of all, adequate standards and then setting a wage rate to meet those standards. If this is not done we are never going to solve the problem of having an adequate guaranteed annual income for all workers from one end of the nation to the other.
Might I point out very briefly that with the $1.75 minimum that the bill is going to establish a person who becomes unemployed will receive only $46.67 by way of unemployment insurance benefits, which certainly is not adequate. Even with a $2 rate his income from unemployment insurance, if he is unfortunate enough to become unemployed, would be $53.33 a week, which I contend is not adequate in this day and age.
In closing, may I say that I am going to vote for this amendment since it is a decided improvement over the provision in the present bill. I urge the minister and his department to make a real examination of the income levels Canadians should have, and then to make sure that we tailor our minimum wage rates at least to meet the standard that is set.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This is an extremely important debate, Mr. Speaker. After listening to hon. members on the government benches and in the NDP, there can be no doubt that the $1.75 is not adequate. We would all like to see the minimum wage set higher, but there is a requirement on members in this place to be responsible. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy). He asked for leadership, but I am wondering what type of leadership he wants. Was he asking for responsible leadership or leadership that does not really matter?
Let me remind hon. members that even Mr. Donald MacDonald, who was President of the Canadian Labour Congress during the time of the committee hearings, expressed some reservation in respect of what he was asking. I think he wanted the minimum wage set at $2 an hour effective July 1, and he further recommended $2.50 an hour effective January 1, 1972. The most important statement he made on this subject was his admission that there were difficulties and that there was a very serious question that had to be considered. He admitted that, even though we would all like to see a minimum wage of $2 an hour and then later increased to $2.50, he was concerned with the implications.
I would like to read what he said, as it appears in the committee's proceedings No. 31 of Monday, June 7, 1971 at page 31:27. He stated:
We are cognizant of the difficulties which are involved in raising the minimum wage in the federal jurisdiction to the extent that it markedly outdistances the minimum wage under the various provincial jurisdictions.
My hon. friend across the way indicated that this situation would be a source of embarrassment. I do not think so, but if it were the embarrassment would not be that of the provinces, but rather of the industries which are governed by the minimum wage set by the provinces. I am still extremely interested in this subject because it seems to me to be a very difficult area. Surely, this change will make some people happy, but unquestionably it will not make the people in the city of Hamilton too happy. On the other hand, what would happen in the Atlantic provinces? Surely, the cost of living there is not that high and yet the minimum that we are talking about is still not enough, as the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy) indicated.
During the committee hearings I questioned the minister on this subject. I said to him, in view of the implications and ramifications of this matter, have you discussed it with the provinces? We cannot move into this area alone. We cannot sit here and pick a figure out of a hat. I do not know how much thought has been given to the suggestion by the hon. members of the NDP that we increase the proposed minimum rate by 25 cents. What are the implications? I have not heard anything about
June 17, 1971

this. All I heard was that we were keeping in step with the times and showing our responsibility to those who are poverty stricken. I wonder whether we really are, because in a debate such as this you cannot even say that we have researched the implications of the proposed 25 cent increase and the results thereof are such and such. This is a very difficult matter.
I was impressed with the importance of discussing this matter with the provinces. I believe this has been done because the minister has indicated that it has. I do not think we can move into this area without first discussing this tricky and complex matter with the provinces. I understand that some of them are even concerned that minimum rate is going up to $1.75 an hour. Why is that? It is very simple. The federal government is supposed to give responsible leadership. When it says to the provinces that the minimum wage should go up to $1.75, some of the provinces say they cannot stand that pressure. These provinces may be in the slow growth region which means that, by forcing their hand, you put them in a position of having to follow suit, which directly involves their industries. Can they, in fact, stand the pressure? I wish that my friends had gone into this matter more deeply. I give credit to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie for knowing what the arguments would be, but I wish he had gone into it a little more deeply.
I have to rely on what has come from the standing committee, and it appears to me that we are in a very dangerous area here because once you embark on certain types of programs to assist the poverty stricken you may find, in the long run, you are giving no assistance whatsoever. This is the dilemma with which we are all faced. Will we in fact really help? Some marginal industries might not be able to accept the minimum wage because it would put them out of business. Who will we be helping then? If one province has a lower minimum wage than another, is there any reason why industry should not move from province to province? Are we assisting anyone then? The whole theme of my speech is that if we are not careful, we might harm the labour intensified industries. We must do all we can in order to create economic growth and to create further employment rather than create an atmosphere in which employment is decreased.
As much as I would like to go along with my friends, I think the implications which I have tried in my humble way to bring to light, namely, that we have to take a responsible approach in weighing the balance and use solid judgment, force me to vote against their amendment. If we want to start tinkering with this minimum wage, why can we not increase it to $3? If we really wanted to be irresponsible, we could do that and then think of the ramifications? Why this magic figure of 25 cents? Why do we not make it $4? My friends know that once they start reaching any heights at all, the ramifications will be beyond comprehension and perhaps solution. I, too, am concerned about those who are on the bottom rung of the ladder. In a country such as ours, with our wealth of natural resources, we should not have four million poverty stricken people. We should be developing our economy, creating more employment, producing more
Canada Labour (Standards) Code consumer goods and creating an atmosphere in which wages can rise. I am certainly impressed with the arguments, but nevertheless they have not moved me from the original position which I took on this matter, to the effect that we have to be very careful about the implications that would flow from the acceptance of the amendment of the NDP to increase the minimum wage to $2.
Therefore, we cannot support the motion of the NDP.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is
incredible.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Before the minister rises to reply to these comments, I should like him to answer several questions that have been raised in this debate. In fact, they are very serious considerations. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy) put forward a proposition which I think should be explained. His assumption is that the federal government is the bargaining agent for all those within its sphere who are not organized. If that is the case then we are off on a far different tangent than I thought we were in discussing this legislation. The minister, I believe, should say whether indeed we are the bargaining agent for all unorganized labour within federal jurisdiction. If we are, then we have to deal with the problem, but I suggest that that is not the purpose of this legislation.
Neither is it the purpose of this legislation to set forth a fair wage. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stressed this point. What is a fair wage? I suggest to him, and to the hon. gentleman from Sault Ste. Marie, who is a solicitor of renown, that the bill deals with what is legal, what is the minimum which it is legal to pay, not with what is fair to pay but what it is legal to pay. There is a vast difference between what is fair and what is not legal. If we are indeed to accept fairness as the criterion, then why $2? If we are to look at the question of fairness, then let us consider the case of a caretaker working in a bank making $2 an hour, which is the rate suggested by the hon. member, and compare him with the caretaker working in a Ford plant making $3.30 or $4.20 an hour. Why is it fair to say the caretaker in the bank should make $2 an hour, while his counterpart employed by an organized firm gets double that? Surely, that is not the purpose of the legislation. The purpose of the legislation is to say that you may not pay below a certain amount-not what is fair-but taking everything into consideration to say that this is the minimum.
If we are to accept this point of view, then let us examine some of the problems we will hit if we raise the wage to $2, or as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) suggested, why not $2.50 or $3. What is to be done with periphery labour? We are not talking about the main income earnings but the periphery labour. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre must recognize that many people entering the work force straight out of school in reality are not of any great economic value to a firm. They are still in training. Let us take the case of a

June 17, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code secretary just out of school who enters the labour force on her first day. Is she worth $2 an hour, or $1.25? The fact is that her employer could say that she is not worth very much, that she is worth only $30 a week or $20 a week. But this legislation says that even though he believes she is not worth more than $20 a week he must pay her $1.75 an hour because we have established that as a minimum, and industry has to live with it.
But if you say that everyone must be paid a fair wage, which is exactly what this amendment proposes, then you are leaving out a great part of the work force employed under the act. Take the case of waiters who depend a great deal on tips, railway employees, and workers in many other categories for which the hourly rate is only a small part of their earnings. If you stipulate $2 an hour, then this will have a reaction on the rest of the industry. I think the House should recognize that the bill deals with legality, not with fairness. If we recognize this then the amount of $1.75 certainly can stand.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the rather unusual position of participating in the debate on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and finding that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy) anticipated my arguments w.th a great deal of accuracy, since they were given to him in confidence earlier in the week. I did not hear too many reasons advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as to why $2 would be a fair minimum wage and not $3. Another disadvantage under which I labour is that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) made what I thought was a very eloquent and reasonable contribution, and frankly I am vain enough not to want to repeat many of his arguments in such a way that they will suffer in comparison with his eloquence.
The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) has made a very fundamental point, that really the whole bill-and we are talking about the whole bill-deals with minimum standards. Even if those workers who are protected by organized labour, as a result of their bargaining, arrive at standards that are less than the minimum in this code, those standards must be brought up to the level of the code. The key work in this bill to set standards is "minimum". We are suggesting minimums in the hope that enlightened employers, realistic employers will realize they are precisely that-minimum standards.
By setting a minimum standard of $1.75 we are not saying to the chartered banks that this is a fair wage, that this is what they should pay their employees, and nothing more than $1.75.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is what they are doing.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is not fully accurate. Some of the employees of chartered banks are being paid $1.75, while others are receiving more as the hon. gentleman himself was quite fair in stating earlier in the debate. But the
majority of people in the chartered banks who are drawing $1.75 are part-time people, living in the neighbourhood, who supplement the staff at weekends and nights. If we were dealing with legislation exclusively restricted to chartered banks, I would not feel the least bit hesitant in setting the rate at $2, $2.50 or $3, but we have not reached a point in this country where a minimum wage is a necessary part of our social policy.
If we arrived at a co-ordinated social policy for this country and agreed that minimum wages across the country must not be less than established figures, as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) suggested a little earlier-this idea has a certain degree of attractiveness for me-we would have to find ways and means of subsidizing the small businessman if he had to pay an extravagant minimum wage. It would be extravagant in the sense of his ability to pay it. So, we are faced with the problem of providing a minimum wage that is at an acceptable level above the poverty level.
As the Minister of Labour who, by virtue of that portfolio, is concerned with people, I would like to be the minister who comes into this House with legislation that would say the minimum wage would be $2, $2.50 or $3. It would make me very popular with the trade union movement. It would make the hon. member for Hamilton West very popular with his constituents, since he represents an industrialized centre. It would make all the members of the House popular with that segment of society that we could influence through such legislation. However, the real question is: would it be reasonable on our part to set the minimum wage at $3? That is really the criterion.
When we are talking about this bill to raise the minimum wage from $1.65 to $1.75, I must say that hon. members have very short memories. This time last year the minimum wage was $1.25. At the time I decided to revise the entire Canada Labour (Standards) Code, not only the section that affects minimum wages but all the other sections. Research was undertaken which made it possible to bring in such forward looking add.tions to the act as severance pay, equal pay for equal work, group notice for large groups of people being laid off, and many other features which make this a very attractive piece of legislation. It is attractive to everybody in this House because I do not for one minute presume that only the Liberal members and the present Minister of Labour are concerned with the people. There are many members in all parties who are concerned about the workers in this country. Realizing at the time the amount of research that was necessary to come forward with a positive bill, I felt that any dealy in bringing such a bill forward-anticipating it would not get to the House until this month-would cause hardship to those people who, a year ago, were living on the $1.25 minimum wage. In view of this situation, I obtained the permission and consent of my colleagues and of hon. members opposite last fall, and I appreciate their co-operation, to limit an amendment to that section of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code dealing with the minimum wage. At that time we brought the minimum wage up to $1.65. So, in reality what we are doing in less than one year is to increase the federal minimum wage from $1.25 to $1.75.

June 17, 1971

I hold no brief for industry that must survive through inefficiency, though that may sound paradoxical. I know that a decent minimum wage is quite often absorbed by increased efficiency on the part of management and induces greater productivity on the part of workers. However, if it is raised too drastically, management may decide to automate. If a fish processing plant which employs 100 people is faced with an increase of 50 cents an hour that means $50 an hour or $2000 a week extra overhead, so it is quite likely that management would look at the cost of some type of automation. This of course could drastically reduce the size of the work force in certain parts of the country. In Sweden, which is a small centralized country, this is government policy and hence their ability to compete in the export market. We must be realistic about the problem for the Atlantic provinces and realize that the minimum wage there is very low compared to the minimum wage in central Canada. In Prince Edward Island last September it was $1.25; Quebec is moving toward $1.50 this November; I expect that Ontario will be up to $1.65 pretty soon and in British Columbia it is about 1.50. What we are suggesting is a federal minimum of $1.75.
Whether lobbying, reactionary employers have prevented the minimum wage in the United States from moving higher, the fact is it is still $1.60 there. I do not think that Parliament or anybody supporting $1.75 as a legitimate minimum wage, regardless of what party he belong to, need hang his head in shame and consider himself less than enlightened. We have a responsibility, not only to the workers but to the small businessmen who give employment to those workers. In many small communities across Canada job opportunities are presented by about half a dozen small plants employing 20, 30 or 40 people.
When the province of Manitoba was establishing its minimum wage at $1.50, prodded no doubt by the hon. member whom I always call the conscience of the Socialist party, they were being practical and realistic. In my private conversations with people in that province, the problem emerged as an obvious one. Certain labour intensive industries were determined to move-perhaps paradoxically to move into a province like Ontario where the minimum wage was higher but was more than offset by transportation costs. So it is a very delicate situation, Mr. Speaker, and one in which we should strive to arrive at a happy medium.
There is another point that has not been mentioned. Although the federal minimum wage does not affect too many people, it is included in every federal contract that is paid entirely by the federal government. It is not unusual in Newfoundland or New Brunswick or some other province to find a person carrying water on a federal project at $1.65 an hour working 50 feet away from someone carrying water on a provincial project at $1.25 an hour. We have to show some responsibility in our relations with the provinces. It is all very well for members to say, "We need not worry about provincial minimum wages", but we must. That is what federalism
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
is all about, a sense of responsibility. I do not particularly care what political party holds power in a province, but as the federal Minister of Labour and one who believes in federalism at its best and that is in consultation and co-operation, I have a responsibility to take into consideration the opinions and viewpoints of the provincial ministers of labour after consulting with them. We had such a meeting several months ago and discussed the possibility of closing the gap between the federal minimum wage and the provincial minimum wages and perhaps the possibility one day of arriving at a uniform minimum wage across the country which would prevent the labour intensive industries from jumping the border from one province to another. So if I want to be responsible, and I cannot afford to be irresponsible even if I might want to be popular with the labour groups in my constituency, I have to show some responsibility in arriving at a suitable figure for the federal minimum wage.
I must suggest that the amendment be rejected, as did the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) as well. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would admit had I come in with $2 an hour he would have suggested $2.50. He believes in setting a target.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: He is honest enough; he agrees. The provinces would provide another argument. They could say, "What is the sense in us working hard to bring forward legislation persuading our employers to remain in the small communities when, as we close the gap and get up to your $1.75 you move the minimum wage up to $2.50"? I do not apologize for leaving it at $1.75, Mr. Speaker, because I think that figure reflects the degree of responsibility which must be demonstrated in my legislation. I could make other arguments, but I think there is a disposition to complete the bill today and I do not want to prolong debate at this time.
I have to remind hon. members that although we are talking about chartered banks, there are many other people in the federal field who are affected by the minimum wage. I am thinking of small milling companies, of trucking industries-and not all trucking industries are gold mines, let me tell you that-I am thinking of the grain handling industry. These people are just getting adjusted to the $1.65 which we introduced last fall. At that time it was a fairly substantial increase, 40 cents, and they were warned that I would be coming forward with the $1.75. I think we have to show some responsibility, Mr. Speaker, and give these marginal industries an opportunity for adjustment. We have to set the minimum wage high enough to create an example for the provinces that have been behind and I think we have done this. The proposed $1.75 minimum must be compared to provincial standards of $1.10, $1.15, $1.25 and $1.45 and so forth. I think, therefore we are fulfilling our moral commitments in this respect. Above all, I think I have an obligation to consult the provinces when I make this kind of move and I have done just that. To go now to $2 would be unfair to the provinces and in our type federal system, federalism would work better with consultation

June 17, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code and co-operation rather than unilateral action on the part of the federal government.
The last point I wish to make has not been raised and I do not want to anticipate a future amendment, but as that clause presently reads in the act it is possible in the future to raise the minimum wage by action of the Governor in Council. We can debate that at the proper time on the next amendment. In the fall of the year members of all parties may feel, as a result of discussions in caucus, from a reading of what is happening in the organized field, from the cost of living and all the other barometers, that it is socially desirable to raise the minimum wage to $2. If there is a legitimate and persuasive case to be made for raising the minimum wage then, under the provisions of the bill, we shall be able to do so. The underlying factor for establishing the $1.75 minimum wage was the need for the Minister of Labour to show some degree of responsibility, that is, to show some concern for the plight of people who must work at the minimum wage level while at the same time appreciating the problems of small businessmen in this country who, frankly, survive in labour intensive industries. Eventually, as the different parts of this country are developed, as regional disparities are minimized reduced or eliminated under policies such as have been put into effect by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) in the textile industry which are reducing unemployment, encouraging automation and technological change, thus making that industry more viable and competitive in the export market, we shall be able to look at the minimum wage in an entirely different light. In the meantime, I am hoping that the $1.75 minimum wage will induce those labour intensive industries to become more efficient and thus more progressive. I hope they will expand and provide for more employment. I cannot afford to take the chance that some of these small industries will be put out of business at a time when unemployment is high and when the regions of the country concerned have no alternative to offer to the people thus displaced.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie rising to ask a question?


