1971-04-27

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF REPRESENTATIVES OF PEOPLE'S CONSULTATIVE CONGRESS OF INDONESIA

Mr. Speaker:: This House has the honour and pleasure of welcoming today a most distinguished parliamentary figure and a national hero in his own country, General Abdul Haris Nasution, Chairman of the People's Consultative Congress of Indonesia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: General Nasution is concluding a nine-day visit to Canada, accompanied by his beautiful and charming wife, Madame Sunarti Nasution, as well as by Mr. Mustamin Matutu, a Member of the Congress, and Lieutenant Colonel Supolo, Secretary to the Congress. They are in the Speaker's Gallery today with His Excellency the Ambassador of Indonesia and Madame Bandoro.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: These honoured guests have visited a number of Canadian cities before coming to the capital city. It is the hope of this House that their tour has been enjoyable, that their many contacts with Canadians from all walks of life have proven useful, and that they take away with them many pleasant memories of their visit. We want to assure them of our own personal and enduring friendship.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on March 24 last, I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) a number of questions concerning the conversion of the Coqualeetza Hospital into a community centre and the related family and social problems. The minister's answers to these questions are recorded on page 4566 of Hansard.
On March 24, the minister replied that no decision had been made as to the conversion of this property, further indicating that three proposals had been made by the Indians, that his department was studying each of
these proposals and that the government would make a decision later. May I quote the minister's words:
-We are not, however, in a position to give an answer at this time.
Now, the same day, Mr. Wilbur T. Campbell, president of the North American Indian Brotherhood of British Columbia and of the Coqualeetza Community Centre received a letter from Mr. Bergevin, Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, stating quite clearly that a decision had already been taken and would stand.
Mr. Speaker, I contend that the House has been misinformed, as I have been myself, and that this prevents us from making the representations that should be made at this level.
I, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That any decision be withheld until the conclusion of a thorough investigation regarding the conversion of the Coqualeetza Hospital into a community centre.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can only move this motion to the extent that the Chair recognizes that this is a question of privilege. I suggest to the hon. member that this is not a matter of privilege, at least, not a prima facie case. It seems to me that the hon. member could obtain the information that he is seeking in some way other than through a question of privilege.
In any case, I suggest to him that the motion that he is moving is a substantive one, and not one of privilege, and that, in these circumstances, it cannot be put before the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders-Mr. Forget (Saint-Michel).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisler of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41 (2), I should like to table, in the two official lan-

April 27, 1971
Trade Agreement with Germany guages, copies of an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the Federal Republic of Germany on scientific and technological co-operation.
Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege last week of leading a trade and industry mission to the Federal Republic of Germany. The mission was made up of 28 leading businessmen representing a wide range of interests, and a group of senior federal and provincial officials. Our purposes were 1) to sign this agreement, developed earlier by a science-technology mission of scientists and officials from business and government, 2) to develop closer economic relations of every type between Canada and the Federal Republic and 3) to discuss with the German government bilateral, European and multilateral trade problems.
This new scientific and technological agreement is similar to those with Belgium and the USSR which we have concluded this year. Its aims are to encourage the exchange of information and research; to facilitate the movement of scientists and technologists; and, through the exchange of knowledge and experience, to contribute to Canada's trade and industrial development and to the growth of our exports of advanced industrial products and services.
I might add that the science and technology mission had identified a number of areas of collaboration with Germany which are particularly promising for Canada- computer software, oceanography, geophysics, metallurgy, construction techniques, to name only a few.
The choice of business representatives on the mission I led was related to these promising areas for trade and development as well as other sectors of mutual interest. The business members of my mission travelled widely throughout Germany, for private meetings with manufacturers, bankers and prospective investors. They developed new contacts which are expected to lead to increased trade, to the introduction of new technology into Canada, to licensing agreements, joint ventures, new investment and to other forms of co-operation between the business communities of the two countries. The businessmen were well pleased with the opportunities the mission was able to develop. A detailed report on these opportunities is being prepared and will be released when it is completed.
While the meetings between business men were proceeding, I held discussions with the German Ministers and/or State Secretaries of Economics, Science, Foreign Affairs and Defence and their officials; and with the Governor of the German Central Bank.

Accompanied by members of'the mission, I also met with representatives of the Federation of German Industries, the German Chamber of Commerce and with a wide range of leading figures in the German business community. I encouraged them to step up their interest in the development of industry in Canada and in purchasing their basic food and material requirements from Canada, as well as in buying more of the products of our secondary industry. I also drew their attention to Canada
as a possible source of more of their energy needs in the future. World trading problems and prospects were quite extensively discussed, as well as Canadian policies on these important matters.
With ministers and officials I emphasized the problems which enlargement of the Common Market would bring to Canadian exporters to Britain.
I also spoke of the need to move forward at an early date toward a freer world trading environment. I sought to establish that the Federal Republic, as well as other members of the community, should in their own interests wish to undertake broad trade negotiations with outside countries as soon as practicable and generally avoid the disruption of established and valuable trade relations with Canada and other non-member countries.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that these discussions were very useful. German ministers now have a better understanding and knowledge of the particular position of Canada in relation to the enlargement of the European Economic Community. I believe that they now better realize the extent of the mutuality of interest between Canada, the existing community and the prospective new members. German ministers emphasized repeatedly the commitment of their country to a multilateral free trading system.
I hope that this greater understanding will help to lead to better solutions of world trading problems, taking account of the interests of Canada and other trading partners of the Common Market. It would indeed be welcome if the EEC countries and the applicant members were prepared, in the coming months, to indicate their willingness to enter into another meaningful round of negotiations for the freeing of world trade.