Charles Terrence Murphy: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the minister made a statement to the effect that I had anticipated his argument because they had been given to me in confidence earlier this week. I wonder if the minister would advise me which of those arguments, which he claims were given to me in confidence, has not been used publicly for the last two years?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to review afi the speeches I have made in the House. I will apologize in case what I am about to stay is not correct. The hon. member's speech was one of anticipation. He anticipated all the arguments I would be bringing forward. One example, of course, was the argument respecting the United States and the risks taken and the other was the argument about the provinces. It is possible that the hon. member has done his homework assiduously and has read my speeches on second reading, before the

committee and those I made last fall. Possibly they were the basis for his speech. If so, I apologize. I now understand where his information came from and what the basis of it was.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended taking part in the debate, but some arguments raised by some hon. members and the minister led me to the conclusion that I should participate, briefly. I do not want to delay the passage of the bill.
I think the House should congratulate the minister for raising the minimum wage from $1.25, which it was not long ago, to the proposed $1.75 in the space of one year. In saying that, I continue to speak in favour of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), although I was impressed by the validity of some of the arguments the minister used regarding the problems of various small businessmen, various provinces and the disparities between minimum wages in those provinces. He also spoke of the need for time for adjustment.
Although there are certain strong points in his argument, I cannot rid myself of the feeling that the people getting minimum wages pay the same for goods and services as those who are well organized. It seems to me that we are asking people working as water carriers, to take the example the minister mentioned, or as waitresses, or as store clerks, or in other jobs, to subsidize through their cheap labour the profits of a business operating inefficiently in the first place. I know that labour intensive industries wish to increase their productivity through automation, and therefore become less labour intensive, when strong enough pressure is exerted by organizations for wages to be increased. Legislation such as this, as has been mentioned, is therefore an effort on the part of the government to provide the kind of service to the unorganized that unions and labour federations provide for those who are members of some trade or labour organization. Nevertheless, people working in these labour intensive industries are sometimes subsidizing those inefficient industries. It costs those people exactly the same to live. It costs them precisely the same as it costs anybody else when they want to hire a plumber, as someone said, or an electrician, or when they want to go to the dentist. They might not go to the dentist as frequently as others because they simply cannot afford to do so. People like that probably cannot afford insurance, either. So, here we have a group of people who are subsidizing their own poverty. They are locked into that position, which is unfortunate.
If you subscribe to the minister's argument, why bother raising wages at all, because the argument is just as valid at $1 as at $1.75 per hour. I was pleased to hear the minister say that the minimum wage could be raised through order in council and that this is a time When there will be a gradual increase in minimum wage levels.
I cannot subscribe to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), because you should not really consider what people are worth to a particular industry in terms of their contribution of value to the firm. As human beings, they are more
June 17, 1971

than mere production units. I think that the argument and criterion should be what a person needs in order to live in dignity. That should be the basis for the minimum wage. After all, what is the point in perpetuating the kind of poverty in which between 20 per cent and 40 per cent of Canadians find themselves. I cannot buy the hon. member's argument and I feel strongly about it. We hear about bums on welfare and about there being no incentive to work. Mr. Speaker, some people are checking out of the system, so to speak.
Raising the minimum wage to $2 per hour will provide an income of between $320 and $350 a month. Mr. Speaker, a man with a wife and two children can get $400 a month on welfare, plus a medical card; so where is his incentive to work? If you only have skills enough to command the minimum wage, what is the point of working? There are all kinds of examples of exploitation. We saw an example two years ago in the post office. The Post Office Department in the cities of Vancouver, Ottawa and Montreal was loaded with casual labourers paid at $1.25 per hour, the idea being that the government would not have to pay for their fringe benefits. The post office defied the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act or of the bargaining arrangements entered into and hired these people for six months. The department then turned them out for one day and hired them back again at the minimum wage.
The post office is not alone in employing people at the minimum wage. A lot of department stores do that, too. Department stores in my area hire married women and high school kids deliberately on a part-time basis in order to get out of the obligation of paying employee fringe benefits. They hire these people instead of hiring staff on a permanent basis.
I think that the amendment proposed represents a target to be reached, and I do not think this House should rest until that kind of target has been met. We had no hesitation when it came to raising our own wages. There were not many howls from people in this House. About half of all federal workers are not organized, although I am not saying that 50 per cent of federal workers are working for the minimum wage. Certainly, a large number of them are. I support the amendment because it seems to me that the yardstick we should use in dealing with such things, with such social documents as a minimum wage law, should not be what a particular company or a service employer may or may not be able to afford. Certainly, the government needs to have authority to pay casual post office employees more than $1.25 an hour, but we must remember the income that is necessary in order to give a family a reasonable standard of living. If we do not do that, what are the alternatives? The alternatives are more checkouts in our system and less incentives to work. These people will receive much more than the minimal wage by going on welfare.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: I wish to speak briefly in this debate to support what I believe to be the side of responsibility. I will begin where the minister left off, that is by referring to small business-
Canada Labour (Standards) Code men. I hope the minister included the farmers in this group. It is on their behalf that I wish to say a few words.
It is quite true that the specific implication of the legislation does not relate to farm workers, but as has already been stated, it has an indirect affect on them. I hope all the provinces will attain the standards set forth in this bill. If and when that happens, I hope there will be pressure applied to all segments of industry, whether it be agriculture or some other industry, to meet these standards.
We have been talking about the highly idealistic concept of a person being worthy of his hire and paid a wage in prder that he may have a decent standard of living. No one opposes that. However, there must be some consideration of the ability to meet these wages. Somebody makes the wages and somebody has to pay them. This is why I feel that the modest increase proposed in this legislation is quite adequate. It is a responsible increase and a step in the right direction. I agree with what the minister has said about the ability to pay.
Governments at all levels in this country have been dedicated to a cheap food policy. To their sorrow, farmers and farm organizations know this. No one objects to a cheap food policy. What we do object to is that the person who contributes most and suffers most from a cheap food policy is the primary producer, namely the farmer. He does not have the ability to sell his products for a reasonable amount which would give him a fair return on his investment based on labour and management scales. The farmers have to take what they can get on the market place. Admittedly, this situation is being improved through cooperative marketing and so on, but the farmer must still take what he can get when selling his produce. Out of that, he must pay the wages of those who work for him.
The prices of a great many farm products have not increased over the years. In fact, many have decreased. For example, the price the farmers receives for his hogs is the lowest in 10 or 15 years. I could cite many other instances. This is the situation which faces the farmer who employs labour. What is the farmer able to pay? Raising the minimum wage simply means that the farmer will not be able to employ people. The minister referred to small businesses. There are very many small businesses scattered throughout the country, such as family operated grocery stores and feed stores. It is necessary for them to employ help. If the small businessman or the farmer does not employ the people in the community, they are not able to work.
I am in complete agreement with the necessity for considering the plight of the wage earner, but we must be responsible. We must take into account the fact that small industry, farmly farms in particular, which has to employ seasonal help-somehow or other-has to meet the payout. I plead with hon. members to consider this. Hon. members must act in a responsible manner because of the fact there are two sides to this coin.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the
question?

June 17, 1971
Division


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realize that under Standing Order 75(11), Mr. Speaker may defer calling in the members for taking a recorded vote, but for two reasons, it might be better to take the vote now. My first reason relates to the general interest in this amendment. My second reason is that our views on the next amendment could well depend on whether the minimum wage is $1.75 or $2. I ask Your Honour to determine the general consensus of the House as to whether the vote should be taken now or deferred.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I will do whatever the hon. member suggests because of the cooperation that has been extended to me by the opposition parties in expressing their willingness to pass the committee and third reading stages today, preferably by supper time. I certainly accede to the request of the hon. member.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it is not our intention in this party to be uncooperative. I appreciate these circumstances which have been expressed. We in this party accept the suggestion made by the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The provision of the Standing Order is only permissive in so far as the Chair is concerned. As hon. members know, it is for the purpose of convenience in expediting the proceedings of the House. It seems that the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre meets with the general approval of both sides of the House. There is an indication that hon. members would like to decide the question on this motion now. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That Bill C-228, an act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, be amended by deleting from clause 7 lines 5 to 13 at page 5 and substituting therefor the following:
"(la) Commencing July 1, 1972, where the index for that year hereinafter first mentioned is the greater, the Governor in Council shall, by order, increase the minimum hourly wage rate for the year following June 30, in any year to the amount obtained by multiplying the minimum hourly wage rate payable under this section on that June 30 by the ratio that the Consumer Price Index for Canada, as calculated by Statistics Canada under authority of the Statistics Act, for the year ending that June 30 bears to such index as so calculated for the year preceding that year so ending.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) introduced Bill C-214 to provide for an increase in the minimum wage rate, he said that one of the flaws in the present legislation was that increases had been too infrequent in the past. He stated, as recorded at page 7489 of Hansard, for May 29, 1970:
When I reintroduced the Labour (Standards) Code in the fall, I believe it should include some automatic device to increase the minimum wage on an annual or bi-annual basis. If we are to do this, then it is logical that the minimum wage be tied, in some scientific manner, to some index.
During the debate on that bill the minister mentioned this point on several occasions. We in this party felt that when the new legislation was introduced there would be included some formula making it incumbent on the government to adjust the minimum wage each year in accordance with the cost of living or the gross national product. In any event, we expected some mandatory provision requiring the minimum wage to be adjusted each year. We were surprised and somewhat disappointed when the present bill was introduced in that this automatic escalating clause was not included.
There are two reasons for providing an annual adjustment to the minimum wage. People coming within the act are given some protection in respect of the increase in the cost of living and in respect of a decline in the purchase value of the dollar. They should be given some measure of compensation in relation to an increase in the productivity of the working force. For these reasons, there should be something in this legislation to provide automatic adjustments to the minimum wage.
There is another aspect of this formula which is of importance. The minister also recognized this when he spoke on second reading. He indicated that if you leave the adjustment of the minimum wage in the hands of the
Canada Labour (Standards) Code minister or the cabinet, there will always be the danger of adjustments being made on the basis of political reasons. In all fairness to the minister, he recognized this fact. In speaking on second reading the minister said, as recorded at page 5318 of Hansard for April 28:
We discussed methods of an adjusting formula. At one time I said, when bringing in the minimum wage of $1.65, that I was hopeful of finding a suitable formula.
He went on to say suggestions for a formula could be discussed in the committee and he was hopeful some solution could be found. He pointed out the fact that the government had been giving consideration to the problem but had not been able to come up with a suitable formula. He referred to the fact that the legislation would give the Governor in Council the power to make increases on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour. He recognized the valid criticism of some hon. members regarding this provision of the bill. He said, as recorded on the same page:
Some people have quite properly and gently pointed out the political ramifications of the power given to the Minister of Labour through the Governor in Council to increase the minimum wage a month before an election. I will be quite prepared to accept an amendment at the committee stage which will limit the amount I could increase it by, if someone from the opposition would like to introduce such a formula into the bill.
I read those words of the minister to remind the House that he is well aware of the fact something is wrong with the formula proposed. It is not the formula we want, since there is still a danger this power could be used for political reasons. We on this side recognized this fact earlier. I believe the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) first raised this question, but we feel that the bill before us is not good legislation because there is no compulsion on the government to make these automatic increases.
Clause 7 of the bill gives the Governor in Council the power to make adjustments in the minimum wage from time to time. However, it does not provide that "the Governor in Council shall"; there is no compulsion on the cabinet to make these increases. If the present Minister of Labour continues in office, I have no doubt he will make these adjustments because he has shown a disposition to be reasonable. But what assurance is there anywhere in this bill that an adjustment will be made to the minimum wage at any time? This is the main criticism that we have of the clause in the present bill.
Second, there is nothing anywhere in the bill which would meet the minister's suggestion that perhaps there should be some control over the size of the increase. I must confess that the minister threw out a challenge or an open invitation to us on this side to come up with a satisfactory formula which he said he would be prepared to consider and possibly to accept. I do not feel it is our duty to present this formula. 1 think the minister should have included some such formula in the bill, and then I am quite sure that we on this side would give solid support to such a formula. However I think it is incom-bent on the minister or on the department to suggest a

June 17, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code formula because they have the benefit of all the figures and the various studies which they have made over the past two or three years to which the minister has referred.
We were very disappointed that such an amendment did not come before the committee. Therefore, my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), proposed this amendment which, I will be the first to admit, is not wholly satisfactory. It is not exactly what we would have wanted, but it is the only suggestion that has been made so far that would at least provide an automatic adjustment to the minimum wage each year. We presented the amendment in committee, but it was defeated. We feel it is a start in the right direction and we have, therefore, proposed it again at the report stage. We will ask the members of the House to give favourable consideration to it and to vote for it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I urge my hon. friends to the right to give a bit more thought to this proposition. What is proposed is a strait-jacket. It is a proposition that shackles our minimum wage people to a level of poverty from which they will never escape. As a matter of fact, I would rather trust the Governor in Council than tie the minimum wage to the consumer price index. At least the Governor in Council would be subject to some political pressures. There might be a few more members like the member from Sault Ste. Marie around in the Liberal caucus who might squawk from time to time, particularly at election time, and the government might be made to realize that this figure of $1.75 should be boosted quite considerably. But if you adopt this formula, plausible though it sounds, all you do is keep the low paid people, the people on the minimum wage, at the same level of poverty that has been their experience.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, relying on the provisions of Standing Order 75(8) which permits an amendment to be made to a motion that has been put before the House at the report stage, I should like to move an amendment. I do so, and it is seconded by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). It reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting ail the words after the words "by the ratio that" and by substituting therefor the following words: "the Earnings Index for the immediately preceding calendar year, as defined in the Canada Pension Plan, bears to the said Earnings Index for the year immediately prior thereto."
A while ago when we were discussing another bill that I shall not mention now, not just because of the rules but because it affects Members of Parliament, and there was a suggestion that there should be a formula regarding the salaries of Members of Parliament in the future, it was contended in some of the discussions that we had outside the House that there was no such thing as a wage index, or a statutory formulation of the wages and salaries of public servants to which a formula could be attached and used in the case of these salaries. That is the reason that in this amendment I do not use general words like "wage index." I use the two words "earnings index" which are defined in the Canada Pension Plan. Thus there is statutory provision for those words.
The general purpose behind the earnings index is that the escalation which is provided in the Canada Pension Plan during the working years of members of the plan is based on what happens to the average earnings of the working people of this country. That is what I would like to see happen for those on the minimum wage. I am taking this slowly, and am repeating myself hoping that I am making the point to my hon. friends to the right. They have got a good point in wanting a formula, in wanting this to happen automatically, but I plead with them that it is not good enough to match increases to what happens to the cost of living. Surely, the increases for the lower paid workers should match the average increases gained by all the other working people in Canada, and if all the other working people get increases that lead them to a rising standard of living, this formula should provide the same benefit for those living on the minimum wage.
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
I am sorry that we are still talking about a minimum wage of $1.75. The $2 that I offered earlier also was low. I must not get back into the debate that we had on the other amendment, but I hope the day will come when in our social progress we get away from this double standard, giving those at the top massive increases, and those at the bottom ten cent increases.
But if we are going to talk about automatic increases for those at the bottom, let the formula be one that gives those people raises proportionate to the average increases that all the other workers are getting. So, I present this amendment to the motion moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I even dare to hope that he might accept it. At any rate, now that I have moved the motion he can speak again and tell us what he thinks about it. But as I say, as between a formula that relies on the consumer price index, and relying on the Governor in Council, I prefer the Governor in Council. We can get at those who comprise that body. We can put pressure on them. But it seems to me we can do an ever better job by accepting the amendment that I have moved. I therefore present to you, Mr. Speaker, the amendment which I read a moment ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before putting the amendment and hearing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-kasey), I might tell the House that I have some doubts about the procedural aspects of the amendment. My understanding of the motion presented by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) for the consideration of the House is that it proposes that the minimum hourly wage rate be related to the consumer price index. To my way of thinking, that is the essence of his proposal.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) proposes that the minimum hourly wage rate be related instead to the earnings index. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre may say that the essence of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West is not that increases should be related to the consumer price index but that it should not be a fixed wage rate, that the wage rate should relate to some kind of formula. Of course, the point is subject to dispute. I would think that hon. members would want to have an opportunity to speak to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and indicate what their views might be, whether for or against it, not from a procedural standpoint but from a substantive standpoint. However, at first blush it appears to the Chair that the hon. member is putting a new question that might well be presented as a separate motion.
This having been said, and unless strong objections are taken-I note that the minister wants to rise. Is he rising on a point of order?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to express the opinion that the amendment to the motion is out of order because, in essence, it could have been introduced earlier during the week. In my opinion it is hardly a true

June 17, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code amendment to the motion. The only thing it really has in common with the motion is the concept that there should be a formula, but from there on the formulae differ. I think the hon. member, who is a past master of the rules, is taking advantage of his knowledge in this field compared to mine to introduce an amendment that probably, upon reflection, he should have introduced by the normal method.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speedier-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I really do not think it should be necessary to discuss the matter further. I indicated to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) that I harboured the same doubt. I appreciate, at the same time, that this is a matter of doubt, depending on what we consider to be the essence of the matter before us, that is whether it is that there should be an amendment or modification of the minimum wage rate by relating it to the consumer price index or whether it should not be a fixed determined minimum but rather related to some formula which might be adjustable. I think an argument could be made on both sides. Because of this, I am prepared to put the amendment at this time.
Is the House ready for the question on the amendment?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) quite properly pointed out that at this time last year I suggested I was hoping to introduce some kind of formula to amend the minimum wage on a more regular basis. I pointed out that the minimum wage had not been raised since 1965, because the method required to do it was rather laborious in the sense that it required a bill to amend a rather complicated act. Therefore, the minimum wage, despite the attractiveness of increasing it, had not been adjusted for five years. I have suggested that I would welcome a formula. However, the formula suggested by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), if applied to the basic wage of $1.25 in 1965 would have brought it up to $1.56 as opposed to the $1.75 we are now proposing. The amendment to the motion suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) ran contrary to the testimony of the President of the Canadian Labour Congress given before the committee. He was talking about a minimum wage of $2 and he said:
At this level ot earnings, I do not think that any scientific approach or criterion is actually relevant because it would, of itself, assume an equitable floor. You proceed from there and actually we do not believe that the present minimum wages, or even those that we are adjusting, in themselves provide any sort of equitable floor on which to build by the application of some scientific formula, having to do either with the consumers price index or with the productivity measurements.
This has bothered me in the last few weeks, Mr. Speaker. When I toyed with the idea of introducing a formula, I realized the weakness in the whole concept was that a formula could be a hardship to people on a minimum wage if it were introduced into the bill or used as a method for improving the minimum wage annually,
prior to a minimum wage floor being set nationally that was acceptable, fair and equitable.
I do not suggest that $1.75 is as high a minimum wage as we should be working toward, but if we had used the rigid formula suggested by the hon. member for Hamilton West we would now have $1.50. I know he would not consider this fair. We need the flexibility until we get to a point where minimum wages can be logically adjusted by some formula and all of us can be satisfied that it is equitable. I think this argument applies equally to the amendment to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The purpose of introducing a provision for increases by Governor in Council is to make it possible for the government to raise the minimum wage at more frequent intervals. Otherwise, minimum wage increases do not have the socially desirable effect.
I realize there is the possibility of political expediency on the part of any particular government at any particular time. I think the hon. member for Moncton phrased it rather delicately. However, I must remind him that if I or the government were only concerned with political expediency we might have come in with $2.50 today, so I do not think that is a real danger, Mr. Speaker. I think all of us in this House realize that the minimum wage affects more than the employee; it also affects the employer, the marginal industry, the standard of income across the provinces. While at first glance it might be politically advantageous to raise the minimum wage a week or two before an election by an exorbitant amount, the concern created among large and small businessmen could outweigh the effect of such an indiscriminate increase. Although the minimum wage has not yet reached an acceptable level-we are working toward it-I would suggest that this is the best possible way in which we can make certain of periodic and orderly increases, by Governor in Council.
The hon. member for Hamilton West said quite properly, as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that there are pressures from the opposition, from private bills and within the Liberal party itself. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy) had the courage of his convictions. When he suggested the minimum wage be raised $2 he was simply saying in debate precisely what he said in committee last year. I must commend him for his consistency. He also pointed out that there is pressure within the Liberal caucus as I am sure there is within the caucus of all parties, particularly for members who come from industrial ridings, to make sure that the minimum wage is adjusted periodically.
In the past, to do this has required amendment of a complicated bill and governments are reluctant to bring in amendments to one small part of a bill as complicated as the Labour (Standards) Code. By using the Governor in Council method, the government, as a result of pressure from members opposite or private members' bills as well as legitimate pressure within the caucus, will be able to make the periodic adjustments required to keep the minimum wage at a desirable level. I suggest that the amendment be rejected accordingly.

June 17, 1971


An hon. Member:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment (Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) to the motion negatived on division.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Alexander) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That Bill C-228, an act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, be amended by deleting from clause 8 the words ''justify such a difference", in lines 29 and 30 at page 5, and substituting therefor the following:
"reasonably justify such a difference and do not tend to avoid the attainment of the remedial objects of subsection (1)".
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendment in my name that has just been moved is, of course, subsequent to one that has been brought in by the government. When this matter first came before us, I was extremely concerned about the possibility that what the government was giving on the one hand might be removed by the other hand as a result of subclause (2) of the original bill. After careful consideration, and I respect the wisdom of the government in attempting to remove a certain aspect of discrimination from the particular clause, and after prodding by opposition members who suggested that there was still something wrong with the bill as it was, the government, at committee hearings I could not attend because of my attendance in Switzerland at the ILO conference, brought in another amendment couched in the spirit of my amendment which seeks to remove any possibility of an employee being discriminated against by reason of being a woman. I notice that subclause (3) now reads:
No employer shall reduce the wages of an employee in order to comply with subsection (1).
I wonder whether this goes far enough. I should like the language to be as tight as possible and that is why I have placed a further amendment on the order paper. I want to make sure that rights being given by the language of subclause (3), which provides that employees shall be treated equally, will not be taken away in the long run. My amendment would seek to remove the words "justify such a difference" from clause 8 and substitute:
reasonably justify such a difference and do not tend to avoid the attainment of the remedial objects of subsection (1).
The governing words are, "do not tend to avoid the attainment of the remedial objects of subsection (1)". In other words, we are trying to place the onus on those who, in all fairness, believe they are doing the right thing as long as what they are doing does not avoid the attainment of the remedial objectives of subsection (1). Frankly, I cannot see what is wrong with this amendment. Perhaps the minister could speak on it, and perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) could comment on it as well. All we are attempting to do by this motion is make sure that the door is absolutely closed with regard to discrimination against women.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate precisely the reasoning behind the hon. gentleman's amendment. I should like to have had the opportunity, and it is my fault that I did not do so, to discuss the amendment privately with him. In the opinion of the law officers of my department, the amendment as now worded would increase the possibility of the law being circumvented. The point they made is that we have other legislation that deals with discrimination. There is the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, which was alluded to, incidentally, in today's question period and which tends to prevent discrimination for reasons other than sex.

June 17, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
The law officers of my department informed me today that they feel the inclusion of the words, "reasonably justify" in the amendment tends to create, unintentionally, loopholes that would make it possible to discriminate against women or men.
May I point out to the hon. member the rigid wording of section 14A (1) on page 5 of the bill. It reads:
No employer shall establish or maintain differences in wages between male and female employees, employed in the same industrial establishment, who are performing, under the same or similar working conditions, the same or similar work on jobs requiring the same or similar skill, effort and responsibility.
The department feels that the wording of the clause is about as tight as we can make it, and that the amendment being proposed by the hon. gentleman might create loopholes. Because of the inclusion in the amendment of the words, "reasonably justify" as opposed to "justify", it would be easier for the employer to justify what could appear to us to be a differentiation in wages for reasons based on sex rather than, say, seniority or other reasons that could justify a difference in pay.
Although I understand precisely what the hon. gentleman wants, we feel that his purpose would be best achieved by leaving the clause precisely as written. That is the advice that I was given by the Department of Justice and by the legal advisers of my department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as did the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), I appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I did my best to read his proposed amendment in the light of what I felt to be his aim, that of tightening up this clause. I realize that we are dealing in semantics. I also realize that if you can say something in one word or in ten, it is better to say it in one. The ten commandments were pretty good at that, you know.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Has the hon. member any particular commandment in mind?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not have any particular one in mind. May I put it this way: I think the latter part of the hon. member's proposal is quite clear. It says that no one trying to escape the requirement to pay equal wages shall get around the requirement by something that tends to avoid the attainment of the remedial objects of subsection (1). Although this language is contrary to my suggestion that something can be better said sometimes in one word than in ten, I think those amending words tend to make the clause tighter. It is the word "reasonably" in the first part of the amendment which weakens the position. In this I agree with the Minister of Labour.
If an employer wants to pay a female employee less than he is paying a male employee and has to justify that, it is pretty clear-and I must not split an infinitive-but if he has to justify this "reasonably" he will call in a lawyer or two, and the first thing you know he is home free.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The discrimination could go the other way. He might want to pay a man less than he pays a woman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought of that. The Minister of Labour has said, in case the Hansard reporter did not hear him, that an employer might want to pay a woman more than he pays a man and the discrimination might go the other way. That is perfectly true. It has not happened yet, although it may. We may yet need to bring in legislation to provide equal pay for men if a certain movement gets going strongly enough.
Seriously, may I boil this down. Saying that an employer must justify paying lower wages is a lot stronger than giving him the chance "reasonably" to justify it. Perhaps in that light the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) will appreciate that I support his objective and that I am therefore against his amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on Motion No. 3.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am always ready to accept good advice. After having given this matter further thought, I can readily appreciate why the word "reasonably" was left out. As I listened to the explanations of the minister and the hon. member for Winn peg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I could see the complications. Perhaps because I was more or less placing emphasis on this, I lost track of the very matter about which I was vitally concerned. I was stressing the point "Do not tend to avoid the attainment of the remedial objects of subsection (1)." I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the motion because of the explanations given which I accept.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member be allowed to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has for consideration motion No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That Bill C-228, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, be amended by deleting the word "employees" from clause 17, in line 11 at page 12, and substituting therefor the following:
"employees; and the Department shall provide to such employer or such trade union any information except information privileged from production or communication, requested by the employer or trade union, as the case may be, for the purpose of assisting such employees and shall cooperate with the employer and the trade union to facilitate the re-establishment in employment of those employees."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. As clause 34J now reads, it is incumbent upon employers and trade unions to assist the Department of Manpower and Immigration by providing that department with any information requested by it in order to assist employees who are being laid off. I am wondering why we cannot have a reciprocal agreement. The amendment suggests that the department must reciprocate by providing employers and trade unions with similar information, subject only to an