Mr. H. W. Danforih (Keni-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by thanking the minister for his usual courtesy in providing the opposition with a copy of his speech whenever he has the intention to make one on motions. This has proven to be most helpful.
We are indeed delighted that an agreement of this kind has been signed with the Federal Republic of Germany, a nation which has aroused the envy of the world, especially in the last decade, because of its economic and industrial aggressiveness. Certainly that country has much that we could copy and from which we could learn. One has only to visit Germany to be impressed at once by the psychology of its people who seem determined to make industrial progress. No day seems to be too long. There is one area in particular that we could emulate. Here is a country which over the past ten years has actually found it progressively more difficult to obtain enough employees to service its various economic projects and industrial complexes, while in Canada in the last ten years we seem to have been constantly fighting a losing battle to provide equal job opportunities and economic welfare.
The minister's statement speaks of the exchanges which will be possible between the business and scientific interests of the two nations. Up to now we only have the

April 27, 1971

signing of an agreement. Its success will depend on industry, the ambition of Canadian businessmen and technocrats, and the encouragement of the government in taking full advantage of the open door and the opportunities offered to us at this time. I hope the government will continue to take the lead in this regard and provide constant encouragement for these interests to take full advantage of the opportunity afforded to them.
I wish to deal with one other part of the statement. The statement deals with vague generalities. The minister spoke of his dealings and talks with ministers of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the European Common Market and Canadian policies. I am sure they were in doubt about such policies because we in the Parliament of Canada are also in doubt.
We hope that at an early opportunity the minister will avail himself of the opportunity on motions to deal in some detail not only with the government's policies and programs with regard to the European Common Market but also the equally important subject of the government's position and progress toward freer international trade. This must be a complex problem as far as other nations are concerned in their dealings with Canada. In some areas we seem perfectly willing to progress rapidly toward a freer exchange of goods, but in other areas we are loath to reduce any tariff or non-tariff barriers in order to move toward a free exchange of goods between countries. The minister and the government should provide an opportunity for a full debate so that the opposition and the people of Canada will know to what degree the government's policy is directed toward free trade, whether it is a policy of selective free trade, progressive free trade or complete free trade. We in this country as well as the countries of the European Economic Community would like to know what the government's policy is in this regard.
The opposition welcomes the agreement that has been signed. This is real progress. We can learn much from the Federal Republic of Germany. We can gain much from its economic, industrial and technical know-how. I hope that country will find it equally lucrative to visit Canada.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members always welcome reports of initiatives taken by the minister and his department in carrying on exchanges and discussions with responsible officials of other countries in an attempt to improve our economic relationships with those countries. These are certainly to be welcomed and encouraged. However, it should be pointed out that such initiatives will only achieve adequate results if they are cast within a proper and adequately thought-out policy framework, if, indeed, the objectives and the thrust of such initiatives are adequately defined. Members of this party have on many occasions pointed out to the government that we feel it has not adequately defined its policy objectives and the general thrust of its policy in encouraging trading relations with other countries.
Trade Agreement with Germany
One point that should also be noted is that, while I have no doubt that the 28 leading businessmen who accompanied the minister to Germany were all very well qualified in their own fields, I think it is to be regretted that representatives of the labour movement and of the agricultural industry were not included in the delegation. Representatives of these two groups could have added significantly to the usefulness of the mission.
I believe we will all agree that the signing of an agreement such as that described by the minister is useful and to be encouraged. However, by itself the agreement does not accomplish the objectives we would hope to achieve. Again, it is a matter of casting such agreements within a properly defined policy framework.
In addition, we should take note of the minister's statement that during the discussions with the German government and German businessmen he encouraged them to step up their interest in the development of industry in Canada and in the purchase of basic food and material requirements from Canada. Two points arise in this regard. First, what are the implications of the phrase "development of industry in Canada"? Does it simply mean we shall be obtaining more capital from Germany in future rather than from another country, or will such a move be properly related to whatever policy announcement the government may make with respect to foreign ownership of Canadian industries? Again, with respect to material requirements I notice the minister did not use the term "raw material requirements" though it seemed to me that the tone of his statement pointed in that direction. Everyone will agree that there is a need to encourage the export of agricultural and food products to Germany as well as to other countries in western Europe.
The minister also told us that discussions were held concerning world trading problems and prospects. It is, of course, essential and important to discuss this matter with other countries at every opportunity. The tone of the minister's statement certainly indicated the concern he now feels about the problems which are arising in consequence of the new developments in the European Economic Community. I believe we will agree with the minister that we should move toward a freer world trading environment, but I am sure the minister would also agree that there are many roadblocks in the way of achieving such an environment. Indeed, it is quite possible that such an environment may not be achieved by Canada and by other countries interested in such an objective. It is therefore essential that the government should have open to it alternative policy approaches designed to deal with possible problems that will arise in the future.
A good deal of publicity has been given in recent weeks to the development of world trading blocs and the problems which this is likely to create for countries such as Canada. The minister should be encouraged and, indeed, urged to deal with this situation and develop the approach of the department and of the government in this respect.
I also noted the minister's comment that it would indeed be welcome if the EEC countries and applicants
5256

April 27, 1971
Trade Agreement with Germany
were prepared to indicate their willingness to enter into further discussions. The words "it would indeed be welcome" suggest to me that the hon. gentleman has doubts whether in fact that will turn out to be the case. This underlines the concern many of us feel about Canada's future trading relations.
Overriding all these things is the need for the government to develop an adequate economic strategy to deal with our economic problems. This strategy must take account of the growth of multinational corporations, the influence of technology, the need for the rationalization of much of our industry and the attendant specialization that goes with it. Trading problems are, of course, closely related to all this. Thus I think it is essential to Canada's future and for the well being of our people that the government develop its policy more adequately than it has up to the present time.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, while listening to the preliminary report presented by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and seeing him table the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, we are happy to find that our relations with that country are better at the present time than they were thirty years ago.
I hope this agreement on scientific and technological cooperation will bring about advantages to both countries and mainly to Canada. However, this agreement should not be profitable to only one party as in some cases, where one puts in a horse and the other a rabbit. Agreements must be made on an equitable manner in order that the two parties may benefit from research made in either country. If expenses have been incurred to allow Canadian businessmen and industrialists to see the developments in Germany and compare their costs with those in Canada, I trust they were profitable, not only to those businessmen but also to the people who depend on them.
I am thinking, in particular, of the high rate of unemployment in Canada; we can compare it, for instance, to the rate in Germany, which the minister visited. Advice might also be sought, not only with regard to industry and business, but administration, to acquire experience. We won the war, it seems, but at first glance it would seem that we have lost the economic war to that highly industrialized country.
As we read the minister's report, as well as several others, it seems that the development of the European Common Market is of great concern to countries which do not take part in it, in particular to Commonwealth countries. It seems that as the mother country abandons its children, they find themselves helpless.
I note that, in his report, the minister says that he strongly encouraged Germany to step up its interest in Canadian agricultural products, which puzzles me. While Germany is invited to take an interest in Canadian
agricultural products, we feel free to buy some of these products which may be grown at home from other Commonwealth countries.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce told the members of a Senate Committee on November 4, 1970, that we had imported in 1969 for $60 million worth of beef and lamb, and that in the statements made at that time, the government, the department had even taken the lead.
Now it seems to me that there is a conflict between the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. Trade consists in buying for re-sale. I see no other reason for those invitations to trade.
So instead of buying from other Commonwealth countries goods we can produce, let us invite Germany to deal direct with Australia and New Zealand, to obtain the farm products it requires.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope these efforts will be profitable for Canadian businessmen, for Canadian industry, and will contribute somewhat to solving Canada's unemployment problem.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I raise a matter of urgency which in my opinion must be put before the House.
For all practical purposes, the work at the Sainte-Scholastique airport has been stopped owing to jurisdictional misunderstanding between the federal and provincial governments. Both those governments are accusing each other of being responsible for that situation. If the manpower crisis continues, the project will be considerably delayed and the citizens will again pay the costs.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous leave of the House to consider the following motion, which I move seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That the House direct the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to study the problem ol manpower at Sainte-Scholastique, to report completely as soon as possible to the House on the state of the situation and to make recommendations likely to put the project back into operation.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion introduced by the hon. member for Joliette under Standing Order 43. It may only be put with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimity, the motion cannot be put.

April 27, 1971



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question concerning the consultations that officials of the government propose to undertake with Washington regarding the proposed TAPS pipeline which, according to the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, are to include questions relating to pollution, including the volume of oil to be moved. My question is whether his officials intend to ascertain not only the volume of oil to be moved, which is quite well known, but the place to which the oil is to be moved.
I ask this question because of the importance of knowing how much oil is to be moved through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in view of the indications that a pipeline may be built from there to the midwest involving the movement of as much as one million barrels a day, despite the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that he knew nothing about the prospect of any such pipeline. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the officials will seek to ascertain the volume of oil to be moved through the Strait of Juan de Fuca from Alaska?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this question is quite involved. I must confess that I do not have the exact terms of reference, but if I could refer the question to the minister responsible for pollution he might be able to answer it.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I would think that one of the questions that the officials would be asking is how much oil will be moving down the west coast and what its principal destinations are, namely in California and in the United States Pacific northwest.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I could not hear the last part of the minister's answer.


John (Jack) Davis: If I may put it more simply, Mr. Speaker, certainly the officials will be wanting to find out how much oil will be moving and what its principal destinations are on the United States west coast.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister whether he would make a report promptly next week to the House, following the return of these officials, in regard to the information obtained from Washington, particularly the amount of oil intended to be moved through the Strait of Juan de Fuca?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to bring the hon. member's request for information to the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister, particularly in view of the vagueness of the answers I am receiving, whether the government of Canada will press the government of the United States to make no decision with regard to the proposed Alaska pipeline until a joint Canada-United States body has had an opportunity to assess the pollution risks to the west coast of Canada, particularly that region inside the Strait of Juan de Fuca? I ask this question in view of the disastrous consequences that might result from a decision being taken prior to such an assessment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise of the question to the extent the hon. member suggested that the answers were vague. He asked two questions. One was answered very clearly. The second question was whether there would be a statement, and the minister quite properly answered that the minister responsible for controlling this would receive the representation made by the hon. member.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one further supplementary question. May I ask why the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is responsible does not reply when, according to the statement of the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, the purpose of the mission is to find out about environmental damage?