June 17, 1971

inspection where the information is confidential. What is good for the goose is certainly good for the gander. We are attempting to cooperate by giving unions and employers an opportunity to know what is in the mind of the government with respect to its plans, so that they can meet the exigencies of the situation. This is the purpose of the motion.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to speak with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) about this particular amendment. I had hoped that he would have spoken to the point this afternoon. As hon. members know, he is appearing before the Standing Committee on Agr.culture. He has asked me to give his explanation.
As the hon. member pointed out, clause 34J indicates that employers and trade unions of the country must cooperate w.th the Department of Manpower and Immigration by providing:
-any information requested by it for the purpose of assisting employees to whom the notice relates and shall cooperate with that Department to facilitate the re-establishment in employment of those employees.
We are talking about a group notice which is incorporated in the bill elsewhere and which is not subject to amendment. Therefore, we have not discussed it today. We are suggesting, for the first time in the federal field, that employers intending to lay off groups of people must give advance notice, not only to those employees but also to the Department of Manpower and Immigration in order that the facilities of that department be placed at the disposal of Manpower employees and trade unions. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that the cooperation is reciprocal and that not only should the employer and employees provide the Department of Manpower with what is needed, but the Department of Manpower should provide the employer and employees with whatever assistance they may feel they need.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration is very appreciat ve and understands quite well what the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) intends to do. Nevertheless, with a degree of justification, he feels that this is spelled out in the responsibilities of the Department of Manpower. The basic concept of the Department of Manpower is that this information be made available to employers and unions. The very fact that we are asking for this type of cooperation from management and labour indicates that the reverse is equally true. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration would prefer not to see this in the act. He feels that in the mandate of the Department of Manpower it is understood that this information shall and must be available. Indeed, it would be impossible for the Department of Manpower to even function if at the same time it refused this type of cooperation with the employers and employees of this country.
I am wondering if the hon. member might consider withdrawing his amendment. I have the assurance of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and I also give that assurance, that just as we have placed this responsibility on the Department of Manpower to place all its
Canada Labour (Standards) Code facilities at the disposal of its employees affected by layoffs, the underlying philosophy of this particular addition to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code is that by providing group notice, there shall be as much advance notice of lay-offs as possible. All the facilities of the Department of Manpower might be brought to bear.
As the hon. member knows, frequently employers do not give as much notice as they could. This makes it virtually impossible for the Department of Manpower to go into action and minimize the effects of the layoffs, if only by providing people with knowledge of other jobs and providing the Unemployment Insurance Commission with advance notice to prepare unemployment insurance where applicable. I think that it must be understood that the Departments of Labour and Manpower will cooperate. It is therefore unnecessary to include it in the bill. I would prefer to see the amendment withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the
question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Alexander) negatived.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: that B.ll C-228, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few general remarks on third reading of this bill. I attended the committee meetings when the bill was being discussed. I did not hear all the briefs that were submitted because, unfortunately, I was involved in meetings of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications at the same time. However, I have read the briefs that were submitted.
June 17, 1971

Canada Labour (Standards) Code
What impressed me in the committee discussions on this bill was that, in general, there seemed to be agreement that this was good legislation. Basically, it is an improvement over what we now have. What frightened me was that the tenor of all the statements was: "This is good legislation, but..." The "buts" to me were very important because they meant that all these parties recognized that the legislation depended largely on the regulations. This is legislation by regulation.
The representatives of the Canadian Trucking Association were bitterly opposed to some of the clauses in the bill, but they agreed that in the past the department had been reasonable in its interpretation of the regulations. We can only hope this will apply in the case of the new legislation.
My reason for speaking briefly at this time is to give my approval in principle to the bill while urging the officials in the department and the minister to respect the wishes of the various people who have made submissions. I know they are well aware of the affairs of the various parties concerned. I hope they will take due note of their representations since the success of the legislation will depend on intelligent regulations being made by the minister and his department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated this morning when we began the report stage of this bill, it is a bill which meets with our general approval. There is nothing in it which we oppose. Any criticisms we make of it are on the score that it does not go far enough in certain respects. Since we do spend a great deal of time on this side of the House berating the government for its blunders and mistakes, bad legislation and all the rest, perhaps we shall be forgiven if we say on this occasion that the measure before us is a good piece of legislation. It may be hard to take on the benches over there, and some supporters of the government may wonder whether there is a catch in all this. But I speak as one who for many years tried to get legislation introduced on the matters which make up the Canada Labour Code, only to be told time and time again that we could not have it. At long last, though, we did get the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and the Canada Labour (Safety) Code. Now, we are at the stage of accepting this legislation as permanent and seeking to make improvements in it.
The bill before us, which we shall soon pass and send to the other place, deals with the questions of minimum wage, equal pay, maternity leave, group termination of employment, severance pay, garnishment of wages and one or two other matters. In all respects, the things this bill does improve the legislation and we welcome it.
The last speaker said something about regulations, indicating that even good legislation could be defective in practice if the regulations fell short of the intent of Parliament. I must say there has been some shortcomings of that kind with respect to this legislation. For example, the law permits the government to allow deferments in certain areas. In our view, far too many such deferments
[Mr. Thomas (Moncton) .1
have been granted. On the whole, though, it is good to have this legislation which does improve the position of the working people. The bill does so directly, of course, only for the 10 per cent or so of the working force which is covered by federal labour jurisdiction but there is a process of osmosis which goes on; as the federal government improves its labour legislation those improvements find their way into most provincial labour statutes.
Having gone this long saying things which might be called praise, may I now revert to type and get back into my own character by saying I regret very much that the minister did not have whatever he needed to go through with the better minimum wage rate, with an ease in the number of general holidays sometimes known as statutory holidays with pay, together with an increase in the number of weeks of vacation with pay provided under the act.
May I refer first of all to the minimum wage. We had a fairly good debate on the matter today at the report stage. I noticed that in discussing one of the amendments the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) said he could not accept its formula, which would tie increases down to a percentage of the rate which has been established, because-and I took the hon. genleman's words down- the minimum had not yet reached an acceptable level. I notice the minister is nodding his head, indicating I have quoted him correctly. I believe he agrees with me. He put up the best case he could for the $1.75 an hour, but I dare to believe that as a man with the interests of labour at heart he would much prefer to see that figure $2 an hour. I must say that all the arguments to the effect that we have to be responsible, that we have to figure out where the money is coming from, leave me cold. I do not see why the brunt of preserving federalism, maintaining a responsible society and all that sort of thing should always be borne by those at the bottom of the scale. We do not hear these arguments when raising the salaries of judges to astronomical figures; we did not hear these arguments from the majority when hon. members were raising their own salaries a short while ago. I do not think it sounds well to employ this kind of argument with respect to the minimum wage.
Well, here we are at the third reading stage of the bill. The rate is now to be $1.75. It used to $1.65 and before that it was $1.25. The level which is now proposed is really nothing to be proud of. I wish the minister had seen fit to make provision for a minimum wage of $2 an hour. It has been said across the way that if we had agreed to making it $2 an hour I would have been asking for $2.50. Well, that does not shock me. When I was asking for $1.25 I was told that if I had been given $1.25 I would have wanted $1.50. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Labour Congress which has supported the position of $2 at this time, has already said that six months or a year from now the rate ought to be $2.50. If progress does consist in getting a chance at a little better standard of living, I think such a chance should obtain for all our people not just for those in the middle and upper income brackets.
June 17, 1971

What I do not like about all the arguments against a decent lair minimum wage is the amount of the load which is laid, by implication, on those who are at the bottom of the income scale, in terms of keeping the economy going and so on. The Canada Labour Standards) Code presently has a provision for eight general holidays a year. We have made one or two improvements in this bill relating to the eight holidays but I think it might well have been increased to nine or ten holidays. I have a bill before Parliament seeking a ninth general holiday, and there is nothing inconsistent between that bill and my suggestion that we have ten. However, we must take them one at a time.
I press the even more urgent point of the length of annual vacation. We have moved a bit on this. When we first got the vacations with pay provision through this Parliament in the days of the Diefenbaker government it provided for one week after one year's service and for two weeks after two years' service or more. We got that improved so that it is now two weeks after one year's service. It seems to me that with the steps that are now having to be taken to cope with unemployment, and in view of the changes in our work patterns and way of life, it is not at all unreasonable to be talking now about three weeks' or even four weeks' vacation with pay.
As a minimum, I have suggested that this legislation should be amended to provide for three weeks after three years' service with the same employer, and I hope the Minister of Labour will be able to take a few minutes from his preparation of the speech that he is going to make after I sit down to listen to my plea. Within a year from now we will probably be out on the hustings, and who knows who will sit in the Minister of Labour's seat when we come back. However, one of the ways in which the minister might increase his chances of coming back to sit on that side of the House is by bringing in another amendment to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code next year, and one pretty sensible amendment would be to increase the number of weeks vacation per year to three weeks after three years' service.
I hope that I have not violated the tone of what I said at the start of my speech. I think this is a good bill. There is nothing in it that we are against and we shall vote for it when the vote is called, though that will probably not be necessary. However, I still wish that the minister had dealt with the three points I have made in a more progressive manner, namely the minimum wage, the number of general holidays in a year, and the length of the holidays known as vacations with pay.
Before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, I have one technical suggestion to make. As I understand it, when this bill is passed and the Revised Statutes of Canada for 1970 overcome all the technical obstacles and are the law of the land, we will then have one great big Canada Labour Code which will include the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, the Canada Labour (Safety) Code, the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and some three or four other pieces of legislation. Therefore, I express the hope that the Department of Labour, at an early
Canada Labour (Standards) Code date, will make arrangements to have an office consolidation made of this whole piece of labour legislation so that it would be available to us in one volume. In addition, I hope it would be printed in sufficient quantities that those who want to know what the labour law of Canada is will be able to find it. If the minister cannot meet my other request, I hope that he will be able to accommodate me in that regard. With that, may I say I commend him on the improvements that he has made and he has my good wishes as he goes forward to try to do more.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I, too, shall be brief. I am deeply appreciative of the co-operation shown by the opposition this afternoon, realizing that we are now getting to the end of the session and that there is a need to get as much legislation affecting all Canadians through this House as possible. Nevertheless, I would be remiss in my duties if I were not to take advantage during the course of the next 10 or 12 minutes at least to make some comments on third reading.
What I should like to do first is to say that when the unemployment insurance legislation was adopted the other evening, I did not have the opportunity of expressing my deep appreciation for the work that had been done on the bill by the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. There are many critics of the Canad an parliamentary system. People who are not as familiar as they might be with Parliament often have a misconception of what Parliament is all about. Those who tend to glance at the headlines in the daily newspapers or who listen to radio and television are given rather concise reports about what takes place in Parliament and they fail to understand that good legislation such as that which we have adopted this afternoon is not the result of the exclusive efforts of the government but requires the constructive criticism of opposition members.
This bill is one that gives me a tremendous degree of satisfaction. Being a Minister of Labour at any time in history is rather difficult and is at times a thankless portfolio. People tend to think of the Minister of Labour in relation to industrial unrest and forget that as head of the department dealing not simply with organized labour but with the whole work force of the country, he has an equal responsibility to bring in the type of legislation that affects the very lives of millions of Canadians, both male and female.
As I say, this piece of legislation gives me particular satisfaction. I hope, Lord willing, that I will be able to say that 1 have piloted through this House three such pieces of legislation, namely the unemployment insurance legislation, the labour standards and later, probably this fall, amendments to the IRDI act which directly affect collective bargaining.
There is something about this legislation that provides a degree of satisfaction not only to me as Minister of Labour but, I am sure, to the members of the Liberal caucus who are charged primarily with industrial relations, and to hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas), the hon. member for

June 17, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), all of whom have contributed to the bill through their efforts on the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
It is significant that the differences of opinion that have been expressed today are simply ones of degree. The government, in its wisdom, suggests a minimum wage of $1.75 and the opposition suggests $2. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy), who spoke very eloquently today, has been consistent in his efforts from within the government party to raise the minimum wage, and has provided useful and desirable pressure to review periodically the minimum wage in order that it be set at a desirable level. So that far from resenting his contribution today or even his vote, I welcome it as an indication that not only does the opposition exist to place pressure upon the minister to do what is necessary, but also that there are within the party itself members who are concerned about the legislation that affects the daily lives of the workers of Canada.
In his contribution the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre paid tribute to the bill, and I appreciate that. He mentioned three areas of the bill that he felt could stand amendment next year, areas that he suggested were reasonable ones for improvement, and I do not disagree with him that there are such areas. But they involve essentially differences in degree.
The first area is that of holidays. I did consider nine this year rather than eight. There is the question of the number of paid holidays-vacations with pay, if you like; and then there is the greater question of the minimum wage. However, upon reflection and with hindsight I think I did the right thing and that, since this is the first general revision of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code since it was brought in in 1965 by my predecessor, the present House leader, who had the vision to bring in the bill in the first place no doubt applauded by hon. members opposite, I should concentrate my efforts on breaking new ground in other areas of the bill that affect the people of Canada.
I am particularly pleased that we have made our provisions for equal pay for similar work a more practical piece of legislation. By putting them in the labour standards code the government, through my department, now has the initiative to seek out discrimination rather than to depend on complaints from people who, quite logically, have been terrified at bringing forward such complaints.
I think the maternity leave is something everybody appreciates. It is in the Code for the first time and it is a recognition of the fact that working women make up 35 per cent of the work force. It is also an appreciation of the fact that most women who work today do not work because they want a second television or a second automobile, but because their income quite often represents the difference between starvation and at least an existence. A mother who has to take time out to have a
child will, as a result of this legislation and the Unemployment Insurance Act, be able to do so with a minimum of concern about where the next dollar is to come from to help maintain that home. Maternity leave is a definite step forward just as the group termination provision is a step forward.
I think we will have an opportunity during the debate on the other legislative measure to discuss this matter further. In this technological age, regardless of the rate of national unemployment in the future, even if we get it down to 2 per cent or 3 per cent, we will always be faced with the fact that people's lives are affected by automation and technological progress. As an old railroad worker, I remember when we felt we had a job for life after 10 years' seniority. Suddenly, we found that boilermakers and foundrymen were no longer required and people of 50 and 51 years of age found themselves out of work and on the street for the first time. We suddenly found that yardmen and firemen had become redundant.
These problems of progress are problems that all parties should recognize. This is why we include measures in the bill dealing with group termination notice, so that the Manpower and other departments can help ease the burden by minimizing the effects of change. Not the least important feature is the provision which makes it impossible for an employer to fire someone who has the misfortune of having his wages garnisheed. This was a practice that always upset me. At least in the federal field it is no longer possible for an employer to simply dismiss a person who has come on bad times, then having got back to work suddenly finds himself dismissed from the job because of an over-zealous creditor.
Let me say as the Minister of Labour that I am satisfied with this bill and I hope it will find satisfacfion with all hon. members. Let me say, in one of these rare moments when I am not politically partisan, that it represents fair, sound and good policy. I hope it will be accepted on that basis by all parties.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Rare" is right.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I think the contributions of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should indicate to Canadians that our process works in spite of the fact it may be based on the adversary concept. Good legislation is possible in spite of that fact. When and if we are prepared to accept constructive criticism I do not think it is a sign of weakness. Nor do I think it is a sign of weakness when we accept amendments proposed by the opposition, particularly if they improve a bill and the opposition is performing its role. I do not resent this.
I do not think the opposition members resent my actions on those occasions when I must reject their amendments, because I have to look at things from all angles and because I am perhaps privy to more information. I have taken to heart the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that in the future we look at the question of annual adjustments to the minimum wage. Certainly, it is apparent that we should

June 17, 1971

consider this question. The Governor in Council does have some responsibility in this regard. We want to review the whole question of wages. The provisions of this bill represent minimum standards, not necessarily acceptable ones, and I hope the employers of this country, particularly those who can pay more than the minimum wage and fall within the federal sphere, will accept the moral responsibility of doing so. I am thinking specifically of chartered banks and other chartered companies. They should not hide behind the fact that we cannot differentiate between industries in establishing standards.
In setting the $1.75 as the minimum wage, we accept the situation that this matter is everybody's problem. This does not absolve certain companies from their moral obligations toward people. I think this debate has been very responsible and, as the Minister of Labour, I take this opportunity once again of thanking those who have participated in this forum in respect of this legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. minister permit a question? If I did not happen to hear him on this matter I am sure he will tell me so. Can the minister give us some indication of his intention regarding the early printing of an office consolidation of the new legislation?
Post Office Act