VISIT BY CERTAIN UNITED STATES OFFICIALS TO INUVIK


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary which I should like to address in the first instance to the right hon. Prime Minister inasmuch as the responsibilities of several departments are involved. Are the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and the director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness visiting Inuvik and flying down the Mackenzie River valley, at the invitation of the Canadian government in relation to an examination of the possible development of a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley to the southern United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that Dr. McCracken and General Lincoln will make a refuelling stop at Inuvik, and that it is at their request they are making the stop on their way back to Washington from Prudhoe Bay. It is at their request that they are visiting the Inuvik test facilities of Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Research Limited.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, in the same context I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can indicate who will constitute the membership of the Canadian delegation which I understand is to visit Washington shortly on this general subject matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without giving the names, because I do not have them, I can say there will be officials from the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, from the Department of External Affairs, some other officials, and some representatives of the British Columbia government.
5258

April 27, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



DISCUSSION OF DEFENCE IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED NORTHERN PIPELINES AT WASHINGTON MEETING

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the defence implications of these proposed pipelines are among matters to be considered at this meeting? By this I mean particularly security of supply of oil from the Prudhoe Bay area to the central part of the continent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the meeting is to be held essentially in the context of preservation of the environment, but it is quite possible problems of defence will also be raised, particularly by the United States.



PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION THROUGH STRAIT OF GEORGIA-REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE INQUIRY BE PROCEEDED WITH

Mr. David Anderson (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition has apparently withdrawn his party's opposition to an inquiry on the subject of oil transportation in the Strait of Georgia. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will instruct the government House leader to bring forward government order No. 63 which will permit a committee of the House to carry out an examination on site in respect of this problem?


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Prime Minister. Can he indicate whether there is now general agreement among the cabinet in respect of the position on the TAPS route, and will this formal position be made clear to the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is not in order.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-SUGGESTED FEASIBILITY STUDY

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, the questions directed to the Prime Minister indicate how complex and divisive this problem is. I do not mean division on the part of the government but rather the complexity resulting from the pollution factor, economic factors and the defence aspect mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. Will the government now consider setting up a feasibility study by the best experts in these fields and Members of Parliament and Senators in order that we can get together on this subject, work together as a nation and come up with the right answers as a basis for our submissions to the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we hope that in respect of all questions affecting Canada's future we can work together as a nation, but
as a result of the way the parliamentary system has been set up there is one executive called upon to take its responsibilities, and that we intend to do. It would be a very delightful solution if we could get together on all subjects and take decisions as a nation, but after all we do admit that some people have the right to sit in the opposition.


Mr. Baldwin:: Will you put that in writing?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up on that question. I appreciate the Prime Minister's answer. In view of the fact that this is probably the most complex problem we are now facing, will the Prime Minister take my suggestion seriously and implement it?



FINANCE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, as a member who apparently has the right to sit in the opposition I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question arising from the budget speech made yesterday by the provincial treasurer of Ontario. Has the government of Ontario made either a formal request or an informal inquiry of the federal government regarding its desire to have the federal government opt out of shared-cost programs, with Ontario to receive tax equivalents? If such a request or inquiry has been made, has there been a reply by the government and what was that reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the first part of the question I can assure the hon. member that we will respect his right to sit in the opposition as long as his party wants.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the second part of the question, I cannot speak for the Minister of Finance, but in so far as the Prime Minister of Ontario and myself are concerned there has been no request for such an opting out. The first I heard of it was in the budget speech made by the treasurer of Ontario. Of course, the hon. member and other members of the House know that back in 1964 federal legislation provided that provinces which wanted to take tax points instead of the other arrangement concerning shared-cost programs could do so. At that time the only province which adopted this option was Quebec. The option remained open until 1969. When the government presented its white paper on taxation it withdrew this offer for the very simple reason that the whole basis of tax points would be changed and therefore the offer under the reformed tax system could not be made in the same way. We have now taken note of the stand of the province of Ontario and we will, as we said we would, sit down with the provincial authorities after tax reform has

April 27, 1971

been implemented and discuss with them the way in which they might want to re-exercise the right of opting out which they did not exercise previously.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, do I understand from the Prime Minister's answer that the right to opt out has been closed as far as this government is concerned or is it still open? I am afraid I could not understand precisely what the Prime Minister meant.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the terms of the opting out which was presented in 1964 were withdrawn in 1969 when we brought in the new white paper. The principle of opting out is still acceptable. When we implement tax reform we will go to the provinces and discuss a new way of doing it, if they desire to exercise that right.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A special status.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There will be no special status as the Leader of the Opposition seems to suggest, because it will be offered to all provinces as it was in 1964.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, obviously this subject is always of great importance to Canada as a whole. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there have been any inquiries from provinces other than Quebec, which has already opted out, and the province of Ontario, which has suggested it might desire to do so? Has any other province of Canada suggested, either formally or informally, that it would like the federal share to be replaced by tax points?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No clear request that I know of, Mr. Speaker, but from time to time provinces, including the province of Ontario, have said over the past few years that if they do not get more tax room they may consider using the opting out program which was proposed in 1964. The idea was sometimes raised, but there was no clear proposal to implement it until this proposal from Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oxford on a supplementary question, and subsequently the hon. member for Lotbiniere.



REMOVAL OF TAX ADVANTAGE OF UNITED STATES COMPANIES IN ACQUIRING CANADIAN FIRMS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that Ontario, through the budget speech, has now done its share to remove the tax advantage now possessed by United States companies which attempt to purchase Canadian companies, will the minister now recommend to his colleagues that the federal government finish the job and remove the present tax advantage that U.S. companies have in Canada?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware of the importance of the subject, but any tax changes will have to be announced in the House in the usual manner.
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
The National Film Board shot a film entitled "On est au coton" in Magog, Coaticook and Sherbrooke which depicts the problem of textile products. Now there has been a delay in its release. I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether it is true that members of his office have seen this film and censored or forbidden it in view of its contents?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
know, Mi-. Speaker. I will inquire and inform the hon. member.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darfmouth-Halifax East):: I wish to direct a question or two to the Minister of Transport with respect to the report in today's newspapers about near air collisions arising from a breakdown of procedure in the distribution of information. I should like to ask the minister first of all-and I assume that an intensive investigation is going on-whether or not part of this investigation will include very extensive conversations with the United States federal aviation authorities as to the cause of the breakdown, if one exists?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: In
the first instance, without the full information which I have now requested I cannot, as members will understand, accept the premise that there has been a breakdown. I only know in this regard what the air traffic controllers have said publicly, but there is a thorough investigation under way. Officials are in Toronto today discussing the matter with the air controllers, and I hope to have a full statement or full information within a very short time.


J. Michael Forrestall: Because of the very obvious danger that is involved and the difficulty we would find ourselves in if two 747's loaded with passengers came together somewhere other than on the ground, has the minister given any consideration-I put this to him seriously-to halting the movement of unidentifiable aircraft in our major air traffic zones, such as Toronto International airport and the airports at Montreal and Vancouver, until such time as this whole matter is cleared up? At the same time perhaps he might deal with the question of movement of equipment in the same zone on which we have not as yet sufficient technical information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply to the question but it seems to me it is a little long.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: This is a highly technical matter, as the hon. member knows. It is also one on which I would have

April 27, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
to be extremely careful in any statement I made publicly without having all the facts in advance. I want to emphasize, however, that on the basis of what I have discussed already with the officials of the department the possibility that the hon. member has referred to is not present. They are satisfied that the procedures are satisfactory to the extent that there is no imminent danger, if you wish to put it that way. But I can only repeat that in a matter of this kind I think it is only proper that I obtain all the facts before saying anything further.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Certainly hon. members agree with the minister that it is desirable to get all the facts, but since the public statement of the air controllers is critical of the officials of the Department of Transport, may I ask the minister from whom he is going to get the information? Will it be from the officials who are being criticized or does the minister intend to have direct contact with the air controllers to find out what the facts are with regard to what could be a very serious situation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Once again I have to say that I get advice from the widest possible range of informed opinion, and on this basis the deputy minister of the department left for Toronto the first thing this morning to discuss the matter with the air controllers. I might say, incidentally, that had the air controllers done the same thing initially, perhaps we might not have had this potentially unnecessary argument and perhaps unnecessary concern on the part of hon. members.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I directed a question to the Acting Prime Minister, and since I did not receive what I consider to be a satisfactory answer I should like to direct a question now to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The question concerns, as it did before, flooding on the United States and Canadian sides of the Manitoba-North Dakota border. Has the Department of External Affairs received any complaints from the U.S. government concerning serious flooding charged by the Americans to have been caused by the neighbouring Manitobans?


Mr. Andre Ouellei (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we did receive a note from the U.S. Secretary of State expressing some reservations about the Pembina river dam and asking that it be dismantled.
We replied that this dam had been built under an agreement between municipal authorities on both sides of the border. We do not believe that there necessarily exists a problem as a result of this treaty, which is commonly referred to as the Boundary Waters Treaty.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Has he received in the last day or two any representations or allegations about inmates in Millhaven penitentiary who were formerly at Kingston penitentiary having received beatings at the hands of guards after having been transferred to Millhaven? If he has received such representations, can he tell us whether an inquiry will be made into this matter?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received such information from the Commissioner of Penitentiaries.
I have requested that an inquiry be held and, moreover, the Commission of Inquiry into the events at Kingston must consider this aspect of the matter. As a matter of fact, paragraph (f) of its terms of reference reads as follows:
(f) what bodily harm was occasioned to persons, whether inmate or staff, during the course of the said disturbances or related thereto, and the identity of the persons responsible for causing such harm;


Frank Howard: Inasmuch as the minister has already said that the report of the board of inquiry-I assume it is the one headed by Mr. J. W. Swackham-mer-will not be made public and inasmuch as he has now said, in quoting from the terms of reference, that the board of inquiry will only look into those injuries which may have been sustained by inmates either from other inmates or at the hands of the guards during the uprising, would he not expand the inquiry to include the allegation that these inmates have received beatings at the hands of guards after they were transferred to Millhaven? Will he also, in the conduct of this inquiry, make sure that it is carried out by people outside of the penitentiary service who thus have no axe to grind?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member, I shall state in English that the terms of reference are in fact the following:

During the course of the said disturbances or related thereto.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary question relating to the first part of my question. For the information of people outside the penitentiary service and outside the board of inquiry, since their report will not be made public, would the minister be prepared to allow medical practitioners to go into Millhaven to assess the extent of the injuries and the possible source of them?
[Mr. JamiesonJ

April 27, 1971


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence in the Commission of Inquiry that has been established.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question because I am still not clear whether the board of inquiry will look into the allegations which have now been made, either by Mr. Martin or by one of the professors, that there were beatings of those who may have been responsible for the riot at Kingston, after they were transferred to Millhaven. Will that definitely be looked into and will the report be made public? Will that information be given here in Parliament when the report is completed?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House I would like to table the documents outlining the terms of reference of the inquiry commission to which hon. members could refer.
As for the second part of the question, the commission will report to me but such commissions and their reports are considered to serve internal purposes. I must point out a precedent: it is the first time that two of the three members of the commission are people from outside while the practice has always been to appoint officials of the department to inquire into such events.