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Very briefly, the formula now being adopted is that the minimum wage can be raised by the Governor in Council. I have resisted the temptation to set minimum wages on a regional basis because I happen to believe, perhaps wrongly, that in the Atlantic provinces housing may be less expensive but this is offset by the higher cost of food, and that therefore the cost of living in Halifax is not tremendously different from the high cost of living in central Canada. As a basic philosophy, I happen to believe in a uniform rate of wage across Canada. I believe in national units. Having said this, when establishing a minimum wage across the nation I must take into consideration the existing minimum wage legislation in the provincial field in the Atlantic provinces. If there were a formula which permitted a minimum in Ontario of $2.50, in British Columbia $2 and in Nova Scotia $1.50, I can envisage the abuses which might occur in those less fortunate parts of the country. In this case, the regional rates could never match the rate in central Canada. The formula is now based on common sense and the Governor in Council will establish new rates as often as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is my understanding, and I am subject to correction, that this is the will of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). I think the new IRDI Act will be known as the labour code, part something or other. I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that all legislation referring to industrial relations will be co-ordinated, or codified, as they call it, and that this is in the process of being done. It will be, however, a departure from tradition to refer to the IRDA, which became a statute in 1948, some 23 years ago, as the Labour Code, section 4, or something of that nature. In any event this will be a much more orderly package, and people will be able to go to the Statutes of Canada and find together all the pieces of legislation dealing exclusively or primarily with industrial relations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the minister realizes it is precisely because of this departure from tradition that it would be useful to put all this legislation in one place. I have in mind not just what has already been put in the Statutes, specifically the Revised Statutes of Canada 1970, but as well the changes being made by the bill now before us.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Before the minister takes his seat I wonder whether he would permit a question? My question arises out of the minister's remarks about the establishment of a minimum wage. Is the formula to establish a minimum wage one that will be acceptable in all parts of Canada, bearing in mind that some areas have higher standards of living and wages? Has there been an attempt to strike a national average, keeping in mind higher cost areas, in order that there will be something meaningful?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



POST OFFICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 15 consideration of Bill C-240, to amend the Post Office Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Deputy Speaker;: I recognize the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) on a point of order.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wish to ask for the unanimous consent of the House in order to move an amendment to the bill at this stage.
I move that Bill C-240 . ..
fEnglish]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Postmaster General has asked the consent of hon. members to propose an amendment at this stage. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
6838

June 17, 1971
Post Office Act


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I move:
That Bill C-240 be amended by striking out lines 28 to 31 on page 7 thereof and by substituting therefore the following:
"9. (1) Section 3, 5 and 6 of this Act and subsections 17(1), (2), (3) and (5) of the Post Office Act as enacted by section 4 of this Act shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 1971.
(2) Subsection 17(4) of the Post Office Act as enacted by section 4 of this Act shall come into force on the 1st day of April, 1972."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair's understanding is that the motion has been put to the House. If hon. members are in agreement, we will continue with the debate on motion No. 3. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) has the floor. When this motion has been disposed of, we will deal with the motion of the Postmaster General.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I spoke at some length on this matter the other evening when we were considering the amendments. In view of the shortness of time, I do not think I need to put those points again. As a matter of fact, as I look across at the benign countenance of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), I think he is convinced that the three amendments that we have presented at the report stage of the bill, on sober second thought so far as he and the government are concerned, merit support. Certainly this amendment, which deals with the basic across the board increase, is one that should have the unanimous support of the House, and even of members on the government side.
There has been an extensive discussion on the wisdom of increasing inflationary pressures by applying a substantial increase in the cost of the postal service, which is a basic public service. At the second reading stage, members of this group moved that the bill be pushed forward for six months, the traditional six months hoist. We did this under the impression that within six months the Postmaster General would have the assurance that these amendments, these reforms, these improvements in policy that he talks about in vague terms, would have had a chance to exert their influence in the postal department. I am sure that if the results were as beneficial as he has optimistically forecast, he would then be able to get by without the necessity for an increase. I leave the matter with him and the members of the House. I am sure that if they think rationally about it, they will support this amendment.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Grey-Dufferin-Walerloo):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, spoke at the initial stage of this bill, indicating that I felt an increase now would be inflationary. I should like, therefore, to support my colleague, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), in his amendment. However, before I do that I should like to say to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) that I appreciate the interest that was shown by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) in going to my riding and looking at the post office in Elora. People there feel that they would
like to retain that building in its original form. I sincerely hope that the Postmaster General and the Minister of Public Works can get together and decide on some additions or some remodelling so that this beautiful old stone edifice can be retained.
There are a few other comments I would like to make, but I hope that will not deter the Postmaster General from making a favourable decision with regard to the post office in Elora. Although I was not able to participate in the committee proceedings because I was in Elora on that day and was not able to be back on time, I was disturbed to learn that the matter of the possible inflationary effect of the increase in postal rates was referred to the Prices and Incomes Commission. I think the most useless thing that was ever done in this House was the bringing into being of this commission. They have not done anything about inflation in Canada.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Except to aggravate the problem.


William Marvin Howe: The increase in the charges of chartered
banks was brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). The commission has done nothing about it. I was rather disturbed today when I heard that storekeepers in this city, who have always been in the habit of accepting travellers cheques from people who travel through this nation, are charged 25 cents on these cheques by the chartered banks of Canada. I think this is a disgraceful procedure, and why does the Prices and Incomes Commission not look into this and do something definite about it? This is why I was a little disturbed when the minister said he went to the Prices and Incomes Commission and learned from them that this increase would not affect the inflationary spiral in Canada. Anything that puts an upward pressure on the economy, particularly anything that has to do with the goods and services, increases the inflationary pressure. I objected in 1968 when the original increase was introduced, and just three years later another increase is proposed.
I do not think an increase at this stage is necessary. I agree with the hon. member for Brandon-Souris that after hearing of the great programs that the Post Office Department wishes to put into operation this legislation is premature. I do not think an increase is necessary now in view of the great developments which are to take place. If they work, we will not need the increase.
I see, according to the committee's proceedings, that one of the officials of the department was complaining that a private enterprise was stealing away the department's customers. This sounds to me like a little boy who is crying because somebody took his lollipop. I am disturbed at this kind of thinking. Imagine the great government of Canada not being able to give us good service and some little entrepreneur going around collecting the department's patrons and giving them better service. Why do they go to him? Because the service given by these private people is better than the service which the Post Office Department is able to provide.

June 17, 1971



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It is my duty at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Immigration-Effect of law on work opportunities for Canadian performers; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Public Service-Request that present legislation affecting relationship with government be reviewed by committee.
It being five 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 (papers).



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Winona Grace MacInnis: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the report undertaken in the Department of Agriculture on the United States internal food aid program and its application to Canada.
She said: Mr. Speaker, in November last I asked that we should be allowed to see a copy of the report undertaken by the Canadian Department of Agriculture concerning the United States internal food aid program and its application to Canada. My request was refused on the usual grounds that this was a document intended for internal departmental use and thus it was not available to members of the House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a number of us do not accept these as valid grounds for such refusal. When we know that reports have been prepared by the government at a cost to the taxpayers, we feel such documents ought to be made available to members of the House, particularly when they are exceedingly useful documents which could give greater reality to some of the programs about which we are concerned.
At this time I feel that the matter of an internal food aid program is important. The other day, when the latest consumer price index came out, I asked whether the government intended to do something to help low-income people with respect to their nutritional needs, particularly in view of the way the cost of living was increasing. I pointed out that the increase between April and May had been the greatest for the comparable two months in the preceding six years. I said the most difficult fact to accept was that according to the index, the cost of food had gone up tremendously, particularly that of fresh fruits and vegetables which increasingly are being recognized as essential elements of good nutrition. I mention these
Canada-U.S. Food-Aid Program
matters only to give a good, solid reason for my request for this report, because I feel that an internal food aid program could have definite application to Canada.
For some years now medical reports have indicated that the Canadian people are not really as well fed as we have liked to think. We know that this is a country in which food has been abundant, where we have a good deal of knowledge about preparing food, to say nothing about the interest in cooking that has been generated by Canadian immigrants who have come from all over the world. Their ideas on food preparation have added enormously to our Canadian cuisine. However, we are beginning to realize that the nutrition of many people in Canada falls far below what it should be.
As a result of technology and our changed ways of living, people have developed many poor nutritional habits. Here I am talking about people who buy prepackaged, pre-prepared foods which are easily consumed without going through the ritual of a formal meal-foods such as potato chips, pop, Coke, hamburgs and that sort of thing. Among people generally there is a lack of information on the nutritional qualities of food. Complicating all this have been the circumstances of low-income groups, of people who have not been able to afford the quality foods that give good nutrition. I know these people can buy beans, bread and cabbage-incidentally, cabbage is nutritious-but for their staples they buy the more stodgy foods, those which their incomes dictate they must buy. The proof of this is the number of cases of rickets and scurvy found among children, particularly those in low-income groups although it is not limited to those groups.
Recently a whole rash of weird diets has spread across the country, usually taken up by women wanting to cut down on weight and who have been led to believe that such diets would do the trick in a very short time. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) is not in the chamber because I am glad to say that after a long, hard battle his department is taking action under the Combines Investigation Act against the "Canadian blitz diet" program, a patently deceptive and phony program which has deceived a number of Canadians.
This is one of the reasons why the Canadian national nutrition survey is being undertaken, a two-year program involving about 21,000 people, to find out all about their nutrition habits. As a result, in 1972 we will know what laws we need to change, what laws we need to enact and what educational programs we must launch to improve Canadian nutrition. We will probably have to pass tough laws dealing with food additives, changes in dietetic courses, changes in our nutritional standards and, above all, we will have to go much more deeply into the matter of income levels particularly among poverty groups. Let nobody forget that one of the main causes of poor nutrition in Canada is the fact that one-fifth of our population lives below the poverty line. For all these reasons I wanted access to this report on the U.S. internal food aid program.
6840

June 17, 1971
Canada-U.S. Food-Aid Program
I have been trying to scout around to find out in general what the United States has been doing in this field. I know its main two programs are being administered by its department of agriculture. One is the food stamp program and the other the commodity distribution program. The food stamp program was launched with a single pilot project ten years ago, in 1961. Three years later the U.S. Congress authorized its implementation throughout the United States. I also know that the U.S. has been distributing food commodities for a good many years. The U.S. has a ten-year head start on us in the distribution of food to people living on low incomes. Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted the information which the Department of Agriculture had compiled in this respect?
But responsible people in the United States are not fully happy with their food aid programs. Pressure is being exerted to have the programs brought up to date and much more nutritionally directed. In many cases, in the beginning, the distribution of surplus food products was undertaken just as much for the convenience of the producers as to aid those on low incomes. As I say, as a result of in-depth study, people in the United States are coming to realize that these programs must be consumer-oriented and that greater emphasis must be placed on nutrition. I say that they are very far from satisfied. A year ago, on April 27, a report was issued by the chief of the nutrition program of the United States health services and mental health administration in Washington, Dr. Samuel F. Schaefer. Referring to this report, an article in the Ottawa Citizen read in part:
Hunger and malnutrition in the United States strikes preschool children and adolescents from poverty-ridden families the hardest, resulting in reduced growth and possible mental retardation-*
It seems very foolish of us to concern ourselves only with the problem of mental retardation from the standpoint of trying to cure or palliate it when we are being warned by authorities to the south that it is probably caused to a large degree by poor nutrition. The article continues:
In a survey prepared for the Senate committee on hunger and human needs, Dr. Samuel F. Schaefer said:	By far, the most
frequently malnourished age groups are pre-school children and adolescents. The younger population is the key contributor to the finding of serious malnutrition in the sample population as a whole."
Dr. Schaefer also said:
There is no longer any doubt that the incidence of malnutrition is related to poverty-level incomes. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to suffer from serious malnutrition.
Although there is malnutrition in all groups of preschool children and adolescents, there is as well malnutrition among groups with the fashionable diet of Coke, pop and chips. It is far more prevalent in the low-income groups, however. In the United States they have done something more than the establishment of these programs. I would like to quote from the testimony of Senator Joseph S. Clark who, when speaking on the subject of

establishing a select committee on nutrition and human needs in 1968, said:
The committee is convinced, after hearing from these witnesses-
This was after doctors had travelled throughout the various states in the south where poverty was most prevalent.
-that chronic hunger and malnutrition do exist extensively in the United States. In some areas and among some people it is an all too familiar way of life. Many of those who are chronically hungry seem also to want for essential clothing, shoes, soaps, medical care and education. There is an identifiable geographical nature to some of the pockets of hunger; there are some identifiable dietary deficiencies among low economic groups in some of these areas. The majority of those who are chronically hungry in the United States come from low-income families with the incidence increasing as income level declines.
The message of the President to the Congress of the United States on May 6, 1969, makes the following point:
The federal government presently provides food assistance to nearly seven million needy Americans through the food stamp and direct distribution programs.
If there are seven million Americans in need of food through direct distribution of their food stamp plan, there will be a considerable number of Canadians in great need of supplemental diets and food assistance. We usually measure our needs by about one-tenth of those of the United States. This constitutes a very sizeable number of Canadians in need of supplemental assistance.
I would plead with the government to make these documents available to those who want to study them. I should also like, before the Canadian nutrition survey is available, to learn something of the experience of those to our south. They have come to grips with the problem earlier than we have, perhaps because their pressures are so much greater. If we knew their experience to date it would help us enormously in preparing to deal with the report of the Canadian nutrition survey when it appears.
I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and to the Department of National Health and Welfare to initiate at the earliest possible moment committee investigations into conditions concerning nutrition in this country. There is no reason why we should not research another country's experience first. It would save us a good deal of time and grief if we had their background.
I conclude by urging again that the policy of keeping useful reports away from members of this House be discontinued. The government, which has begun to open up by consulting groups who are not members of this House and putting individuals on boards and committees, should follow through by allowing members of the House full access to documents and reports. All hon. members would find this extremely useful in the work they are trying to do.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, at
the outset I should like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) for the homework she has done and for the explanation and information she has given us on the importance of nutrition. Having been involved in the food business for a number of years I can
June 17, 1971

assure the hon. member that there has always been a need for studies on nutrition and that we in Canada Eire a long way from the ultimate.
I must dispute, however, the validity of the hon. member's remarks regarding the failure to publicize the documents she has requested. I refer to Hansard of November 18, 1970, page 1280, where the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gerome) made what is still a valid statement:
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture I may advise the hon. member that no formal report has ever been made by the Department of Agriculture on the United States internal food aid program and its application to Canada. An analysis of the program referred to was for departmental use and is considered to be confidential. I would therefore respectfully ask the hon. member to withdraw her motion.
You will note that an analysis is referred to here. I should like to point out that the analysis referred to by the hon. member was completed a few years ago and its purpose was to evaluate developments in this field in the United States to the extent that the Canadian government would have available for study knowledge or a data bank if and when any policy changes on this matter were contemplated. Thus, it is merely a collection of data and is not an official report. It was made readily accessible and is readily accessible, but from U.S. sources.
Some hypothetical models have been constructed, employing the data, but these models did not necessarily incorporate or speculate on government policy and as such are simply tools for an academic exercise of value only to economists themselves. I should like to point out that in order to construct these hypothetical models it was necessary to make assumptions with respect to programs. Thus, it is felt that while the study had been discussed with organizations outside the department it would not be in the public interest to table this analysis since the assumptions do not necessarily represent present or future government thinking on this subject.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member will agree that until notes and information used by economists and departmental members can be drawn up properly and put into a formal report, they should not be made available to be used in a manner which may or may not be related to government policy. That is why I suggest to the hon. member that the reason given by the parliamentary secretary is valid. I was delighted at the charitable approach taken by a member of the NDP toward United States plans and programs under way at present. I think this might be a step in the right direction. I do not think that has always been that party's approach.
May I say something about the internal food aid program. An internal food aid program is certainly pleasing to consumers. The program sounds good. But we must consider what will happen if we upset the economic balance of the country, because that would create real hardship for producers. We realize that consumers are well organized. Actually, Canadian consumers are much better organized than Canadian producers, and we must
Canada-U.S. Food-Aid Program consider the plight of our producers. Even before the Prices and Incomes Commission was established, investigations were conducted relating to the internal operation of food distributors, processors and producers. People were charged under the Combines Investigation Act and there were court hearings. At no time, so far as I am aware, did evidence come out showing that profiteering took place within the food industry.
In this country it is not food that costs so much; it is the handling, distribution and packaging that costs a great deal of money. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, packaging, pre-packaging, portion control, distribution and all those services which are available to the general public and to the consumer were not dreamed up by distributors and processors. These services came about as a result of demand from consumers such as the housewife who likes to be away from home in the afternoon, who likes her meat to be cut just the way she wants it, goods packaged in a certain way and displayed colourfully on the shelves.
The question of consumer acceptance is a most interesting study. On several occasions I have heard consumer organizations say that these services are not essential. Just tell that to the consumers, Mr. Speaker! The old system where the shopkeeper opened a drawer and shovelled out a pound or two of brown sugar, raisins or prunes and rushed around and put the items in a bag is just not acceptable. The additional cost of the services I mentioned is high, but the services have been requested by consumers. Ten cent discount operations to help the consumer have not been entirely successful. In some cases they have been almost disastrous. The recent price war engaged in by food chains which wanted to lower food prices to the consumer in eastern Canada very nearly ended in disaster. Also, it created a great many problems for small store operators.
It is true that in the United States they have taken a somewhat more positive approach to the internal distribution of food. The United States department of agriculture provides guidance with respect to nutrition. In Canada we provide a similar service through the teaching of home economics. The Department of Fisheries and other departments concerned with food provide a somewhat similar service.
May I now talk about the school lunch program, a program of this type that is probably best known. I have had the opportunity of being active on committees studying the school lunch program and I assure the House that it has not been very successful. Although the progam has worked in some areas, in other areas it has not. There are many problems involved in providing school lunches or school breakfasts. However, the commodity distribution division and food stamp division of certain U.S. agencies appear to be making some headway in this regard.
In this country we have adopted a somewhat different approach because we have left the decision in this field more in the hands of the housewife, of the homemaker and of the consumer. We are providing housewives with family allowances designed to fill at least part of the food

June 17, 1971
Canada-U.S. Food-Aid Program gap. We also have in this country what most Canadians admit is a generous welfare program. I am therefore wondering how valid is the hon. member's argument. I do not want to sound critical. There is no question that there are still hunger problems. I appreciate the manner in which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway presented information to the House but I wonder if we should not concentrate more upon telling homemakers, in cases where there is a limited supply of money, what are the proper foods to buy and use.
It was my privilege to attend a homemakers' convention in Sardis. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway also attended that convention. The dental care of native children residing on reservations was discussed. The dentist there was doing his best to point out to the people that it was the inadequate diet, the food that the children were eating, more than the lack of dental care that was causing these problems. I think we should go further in educating homemakers and consumers about the proper foods to buy. I agree with the statements made by the hon. member in this respect.
There is another point that has not been raised. It may be deemed irrelevant, but there can be considerable abuse when an internal food aid program is used to distribute food in order to assist families. When there is a real shortage of funds the program is sometimes abused to the point where food is exchanged for cash. When this happens the program does not do the job it is intended to do.
In Canada and the United States we have many foods rich in protein such as, if Your Honour will pardon the expression, eggs and poultry. They are considerably cheaper now than they were 20 years ago and are extensively used by low-income families. It is not fair to say that reasonably priced, high protein food is not available in Canada.
There is another aspect of this matter on which I would like to dwell for a moment. Before doing so I would emphasize that I am not opposed to our carrying out as much study and investigation as possible on food programs now and in the future. We must endeavour to get into this field at some time, hopefully paying it a good deal of care and attention. I am convinced there is room for food distribution programs in Canada. However, the main problem is producer economics. When food is overproduced, very seldom is the producer reimbursed his cost of production. Placing surplus food in the homes of people will not really solve the economic problem so far as producers are concerned. Surpluses are taken and passed on to other areas. A great deal could be accomplished so that producers would be in a better position to at least earn a decent living and, through taxes, able to contribute to other programs for the underprivileged or low-income groups. We need to export our surplus food.
I would be remiss in my duty if I failed to mention Canadian foreign aid to developing countries. In this respect we are not doing as much as we could and should do. Our total foreign aid shipments in 1955-56 amounted
to $35 million. In 1966-67 they were well over $100 million, and they are rising. We have been shipping to our foreign friends approximately 60 per cent in cereals, 30 per cent in dairy products and the remainder in fish and egg powder. We have an enviable record with regard to the expansion that is taking place. However, we should endeavour to increase foreign aid in the form of food deliveries even though many problems are involved. We also have a very enviable reputation in the developing countries with regard to the quality of our food. This is appreciated.
I appreciate the approach of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I hope my remarks have been of some assistance to the hon. member. I hope we will consider the problems of internal food aid programs and consider studying within the economics branch of the Department of Agriculture steps which we might take to improve the lot of our underprivileged, low-income groups and to increase the nutritional value of food.


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
This motion has surely some merit and should be considered, but I do not feel that the government should provide food for certain individuals because the cost of living is very high. I believe there is only one solution to this problem.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there is no food shortage in Canada. We know that all the food and agricultural sectors throughout the country show enormous production surpluses. We know also that all the farmers and all the industries in the food business would only be too happy to see consumers buy their products.
Those producers would like consumption to increase, but many people are too poor to consume more and must deprive themselves. Some people must eat food that is not too wholesome, that is nutritionally poor. There are many families who do not have enough money to buy steak, even once a month, because it costs 1.25 or $1.50 a pound. Indeed, those families do not have the means to buy such nutritious food that some people would like to taste because they are natural foodstuffs.
However, in view of the fact that not all Canadians have the means to feed themselves properly, that production is plentiful and that there are enough foodstuffs in the groceries to feed a population three times as large as that of Canada, problems do not exist in the area of production as far as we know, but they do exist in the area of consumption.
If we want to promote consumption without having to hire new staff to administer such services, there is just one thing to do, in my opinion, and that is to increase family allowances which have not changed since 1945, whereas the cost of living has increased fourfold. Let us give these poor families more substantial family allow-

June 17, 1971

ances, then I would believe that the mothers of those large families might be able to buy whatever they need without too much difficulty. This would increase consumption and would cause less concern than having to buy prepared foods.
It would be more logical, while promoting this freedom
of which we lose more every day, to increase family allowances. By giving money directly to these families, we should leave them with this degree of freedom that they need in establishing their budget. Families know their needs; I do not think that the government or various agencies need provide them with food or advise them as to what kinds of food they need.
Mothers of large families are usually intelligent enough to choose what they need to bring up their children.
Again, Mr. Speaker, many Canadian families deprive themselves; they do not get the right kind of food for a healthy development. We know that many families have to buy inexpensive food that is often not very desirable for human consumption.
I heard, Mr. Speaker, that not so long ago, a father was killed. I wondered how he came to die. I was told, because he ate animal food. Then, he started running after automobiles, and got killed.
It is abnormal that human beings should be compelled to buy and actually consume such products because they are financially unable to obtain healthy and nutritious food.
Our country is affluent with resources, it is the government's responsibility to devise means by which families unable to provide for their own upkeep, could satisfy their needs. Consequently, we should not tolerate in a country as rich as ours that families should have to buy low quality and totally non-nutritious food. We find the means to assist all sorts of organizations, foreign countries, as we did recently, sending food to the people of Pakistan. I am not against such deeds, because we have plenty of goods here. We certainly could help the same way our own people, our Canadian families, and allow them to develop normally.
Should we be short of goods, this would be another matter. But everyday, Mr. Speaker, we realize that the farmers have plenty of everything, but they give up because they cannot sell their products or because they have to sell them below cost. We are then faced with economic dependence which, in addition to preventing many farmers from growing food products, prompts them to leave their farm.
In spite of all that, our warehouses and stores are chock-full of goods. There is therefore no reason at all for our doing without or for our families being deprived of the things they need, when we have everything in abundance.
If bread is missing on Canadian tables, it can hardly be because of a wheat problem and, if it is not a wheat problem, nor is it a meat problem, for there is enough on our farms to meet the needs of all our Canadian families. The same is true of food, clothing and housing.
Canada-U.S. Food-Aid Program
The people are not only deprived of food, but also of housing and so on. We should see to it to spread the wealth among families by sharing our prosperity. It is as simple as that. It has been asked for a long time, Mr. Speaker, that means be found to distribute the abundance in order to satisfy all human needs.
Then, Mr. Speaker, it is just a question of making available to all citizens our surpluses and abundance. We need consumers in Canada. Yet some citizens are deprived, it has been proven, and in this connection I congratulate the honourable member for Vancouver-Kingsway who was good enough to propose this motion so that we may look into the situation and become aware of the facts.
A good many families have to tighten their belts. There is an overabundance of all the things we might need. Then let us work toward distributing this abundance so as to meet all our human needs. We can do it because we have all the means required, even from a technological point of view. We also have all sorts of nice organizations that look after the population.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to congratulate and thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) who through her motion gives us to a certain extent the opportunity to discuss a proposal made in the United States back in 1964.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway would like to obtain a certain report on an analysis reported to have been made by the Canadian Department of Agriculture on the United States Internal Food-Aid Program. Naturally, the hon. member will readily understand that it is not possible for the government to comply with her request, because when a department undertakes such studies, information of a rather classified nature in some cases has to be gathered. When compiling this information, it is also necessary to make analyses, infer assumptions, and even at times criticize some aspects of the legislation of the country where we got this information.
If we were required to publish the first studies on a given project or problem, it would have the effect of discouraging any initiative or suggestion that could come from people who, of course, do not dare get involved in a problem such as food.
The problem of malnutrition may not be as serious in Canada as it is in the United States, for a very simple reason: social measures have developped in Canada in recent years to the point where today we can practically say that nobody should suffer from malnutrition if the money given to families through various social programs is used rationally.
Some individuals can be undernourished even if they have an income of $100 or $200 per week, because it depends on the part of that income which they use to buy proper food. A family of four or five can buy $50 worth of food per week and still be undernourished. Indeed, people can buy, as it was pointed out a while ago,

June 17, 1971
Canada-U.S. Food-Aid. Program
potato chips or hot dogs or something else which is not necessarily the best food available.
The various aspects of undernourishment should be considered because in Canada, as I stated, we cannot really say that some people are undernourished due to the lack of money. It is more of matter of a lack of suitable choice.
I have personally examined some family budgets. After discussing with the housewife who told me, to my great surprise, that she fed five children and her husband on a budget of $35 a week, 1 as somewhat shocked to see what my own small family cost me. My first reaction was this: my wife does not manage the budget properly.
Naturally, when one can buy goods of better quality, or even some luxuries, more can be spent on food, but that does not necessarily mean that the food is more nourishing. Therefore, if we take a close look at the problem raised we realize that we have not reached the point of having to urgently apply the American program to Canada.
If, on the other hand, it has been tought desirable to take a look at what is happening in neighbouring countries in order to determine if their food aid programs or other forms of assistance are better than ours, we naturally turn to the United States to get this type of information. They have what is in that country, a program called a food stamps program whereby people can buy food in grocery stores by producing a series of stamps.
These stamps cannot be exchanged for money, that is absolutely prohibited, and when the stamps' value is greater than the value of goods purchased, the retailer has to give back to the client a kind of receipt that he can use again at some other time.
The system introduced in the United States in 1964, the relevant Act having been amended several times and again just recently in January 1971, costs the United States treasury some two billion dollars, and a total cost of two and half billion dollars is anticipated for next year's budget.
Of course, spread out over 200,000,000 inhabitants, that does not represent too much per capita but in order to apply such legislation in our country the figure should be divided by 10. It is thus clear that a nutrition program similar to the one in the United States would cost us some $250 million. Consequently, should the federal government have to pay out such an amount in addition to those it is already contributing through cost-sharing programs and social legislation, it will readily be realized that the budget for assistance to underprivileged people would reach astronomic figures.
It must be noted that in Canada the number of persons engaged in food production is much greater than in the United States. We must be aware also that the American economy may support measures which we could not add to those already existing. Their effects on the sale of food must also be assessed. What would happen if people being helped now under welfare measures were receiving greater assistance under a food stamps program?
These are implications we have to consider because they will have short-, medium- and long-term effects
However the American program features one point of interest to me: in Canada we give money to the needy under welfare measures. I wonder sometimes, consideration being taken of these people's talents, if they put to good use the money made available to them.
Would the establishment of a stamp system which would compel them to use part of their budget for food be preferable to the present system? This is a point worth considering and studying longer. We are unable to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but it being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might interrupt the normal proceedings at this point to seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling a document and making an explanation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was asked a question about a settlement reached in the case of the complaint by Mr. Jules Demicher, which at my request was investigated by Professor Walter Tarnopolsky, Dean of Law at the University of Windsor.
At the time of my reply I had not actually seen the report submitted by Dean Tarnopolsky. It consists of a short letter in which he conveys to me a request from the parties affected by the complaint that I make public the agreement embodying the settlement, which was appended to his letter.
In view of the interest expressed by several members of the House, and in view of the fact that a partial report on the settlement appeared in one of the evening papers in spite of the fact that all parties agreed to not divulge this information until I had a chance to convey this report to the House, I should like to table a copy of the letter received from Dean Tarnopolsky and of the agreement recording settlement.
(Mr. Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean).]
June 17, 1971



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-240, to amend the Post Office Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, before five o'clock I had made a few remarks in respect of the motion of my colleague relating to the increase in the cost of first-class mail. I indicated that with the new improvements suggested by the minister and his associates at the committee hearing, this increase was premature. The necessity for improved services in the Post Office was exemplified by the Postmaster Generals' colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), when he explained his reasons for designating two types of census form collection. He indicated that because mailing services are not what they should be, people in rural and small urban areas had to have their census forms picked up by those involved in taking the census.
A great deal of criticism about this practice has been directed at the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I felt the criticism directed at the then Postmaster General was unwarranted. There were complaints in my part of the country that because of the mail service, census returns were not being received as quickly as possible. In addition, there were complaints that people were not picking up their forms or receiving them on time because of the inefficient mailing service. On the basis of these complaints I suggest an increase in postal rates is premature. It should be delayed until the new regulations are brought into effect in the Post Office Department. At that time we may find it unnecessary to raise first-class postal rates.
This increase may increase the pressures on our economy and create greater inflation in respect of people on fixed and low incomes. I hope that when the vote is taken hon. members will realize the importance of curtailing an increase in postal rates and will vote in favour of my colleague's motion.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my opposition to clause 3 of the bill which will raise the first-class mail rate at the end of this month to seven cents per letter and on January 1, 1972, to eight cents per letter. The amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and the amendment moved by a member of the official opposition are an attempt to keep the rate at the present six cents level. There are a number of reasons for this and I think they have been covered in the debate we have had over the past couple of weeks.
Post Office Act
I think one of the prime reasons is to try to contain inflation, but here the government is increasing by one third the first-class mail rate as of January 1, 1972. When we look back we see that two years ago we were in exactly the same position when we were debating amendments to the Post Office Act to increase postal rates. We were told then that most of the deficit would be wiped out. But here we are today with a bigger deficit than ever. Apparently the vast increases which were made at that time were not sufficient to do the job, and we are again increasing postal rates.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is a bottomless pit.