VEnglish]



INDUSTRY


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. What steps have been taken, or does he propose to take, concerning the recent United States customs court decision to place a duty on Canadian-made forged auto parts when exported to the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that some of these exports are covered by the automobile agreement, and whatever might not be covered by the automobile agreement will be the subject of negotiation between Canada and the United States.


Alfred Dryden Hales: In view of the great harm done to the Canadian manufacturers of these parts in the meantime would the minister not consider taking reciprocal action against United States companies?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think I had better take notice of this question because, as is known, I have just returned from Germany and I should like to look into the matter further to see what happened when I was away.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY



PROPOSED PASSENGER FARE INCREASE-PRESENTATION OF GOVERNMENT POSITION TO TRANSPORT COMMISSION

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the government going to present to the Canadian Transport Commission a formal position on the request of the Canadian Pacific Railway to increase railway passenger fares by about 11 per cent and, if so, what is that position going to be?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have just been informed of this matter and there is no reason why it should be different from what has been stated in the news reports. I am examining it at the present time. There are procedures for representations by all interested parties to the CTC, but whether or not the government will in fact make representations has not yet been decided.


Mr. James A. McGraih (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs if the Prices and Incomes Commission has undertaken a study of the increases in rail passenger fares proposed by the CPR, and will the commission make its findings known before the CTC makes its decision on the CPR application?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minisier of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to inquire.



INCOME SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. the Prime Minister. In view of the strong criticisms of the government's position on income security made in a statement issued by the National Council on Welfare, a body appointed by the federal government, will the government consider recasting its white paper on income security to bring it more in line with the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the white paper is before the House and the country. We feel that it is in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If there is any special amendment the opposition wants to move to improve it, we will gladly listen to its arguments.

April 27, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry POLLUTION



CONSULTATIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON REGULATION OF SHIPPING IN STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA AND ADJACENT WATERS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether there have been any discussions or consultations within the last six months or so between this department and United States authorities, either state or federal, with regard to the regulation or control or the need for regulation or control of traffic through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the body of water serving Puget Sound and Vancouver?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question during the absence of the Leader of the Opposition from the House. The position is that there are ongoing discussions with United States authorities, and there have been such discussions for over a year, on the whole question of the control of potential oil spills and the like, not merely in the region to which he refers but indeed around all our coastlines, that is, those of the United States and Canada.
Also, on this question of the west coast we have been discussing with them the matter of appropriate navigational aids, and in addition a contingency plan having to do with the way in which we deal with oil spills, again anywhere around our coastlines. I would once more emphasize that these talks began well before the current discussions originated with regard to the transportation of oil from Alaska to Cherry Point. I do feel that the mechanisms are there and that considerable progress has been made in regard to the general problem as opposed to the specific one which the hon. member has in mind.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with any of the discussions about a possible system of navigational aids along the Pacific coast, the United States has given any indication of a willingness to accept the responsibility for the cost of such installations on a route between Alaska and its more southerly states, if in fact the United States decides to establish such a route?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, I could not say that our talks have reached the point where the matter of responsibility for costs has been involved. I would think, however, on the premise we have employed constantly with regard to our own territorial and adjoining waters, that in our own waters Canada has normally accepted the cost of the provision of navigational aids. I do not anticipate that there would necessarily be any departure from that practice in this case.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would bring to the attention of the House that we have already spent 10 to 15 minutes on this subject and in fairness we should soon go on to another subject. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich may ask one supplementary, and after that we will go on to another subject.



OIL SPILL AT ANACORTES, WASHINGTON-OFFER OF ASSISTANCE BY DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the 5,000 gallon diesel oil spill at the Texaco refinery at Anacortes, Washington, yesterday, which threatens 35,000 migratory geese and which may well move to the southern tip of Vancouver Island, has the Minister of National Defence offered any assistance to the Washington State Department of the Environment which is attempting to deal with this catastrophe?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this spill at the present time is within American jurisdiction, or American waters. However, we are keeping a close watch on it and we will be in a position to lend any assistance that might be requested of us.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. First of all, would the Solicitor General table the terms of reference, as he said he would this afternoon, concerning the inquiry at Kingston? Second, in view of the fact that the findings of that inquiry will not be made public, will he invite representatives from Kingston to the hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which is dealing with the estimates for penitentiaries, in view of the fact that the commissioner, Mr. Begbie, will also be there and it would only be fair and appropriate that the inmates be represented-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked the question and perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased, with consent of the House, to table the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry, in both official languages. Furthermore, since a board of inquiry is looking thoroughly into the events which took place in Kingston, it would, in my opinion, be wiser to let the work proceed in that manner.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister the consent of the House, under motions, to table the documents to which he referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 27, 1971



KINGSTON-REPRESENTATIONS FROM PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE RESPECTING GRANT TO GUARDS HELD HOSTAGE DURING RIOT

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesl):: I should like to ask the Solicitor General if the government has considered the suggestion put forward by the corrections section of the Public Service Alliance for compensation and leave for correction officers held as hostages during the Kingston riot and, if so, what is the government's current attitude to this suggestion?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received a letter from Mr. Paul Gascon, the executive secretary of the association, and I am now examining his proposal.



STRAWBERRIES-EFFECT ON FRASER VALLEY GROWERS OF DUMPING OF MEXICAN PRODUCT-IMPOSITION OF SURTAX

Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question might properly be directed to the Minister of Finance but as the matter is urgent I shall direct it to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware that strawberry growers in the Fraser Valley are now faced with ploughing up strawberry acreage as a result of the failure of the government to implement surtax regulations to combat the dumping of strawberries from Mexico, now allegedly taking place, as requested by representatives from Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Department of Finance is looking into this question with the co-operation of the Departments of Agriculture and Industry, Trade and Commerce. I shall ask the Minister of Finance to answer the question the next time he is in the House.