Randolph Harding: There is something that is not in this bill. I understand that at the end of the month there will be an increase of one cent in the third-class mail rate. This is allowable under the regulations which exist. This increase is too large. One cent does not sound very much, but many small publications which are forced to spend a tremendous amount of postage will be hard hit by the increases which are contemplated for the middle of this year and, as I mentioned earlier, there will be further increases at the end of the year.
I read the records for last year and found that we are already heavily subsidizing the mail service.
We find that Reader's Digest, for example, as of two years ago was paying 31.3 per cent, less than one third of their mailing cost, and we were subsidizing them for the balance. Time magazine is another example of this: they pay about 34.7 per cent. The Canadian people are subsidizing these two magazines, which are not primarily Canadian, to the extent of $1.5 million a year. As long as we have legislation on the books which allows this sort of subsidization to take place, I have no intention of voting for an increase in first-class mail rates which will adversely affect Canadians who cannot avoid paying them. The minister should accept the amendment which my colleague has moved and allow the rate to remain at six cents until discrepancies such as I have mentioned are removed.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, motions Nos. 3 and 4 have the same effect. They would not give rise to any increase in first class postal rates and this would automatically prevent any increase in third class rates.
I have already put forward many arguments, both in the House and in committee, to justify this increase in postal rates, and I not intend to repeat them. However, I must say that although the Post Office Department represents an essential service for all Canadians, it must help maintain the economy at a certain level.

The only solution to our adverse financial position lies in a better correlation between postal rates and the cost of providing postal services to the people of Canada. So far as the argument that we should improve service before we increase rates is concerned, we did just that. Since last October we have a better and faster money
6846

June 17, 1971
Post Office Act
order system. We put an end to the program of closing post offices. We introduced the Saturday wicket service. We introduced the assured mail program which is being implemented in all the large centres in Canada. We are in the process of inaugurating this year a letter carrier service in more than 20 cities throughout the country. We have introduced the post-pack system, and we are working on many new systems. We have started the coding system and the mechanization system which will provide much faster service.
I know that the service is not perfect and will never be perfect, but I assure hon. members that it is getting better and better. Despite the fact that it is not perfect, I think our system is one of the best in the world and I am proud to be associated with the department and with a team of about 50,000 dedicated people who also take pride in working for the Post Office of Canada.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The nice thing about you, Sir, is that you stick up for your own. There is no doubt about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) has just said that he has put forward a number of times the arguments in favour of increasing the postage rates. That may be true. He is a very persuasive individual and a minister whom we like-and that says something for a member of the present cabinet-but I am afraid he has not convinced us that these increases are necessary. He certainly has not convinced the public of that either.
I point out that the two amendments now before the House, one in the name of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and the other in my name, although slightly different in their wording seek exactly the same effect, namely, the elimination of clause 3 from the minister's bill. Clause 3 raises the basic rate for first-class mail to seven cents beginning July 1 and to eight cents on January 1, 1972. The only other provisions in clause 3 are for different rates for pieces of first-class mail that weigh more than one ounce. I am emphasizing the fact that that is what is in clause 3. So far as we are concerned, it is the heart of this bill and we think it ought not to be there. As has been said a good many times, this is the portion of the postal service that either pays its way or comes closest to paying its way, and we do not see why extra money should be sought from this part of the service.
Reference has been made a number of times to some of the other ways in which money could be obtained, by cutting out the subsidization of certain foreign publications, and so on. We also emphasize the fact that this is the portion of the postal service most used by the ordinary people of this country, the people whose incomes are already too low, whose incomes are already too heavily taxed, and any further imposition such as this on those on low income is very hard for our people to take.
We like the Postmaster General. We enjoy listening to him. But he has not convinced us of the necessity of these increases. We therefore are voting for the amendment to strike clause 3 from the bill and leave the first-class rate where it is, at six cents. In our view it is
already too high, but certainly it should not go any higher.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the said motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the vote will be deferred.
It is moved by the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote):
That Bill C-240 be amended by striking out lines 28 to 31 on page 7 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"9. (1) Section 3, 5 and 6 of this act and subsections 17(1), (2), (3) and (5) of the Post Office Act as enacted by section 4 of this act shall come into force on the 1st day of July. 1971.
(2) Subsection 17(4) of the Post Office Act as enacted by section 4 of this act shall come into force on the 1st day of April, 1972."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
[DOT]	(8:30 p.m.)
Motion (Mr. C6te) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The House will now proceed to motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


Mr. Speaker:: June 17, 1971
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: that Bill C-240, to amend the Post Office Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Maguire of Toronto. He has written in these terms to the editor of the Toronto Globe and Mail:
I thought you might find interesting the following extract from the Pro-Quidnunc column of the Irish Times of May 28-
What I am about to read is so devastating that it will shake this House out of its stone boots. The article states-and keep in mind that this is an Irish newspaper:
There's something odd, all right, about the postal services from Canada, and some support, perhaps, from Quidnunc's theory that they are beginning to send the stuff over to us by Indian canoe, instead of by air. As you'll remember, he noted last week that a letter from Stratford, Ont., posted on Dec. 5, did not arrive in Dublin until the middle of May.
Can you think of anything slower than that letter from Stratford to Dublin? The next paragraph reads:
Since then, five other correspondents have written in, recounting similar experiences. A letter from Toronto on Dec. 6, one from Montreal on Dec. 7, one from Ontario on Dec. 8, one from Calgary on Dec. 9-all arriving in Ireland on or about May 18.
That must have been a red letter day in Ireland, but it was hardly a red letter day for those who posted their mail in Canada. The letter continues as follows:
The answer is simple, you may say: they all went off in the same bag, and the bag got mislaid. But that theory doesn't account for the fact that there's another letter, which at the moment holds the record for delay, that was posted In the town of Vernon on Oct. 8, so it could hardly have gone into the same bag as the others. No, I prefer the Indian canoe explanation.
I suggest that the time has come when we must recognize that the task is so large it cannot be performed with as much efficiency as in the past or that it cannot be performed efficiently at all. In other words, there must be a relation to Murphy's law, which has been kicking around since the 1920s, which suggests that if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. There must be another law applying to this situation, namely, that because of the size of the postal service it is inefficient and cannot be operated efficiently. That is probably the explanation. If that is the situation, we must face the possibility of change. For these reasons I am prepared to move that this measure be hoisted for six months. I do so without any qualms.
I do not ordinarily take exception to government services when I can find an explanation for deficiency therein. When dealing with the Post Office Department I cannot think of any reason for its not operating as it did ten years ago. Millions of Canadians are becoming dissatisfied with the postal service and wonder why it is not efficient. Let me quote from a letter written by Mr. Paul D. Silver of Halifax. I have corresponded with this gentleman and he has replied in these terms:
Mr. McCleave, may I ask what has happened to the old boast of postal authorities that "the mail must go through"?
I can tell members what has happened to that old boast. It has been replaced by a modern theory invented by men involved in the public relations game. What they say to us is exactly what is being said by the Postmaster General in this bill: in some mysterious way we must put our faith in that great god of computer accomplishiment and we must be happy with the service we are getting.
Post Office Act
I shall make one or two more points and then I will have satisfied my compulsion in this regard. I should like to think that the Post Office Department has an obligation to service charities in this country. I have in mind the War Amputees, the tuberculosis society, and the like. Representatives of these associations have written asking for concessions in respect of mass mailing. They solicit through mass mailing and an increase in mailing charges as anticipated by this measure will mean a substantial increase in their costs. Therefore I would like to think their points are given some heed. As I said on second reading, I do not think we have to tie our hearts or our minds to a very strict formula; I think we should be allowed to give consideration to their position. If they cannot get it one way they will get it in another, and instead of asking us for $10 they will ask for $11 or $12. That is one point.
The second point is that I wish the Postmaster General, in whom I have some confidence-I cannot say that I had as much in his predecessor, the hon. member for Duver-nay (Mr. Kierans), although he was a charming man and could speak with the tongue of men or of angels, as the mood presented itself-were not so much tied to any hang-up that involves the mail service or the amount that he will charge for that service as a strictly utilitarian service that has to be paid for. I do not think the public looks on it that way either. For example, I do not think that the person who may enjoy a newspaper being delivered to his door necessarily wants to see it for the news it contains. He may want to find out the price at which golf balls are selling across the country, the price of lawn chairs or the price of something else. So there is that aspect to be considered.
People do not look on mail that is delivered to their door from the standpoint of its classification as first class, second-class or third-class. They do have some regard for what they want to receive at their door or what pleases them. For that reason I think the Postmaster General and his department may be somewhat strict when they say that first-class, second-class or third-class mail should pay its way. I think they are not being sufficiently flexible, because mail is probably the most important connection any person has with his government. I think it is the most immediate contact which we have for about 300 days of the year. There are some things about the relationship between the government of Canada and the people who receive this special service which have to be considered apart from the setting of rates. Because I feel strongly about this bill, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"That this bill be not now read a third time this day, but be read a third time this day six months hence".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 17, 1971
Post Office Act


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on third reading of this bill. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) has spoken for the east coast. I want to speak for the west coast and support very strongly his motion for a six months' hoist. I am sure that if the people between Halifax and Vancouver were to be asked their opinion most of them would support this motion, because the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants has put very well one of the major points on which they feel strongly.
The postal service is one of those basic services which people feel should not necessarily be carried out on the basis of whether it is making a profit or carrying its full weight. People believe it is a basic and essential service which should be subsidized if necessary. They feel that the old, reliable postal service is being chiselled away in many ways. This proposal is a very heavy item at a time of rising living costs. A number of my constituents have written to me pointing out that the proposed expense would be a hard one to bear because it is one they did not expect. They were not prepared for an increase in the rates of a service as basic as this.
They are also annoyed about other matters. They are very much annoyed that while we are again ready to increase the postal rates to ordinary people, we have been subsidizing publications which are well able to subsidize themselves. Reference has been made to Reader's Digest whose mailing costs the government has been covering to the tune of about 31.3 per cent and on which we have paid about $800,570 since the last increase in postal rates. Also, 34.7 per cent of the mailing cost of Time magazine has been paid and a total subsidy of $721,527 has been paid to them.
The ordinary people of this country who have to bear the brunt of inflation, unemployment and rising living costs-which is how they translate inflation-are hard put to it to understand why this should be so. They feel that if the Post Office Department is so hard up, the first thing it should have done was to come down hard on publications such as Time magazine and Reader's Digest which are well able to pay the extra cost, rather than taking it out of the hides of our very hard working citizens. I must say that their reaction is right and that they are talking good sense.
I do not want to give the impression that all is wrong with some of the changes that are being made. I say to the Postmaster General that I received several complaints concerning the guaranteed mail service but there was very quick and satisfactory action by the Post Office. They were largely individual complaints, and they were attended to. I am complaining about mail costs as a whole being too heavy for a large percentage of ordinary users of first-class mail.
When I spoke on this matter before, the only other time that I spoke about it, I referred to another complaint which is being generally voiced. When we increased postal rates on the last occasion it affected many charitable, educational and trade papers, a great many of which had to go out of business or greatly restrict their circulation. Now more of them are worried.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants mentioned organizations to which I referred previously, such as those which handle the Christmas seals and Easter seals and the War Amputees who look after key tags. These organizations operate on a purely voluntary basis. If their mailing costs are raised they will have no choice but to greatly curtail their services and by curtailing them they will curtail their ability to raise funds or they will have to disband.
The ordinary people of the country feel that this is not fair. They feel that this bill proposes to let off those elements that are well able to pay a higher rate and that it is coming down too heavily on those for whom the mail is their only direct means of communication. Most of the people I am talking about cannot afford long distance telephone calls, telegrams or other methods of making quick communication; they are absolutely dependent upon the mail for that purpose. Some hon. members may talk in lordly terms about communications of other sorts, satellites and all that sort of thing, but the people about whom I speak must rely on the mail.
To raise postal rates by one or two cents or even more may not sound bad to many people here but it will hurt the ordinary people for whom the mail is the only means of communication through which to do a little business across the country or to keep in contact with relatives in other countries. So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I am very pleased to support the motion of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.
If the minister is having an in-depth study made of second-class mail, this will provide a wonderful opportunity for him also to make an in-depth study of first-class and other classes of mail and see if he cannot devise a class that ordinary householders can afford, and let organizations like Time and Reader's Digest pay their way instead of calling on the little people to subsidize these foreign publications which really do not require subsidization.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker,
we have listened to two persuasive speeches, one from the east coast and one from the west coast. I speak tonight as spokesman for the centre of Canada because my constituency is located right in the heart of the nation, as a matter of fact close to the geographic centre of the North American continent. I can assure the hon. members who have spoken in favour of the six months' hoist that the sentiments of the people of that part of Canada are exactly the same as those they have expressed. It is obvious that even in this House there is no enthusiasm for the bill that is before us. I do not think even the minister is very enthusiastic about it, because throughout its various stages he has handled it in a rather apologetic manner.
I wish to speak just briefly, to emphasize once again that according to the minister, the Post Office has embarked on new policies which he anticipates will streamline its functioning, increase its productivity and
June 17, 1971