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambion-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might pose a supplementary question to the minister. While they are at it would they examine the situation in relation to Mexican eggs which are being brought into this country?



FISHERIES


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, the topic of my question knows no geographic limits.
Inquiries of the Ministry
May I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry when he will be in a position to announce measures to be undertaken to help some 350 Nova Scotian swordfish fishermen?


John (Jack) Davis: Next week, I hope, Mr. Speaker. We have received the recommendations from the joint government industry task force. Many of them seem to be reasonable, and we will be acting on them as soon as possible.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Is the minister in a position to assert categorically that no decision has yet been made concerning the conversion of Coqualeetza Hospital into a community centre at the request of the Indians?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I answer this question since the hon. member at the beginning of today's meeting rose on a question of privilege or on a point of order, in this connection. I must say that Mr. Bergevin, Assistant Deputy Minister for Indian and Eskimo affairs may have signed a letter on that date but he had not as yet put his recommendation to me. Since then, he did make a specific recommendation but I must inform the hon. member that the proposal submitted by that group of Indians in the area was not acceptable to the government since the group had promised that it would obtain funds from different sources both provincial and federal, and in the final analysis, the Indians were asking the government to foot the bill in full and at this moment we do not have the funds required for this.
Therefore, we were unable to accept the building which remains the property of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The minister just stated that prior to writing his letter to the Indians Mr. Bergevin had not consulted him, which might explain his answer of March 24. Am I to take it that he is rejecting the contents of Mr. Bergevin's letter or is this letter still valid?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, since I received Mr. Bergevin's letter, I have written an identical letter to Mr. Wilbur T. Campbell.
April 27, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry



FINANCE


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister, if I can get his attention for a moment, Mr. Speaker. It arises from the Ontario budget which was brought down yesterday. Since many of the items in it seem to be directly antagonistic to the federal budget, I should like to ask whether there has been any consultation between the federal government and the provincial government of Ontario regarding the effects of the Ontario budget on national policies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. It is an established practice for weak governments to try to have the combat on federal ground rather than on provincial issues.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Western Nova.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for South Western Nova, but I must bring to the attention of the House the fact that we are running short of time. We have time for only two or three more questions at the most. This is why the Chair recognizes the hon. member for South Western Nova.
# * *



POLLUTION


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: would direct a different type of question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that several countries protested the action of the Canadian government with respect to the Canada Shipping Act, has the government protested the action of the British government with respect to the recent bill dealing with oil pollution in which they claim the right to blow up vessels polluting their shores?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think I might be permitted a little amusement over the fact that countries which did protest our bill so vigorously are now taking the same kind of action, as I told the House they would, when they found that their own beaches were being befouled.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. In view of the fact that a grant to the Sawridge Indian band at Slave Lake has been approved by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for construction of a motor hotel and the deadline for this grant is expiring in about two weeks, can the minister indicate whether he has had an opportunity to look into the hold-up in his department regarding the financing? Can he inform us if we can expect it to be cleared up in the near future?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt if the minister can reply to the question in that form. I would think that normally it should be discussed at the time of adjournment.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of his interesting answer regarding the constitution a moment ago, and in view of the statement of Premier Bourassa of the province of Quebec regarding the field of federal communications and broadcasting, since there has been no request that this matter be placed on the federal-provincial conference agenda for June, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is going to expand his constitutional theories and take some initiative to have this matter placed on the agenda? I ask this question in view of the confusion that is developing in this very important area as witnessed by the answer given yesterday by the Secretary of State who admitted there was confusion.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, not all matters can be settled in June. If some are settled we will be very happy, but there are many matters of jurisdictional differences being discussed all the time between the federal and provincial governments. This question of broadcasting is one of them. There have been discussions in the past between federal and provincial officials on the matter of broadcasting, as I am sure there will be in the future. This does not mean it will be settled in June, Mr. Speaker.



CABLEVISION-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH QUEBEC

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
As the Premier of Quebec has confirmed that the statements made by Mr. L'AUier represent the policy of the Quebec government on cablevision, will the Prime Minister soon make a fairly specific statement on the policy the federal government intends to follow in the negotiations now under way between Ottawa and Quebec?