as a result lower the costs of the service. Obviously the minister has not completed his reassessment of the functioning of the Post Office because during a visit he made to the United Kingdom to look at the rather drastic and radical changes made in the post office there, where they have adopted the Crown corporation idea, according to a Canadian Press dispatch from London the following were some of the sentiments expressed:
Canada intends to fashion its national postal code system along the lines adopted by Britain and may eventually establish an independent post office corporation similar to the British one.
This was disclosed by Canadian officials yesterday as Jean-Pierre Cote, minister responsible for the Canadian Post Office, continued a tour of the British system.
John Mackay, Mr. C6te's aide, said the Canadian postal code will be ready for experimental operations in 1971 with Ottawa as the site for the first coding.
Since then the code has been introduced on an experimental basis. There has been some criticism because it is a mixture of numerals and letters and is rather confusing in contrast with other systems that have been adopted to simplify mailing procedures. But we have not gone so far as that dispatch intimated, to contemplate the establishment of an independent Post Office corporation similar to the British one. This is a basic reason why the House should postpone further substantial increases in mail rates for six months. By that time the minister may have completed his assessment of the reorganization process and we will know more definitely the direction in which postal service is heading. That is a fundamental argument in support of the motion moved by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave).
I	would like to make one final appeal for a certain category that will be affected should this bill receive third and final reading. The Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) has indicated that he is going to reassess third-class mail rates, which will involve considerable disruption if not discontinuance of the excellent welfare program of voluntary, charitable groups working on behalf of the mentally and physically disabled. Many eloquent appeals have been made on this matter both inside and outside the House. We moved a motion that if accepted would have made it possible for the minister to deal with this matter, narrowing the focus to the area of prime concern, the physically and mentally disabled. Included in that group would be those Canadians who suffer from the affliction of blindness. They are already partly covered in the legislation and need only a further extension of the principle.
This matter received support in the committee from members on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen), who was in the House tonight, made a strong appeal to the minister that veterans in particular should receive consideration. As recorded at page 18:33 of the committee's proceedings, the hon. member for Sarnia is recorded as making the following appeal:
I just want to go along with what Mr. McCleave has been saying. If you are looking at this area, I simply would like to make a representation for the war veterans that we would not be running our own Post Office or anything else if it were not for this
Post Office Act
group. If you are looking in this area, I hope that organizations such as the Legion and War Amps, if we have to pick a priority -I heard you say that there are 35,000. They are all worthwhile organizations.
There is obviously strong support on the other side of the House as well as on our side for this proposal. I should like to make one further point, Mr. Speaker, without unduly extending the debate. This increase applies to first-class letter rates. In some of the background, supportive material which he has circulated in order to prepare the way for a very dubious piece of legislation the minister has undermined his own argument. On page 2 of a circular entitled "Background Information on Postal Rate Structure," under the heading "Business Users" appears the following:
The first-class mail service is used both by business concerns and private citizens. However, since some 80 per cent of all first-class mail is business generated, it is obvious that the brunt of the increase will be borne by business users, but even for most businesses first-class postage costs are not a significant element of operating expenses when compared to expenditures related to wages and material. Therefore, the proposed first-class mail rates will cause no serious difficulties for business users.
If that is true, Mr. Speaker, it is because of a special measure which is included in the legislation. Clause 1 (2) (u) of the bill says that will be possible for the minister or his officials to-
-enter into arrangements reducing the rates on letters of postal customers who agree to prepare their letter mail in one or more of the ways prescribed by the regulations-
This, of course, will apply to business users who constitute 80 per cent of first class mail users, according to the minister's background information. If he hopes to resolve the deficit by the amendments before the House, he has defeated his own purpose. They will be able to arrange cheap rates and therefore he will be back where he started.
Because of this confusion in the legislation, the minister's halfhearted approach to it and the strong protest that has come from people all across Canada, I hope the Postmaster General will seize this final opportunity to delay consideration of this matter to six months hence. By that time perhaps the minister and his department will know where they are headed and we will be able to see the results of the administrative and policy changes that have already been made.
Finally, I would remind the minister that his predecessor, who created chaos and confusion in the department-indeed, the repercussions are still being felt-is no longer in the government. In the interests of the minister, who is popular in this House, we urge him to consider the wisdom of supporting this motion and bringing in legislation when it has been proven it is needed and which does not contain contradictions such as those I have referred to. I heartily support the amendment and trust that others will do likewise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: I intend to be brief, Mr. Speaker-

June 17, 1971
Division


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: -but there are one or two points that I think the House should consider before we take the final vote on this legislation which will sharply increase postal rates in Canada. Just over two years ago we considered legislation which increased the first-class postal rate throughout the nation. After checking the material given us at that time one wonders how efficient is the administration of the Post Office Department.
Before the adjustments of two years ago we had a deficit of $28.1 million. Then came the measure which was estimated to take $42.8 million out of the pockets of Canadians in increasing the first-class mailing rates. This was supposed to give us a profit for 1969-70 of $14.6 million. Now comes a bigger boost than ever in first-class mail rates to gouge another $50 or $60 million out of the Canadian public, making it pretty close to $100 million in the last two or three years.
There are other examples in the bill, Mr. Speaker, but I shall not deal with them now because we are considering first-class mail rates. It is crystal clear that we were sold a bill of goods just over two years ago when these rates were given to the House and we were told we would go from a deficit position to one of pretty fair profit. I think we should take a good look at the administration of the Post Office Department before we agree to any more increases, because if we follow the pattern of the past we will be back here two years from now jack ng up the rates to 10 cents or 12 cents a letter.


An hon. Member:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is the understanding of the Chair that there is agreement among hon. members to take the vote without ringing the division bells. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council what the business for tomorrow is to be?


Mr. Jerome:: Tomorrow we propose to call, first, Bill C-246, the pilotage measure, followed by Bill C-239, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, followed by Bill C-224, the clean air bill, and then we win take Bill C-176 for finishing tomorrow afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the parliamentary secretary lined up the business for tomorrow did he forget the budget, or has it been dropped?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, it has not been dropped. It is a birthday present for my hon. friend.

June 17, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I note with interest how many hon. members think it is important to leave the House immediately I am called upon to speak on any subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: The employment protection accorded by United States immigration laws to citizens of that country is immeasurably greater than that offered to Canadians by our legislation. This fact is not a new discovery; it has been long recognized by Canadians who make their living out of the visual performing arts.
As a result of an ACTRA brief, the Association of Canadian Television and Radio Artists, submitted on January 9, 1970, on February 2 I posed a question to the then Minister of Manpower and Immigration. A different minister now holds that portfolio. I would like to quote that exchange because my interest in the matter goes back well over a year. I asked this question:
In view of the recent brief to the minister from ACTRA concerning the lack of employment protection accorded Canadian artists and writers by our immigration laws, is the minister considering proposing amendments to our laws to provide greater security to Canadian creative people?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, the brief to which my hon. friend refers was prepared by ACTRA at my request following a meeting we had to outline the nature of the problem, and there is a problem. At present there are discussions going on between Canada and the United States in an effort to solve the matter in that way. If these discussions fail I believe we will have to consider some alternative.
That was the picture on February 2, 1970. Late in May of this year, almost a year and a half later, I raised the question again and received what I consider to be a rather evasive or equivocal reply indicating that little or nothing had been accomplished in the interval on the matter of lack of reciprocity in the immigration laws, or at least of equal treatment to the performers of both nations by the immigration laws. It seemed that the matter had not moved toward any real kind of solution. I raised the matter again, prompted by two recent press stories that I read. The first appeared in the Montreal Gazette of May 20, headlined "Ottawa Singer's Big Break Hits Washington Roadblock." It reads:
Singer David Whiffen nailed down his break into the big time only to find himself in a fight against the biggest city hall in the world-the U.S. government.
A recent Whiffen record

"More Often Than Not"-helped move the young performer on to the disc jockeys' popularity charts.
But American immigration and labour department rulings have prevented the young guitar-playing Ottawan from keeping a juicy singing engagement in Washington, D.C.
The second story appeared two days ago, on June 15,
in the Ottawa Journal and was headed, "Denied U.S. visa, Band Loses Dates." I quote:
An Ottawa group, the Five-Man Electrical Band, are the latest victims of a U.S. legal barrier to Canada's pop musicians.
The quintet, riding high on U.S. and Canadian pop charts, is being denied access to the U.S. to perform despite a series of contracted dates worth some $30,000.
U.S. immigration officials cleared the group to cross the border for live appearances in Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, Pennsylvania .. . but the U.S. labour board, which has the final say, nullified the band's entry.
On June 16 then, having raised this matter early in May, I became more than a little angry about the way the problem had been ignored and was working a tremendous hardship on Canadian individuals and groups, while on the other hand we as a government were attempting to assist them through radio and television Canadian content regulations; and at the same time our immigration laws were denying reciprocal protection. While they are denied opportunities to work in the United States, U.S. performers come here constantly on one, two and three-day engagements, play their shows and away they go. There is nothing to stop them.
What is happening to our performers represents a typically timid Canadian government attitude to the United States. We have all seen a reluctance to assert Canadian rights, whether the subject was the proposed Amchitka atomic tests, the TAPS oil tanker route or the flooding of the Skagit Valley. It is all a sort of package, this attitude of the Canadian government-a subservience, a deference, afraid to offer an affront to our great neighbour to the south. As one Canadian I think we have had enough of this kind of thing and I think many other people feel the same way.
I do not know how much time I have left, Mr. Speaker, but there is an excellent brief which outlines this problem in detail and from which I should like to quote. It is well described in the letter from ACTRA to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) to which I referred earlier. I shall read from it until you tell me that my time has expired. On page 6 is the following statement:
A performer therefore has a better opportunity to appear on Canadian television if he or she goes to the United States than he or she does if they stay at home. But to do this, because of the U.S. immigration law, one is almost forced to become an immigrant to that country and therefore cease to be a Canadian. The law reads in part:
"An alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning (I) who is of distinguished merit and ability (and) who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform temporary-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


Mark Willson Rose: That is what I was afraid you would say, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.

June 17, 1971


Mr. Chas L. Caccia (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the hon. member for raising this problem persistently over an extended period of time. I can understand his frustration and his desire to see a satisfactory solution. We should like to assure him, Mr. Speaker, that it is certainly not a question of subservience vis-a-vis the United States or timidity on our part. If it has taken so long it is because the issue is rather complex. It was initially a question of obtaining from the United States a certain degree of reciprocity and now, since this avenue has been explored, it is a question of deciding whether we want to adopt similar criteria and standards of screening work permits to those adopted by the United States vis-a-vis our performers.
We are studying this matter in the department and are well aware of the fact that the entrance into Canada of U.S. performers also generates a certain amount of employment for supporting crews and staff in the service industry. Therefore we would like to arrive at a decision which will not cut off our nose to spite our face.



PUBLIC SERVICE-REQUEST THAT PRESENT LEGISLATION AFFECTING RELATIONSHIP WITH GOVERNMENT BE REVIEWED BY COMMITTEE

Robert Jardine McCleave: On
Wednesday, June 9, Mr. Speaker, I asked the question which brings us together this evening, and when the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gillespie) replies later I win tell the House the sacrifice the hon. member has made in order to be here. My question was as follows:
Would the minister consider referring in the next session the legislation which deals with the government's relationship with its public servants to a committee of the House for review, with power to recommend changes?
As will be found at page 6529 of Hansard, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) replied as follows:
We will certainly give consideration to that.
If he had rested there I would have no complaint, but he went on to say-and this is what gets some people in trouble:
I think there is no doubt that any legislative proposals which the government would put forward would go to a parliamentary committee.
Of course, under the rules of the House that would be so. I was more concerned that the initiation of the changes made come from Members of Parliament rather than from the bureaucrats behind a minister. Between June 15, 1966, and February 3, 1967, a special joint committee of this House and the other place considered measures dealing with employer and employee relations in the public service of Canada. Several meetings dealt with superannuation and the remainder, almost two dozen, dealt with an act respecting employer and employee relations in the public service of Canada, an act respecting employment in the public service of Canada an act respecting employment in the public service of
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Canada and an act to amend the Financial Administration Act. In other words, we had four things before us. The major problem lay in the development of collective bargaining in the public service.
It is interesting to read what the man who is to be our star witness tomorrow, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson)-and I take nothing away from him in his performance of a very difficult task-had to say at that time. He was then Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board. At page 201 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 6 of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service of Canada, he is reported as saying:
-in the largely uncharted area of public service collective bargaining, conventional solutions are not, In all circumstances, capable of dealing with certain unique aspects of public service' relationships. To meet these new and unique circumstances we have had to develop new and unique solutions.
Probably that is exactly what happened. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I had in mind when I raised the question that Parliament should have a chance to look at the relations between the government and the public servants of Canada, not at the behest of the government but at our own behest since I suppose most public servants will say ultimately, if nothing is done, "Why did you not do something about the circumstances under which we are employed?".
I wish to raise seven questions, and I will go over them as quickly as I can. They are suggested by the Clyne report. First, is enough flexibility provided now, or should more be provided in this area, as the report suggests? Second, what types of public servants at a senior level should be excluded from collective bargaining? For those outside the scope of the Clyne report who are at other levels, the third question is, how has the classification system worked out? What changes should be made? Fourth, What about retroactive pay going back for months but paid on an annual basis? This matter has given rise to concern for some public servants.
The fifth question relates to disparities because of prevailing rates. I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-kasey) a question about that matter earlier today. That exchange took place when we were dealing with the subject. It did not take place during the question period but when we were dealing with the labour bill, at about five o'clock. My sixth question, if I may revert to the question of classification again, is, what about those who somehow get scaled down in classification? I am thinking of a fellow who has lost $10,000 that way. Raising his problem here the House itself would be complicated and I do not think anyone would wish to allow me half an hour in which to do so. However, because the case is of a technical nature does not mean that I should be debarred from raising it somewhere, and I should like to raise it in committee. The seventh question has to do with language. Is the language question to be dealt with as a one-sided pronouncement by government or as a method of collective bargaining between the Government of Canada and the public service?

June 17, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Mr. Speaker, I could list several other questions. I have suggested seven questions concerning areas which in my humble opinion could be discussed, among the government and public servants. We could bring in all the unions and ask whether the legislation which we enacted years ago has been working properly. We could ask what changes should be made and there could be a real exchange without giving up the elementary right of government to have the final say in the decision made. But I think the government must also recognize that you cannot deal with employees on a one-sided basis and simply tell them what is what. It cannot be done outside the public service of Canada and I suggest you cannot use that approach inside the public service either.
I have 30 seconds left, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will permit me to speak for that time because the parliamentary secretary has come here tonight at great expense to his wife. This is their twenty-fourth wedding anniversary. We wish them well. I have a little bit of poetry written out. I wish I could read my writing; that is the problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All's well that ends well.


Robert Jardine McCleave: There must be some way for me to read this writing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Love's labour lost.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. Possibly he can meet the parliamentary secretary after the adjournment.


Mr. Alastair Gillespie (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit me to say how disappointed I am that the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) is not able to read his writing. He has developed a great reputation in this House, and elsewhere, as a bard. In fact, he might be described as the unsung poet laureat of
the House of Commons. I remember an occasion last year when he was serving on a committee. He received a brief from a publishing house concerning matters of rhyme. In committee he put all his questions to the particular witness in rhyme. He met rhyme with rhyme.
The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants is a man who seldom rants. He is a bold politician and a great debater, respected by all sooner than later. I listened with great concern to the seven points which he raised. On reflection he might agree that these points are better not formally answered on this occasion. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Lang) announced on February 12-that the government was undertaking a review of the Public Service Staff Relations Act-and that the review would be carried out under his direction. The minister invited all interested parties, including employee organizations, to express their views and recommendations. He pointed out as follows:
-the intention is to provide a vehicle whereby the views of interested parties can be coordinated and assessed in order that the government may clearly identify areas of concern and determine if revision of the act is required.
In other words, the process is well under way and it would be inappropriate at this time to say anything of a formal nature. After the review has been completed I assure the hon. member that the government will consider whether legislation should be proposed to Parliament. If it is decided to present new legislation it will be necessary to consider the time when such proposal should be put forward, as well as the nature of possible amendments. As the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) stated on June 9, the government will certainly consider, at he appropriate time, referring to a parliamentary committee any legislative proposals which it may put forward.
In closing, I should like to thank the hon. member for his good wishes on this very important occasion in my life.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.41 p.m.

Friday, June 18, 1971