April 27, 1971

Righl Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec premier and myself have touched upon the subject briefly together. I know his position, and he knows ours. We do not intend to change them, but we do intend to have discussions to find out whether a compromise cannot be reached. Other provinces intend to do the same. Indeed, I know that the authorities of the province of Ontario have also asked questions about that jurisdictional matter; we will discuss it with them in the same way.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, April 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackasey that Bill C-228, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, I have a few thoughts that I had expected to get on the record last evening but was unable to do so.
First of all, in discussing the question of the government of Canada laying down a labour standards code, one really has to analyse who will be affected by it. It will be, basically, the unorganized labour sector of our society and the small, private business sector of our society. Really, in laying down a system of labour standards one can outline the hours of work and conditions of work, but many of the decisions on these aspects are made, in relation to what one might call the larger corporations, through labour negotiations with the unions. In the small, private business sector, we do not have the same provision for negotiating hours of work and labour conditions. So, there is a need for the federal government to lay down labour standards. In fact, if the federal government creates undue hardship in the small, private business sector by making the labour standards code too strict or by enforcing too rigid a pattern, then the cost of doing business in that sector is increased. One must be careful, therefore, to balance the situation in the small, private business sector with the organized sector, because individuals in both groups must live in the same environment. The non-organized worker must live under the same living conditions.
If we allow a system to evolve in which organized labour is able to acquire rapid and continual increases in wages, then of course these wage increases will have an effect on inflation. They contribute to inflation in the economy and, once again, labour will be drastically hurt unless the minimum wage is increased. This bill, in fact, increases the minimum wage and creates a situation
Canada Labour (Standards) Code wherein the minimum wage can be increased automatically by the governor in council. Up until this time, the minimum wage increase has come about through Parliament passing a bill to this effect. In fact, 1 believe it is less than a year ago that the minimum wage was increased from $1.25 to $1.65, and this bill would boost it up to $1.75. One could take that as an admission that we have allowed the economy to inflate at a very rapid rate, and have had to increase the minimum wage so that once again the worker might at least be able to cope with the inflated economy.
If we are to bring about some equalization of opportunity, and of working conditions, I believe the government of the day must realize that perhaps the time has come when we cannot keep on pushing up the unorganized workers' wages. Perhaps some action should be taken on the other side of the pendulum so that some government body or labour court could bring about some relationship between the organized and unorganized parts of our society. I know this has been attempted. Mr. Young of the Prices and Incomes Commission seriously tried, by the art of persuasion, to convince unions and corporations that prices should not be increased and that demands for higher wages should not exceed the rate of 6 per cent. I think we have reached the point in our rationalization when we can readily agree that this attempt was a complete failure. I believe Mr. Young was bitterly disappointed that his policy had no effect whatsoever on trade unions and had only a marginal effect on corporations. Of course, the corporations will make up for this in the coming year.
So, while we pass labour standards legislation setting out working conditions and number of hours, as well as a minimum wage, in respect of the unorganized part of our society, this really is not enough. We must study the situation and begin to do something about the other side of the ledger, because if we allow wages to increase practically out of hand sooner or later this will be reflected in the price of goods. When we get out of step with societies in other countries we find it necessary, as Canadians, to buy more and more foreign made goods which automatically creates less and less of an opportunity for the working man in Canada. As an example of this, one has only to look at the influx of Japanese automobiles, particularly in western Canada. One might ask what the reason is for this. They are good automobiles. They are allowed in because the economy has moved ahead and the cost of production has increased at such a rapid rate that a vacuum has been created into which the Japanese manufacturer can move.
The same thing applies in respect of the textile industry. Earlier the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) brought in legislation which, in effect, provides some kind of a stop-gap measure to temporarily protect the textile industry. The difficulty is that if we do that in respect of every piece of manufactured goods, we will continually move toward a state of isolation and this would seem to me to be the wrong step to take. The world is growing smaller and we are having more and more pressure placed upon us to be free traders. There-

April 27, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code fore, we must be in step with the other facets of our society and of the trading world.
It is interesting to note the direction in which we are moving today in Canada. In respect of trade and manufactured goods, we find we are a nation composed of ten countries. I abhor the thought, but in actual fact this is what is taking place. In some areas we find goods being produced by employees who receive very low wages. Since these goods are produced in a low wage area, they are able to move effectively into highly industrialized areas where the wages are very high. Immediately, barriers are raised within our society. I am referring here to the production of broiler chickens, for example. This is a direct example of how the low wages in respect of broiler chicken production in the agricultural sector of Quebec is having a harmful effect on the broiler chicken industry in the province of Ontario. The market is being undercut.
We are being asked to pass a bill which would establish the minimum wage in the federal sector at $1.75. One must compare that with the minimum wage in other segments of our society. The minimum wage varies all the way from 85 cents an hour to $1.50 an hour in the ten provinces which compose this country. Newfoundland has the lowest wage at 85 cents an hour for women and $1.10 for men. Ontario has the highest at $1.50 per hour for men. Politicians sometimes become agitated about being popular politically, but cabinet ministers should always put their country first. We should try to stay in step with our country and keep the levels of our society in step with one another. At times, I feel the present government is doing everything it can to completely wreck the private sector of the economy. It would seem to be doing everything it can to convince the people now engaged in the private sector that the best thing for them to do would be to sell out and go to work for the government or some giant corporation. I really do not know what motivates the government in this regard, but this is how it appears. The government is making it more and more difficult for the private sector to survive in our society. They are making it easier for the giant corporations and the government to be the major employers in our society. What is the purpose of bringing in a standard which is far above the prevailing practice in many fields in which people are employed? The federal Labour Standards Act will not affect a great portion of the unorganized workers because most of them come under provincial jurisdiction. Provincial legislation does not set minimum wages nearly this high, nor are the conditions as stringent.
If the provinces felt that they could become popular by suddenly increasing minimum wages, I think they would. What would be the net affect? It would be an increase in the cost of production in those regions. In many of the regions where there is high unemployment, governments are trying to create opportunities rather than bring about a situation in which fewer and fewer opportunities will exist. I am certain even the Liberal government in Newfoundland would like to enact a higher minimum wage
level, but this would make it very difficult for the private sector in that province to survive. Therefore, they are reluctant to do so. Most provinces have to place the emphasis on the creation of opportunities, not on the security of those already employed.
At a time when approximately 600,000 people are unemployed and the government is prepared to spend $58 million to keep the youth occupied by this summer, we cannot say that we are happy and contented. We cannot pass legislation which will only serve to make a certain cabinet minister popular. We have to create opportunities, not protect the well established firms, businesses or enterprises and the working men who have secure jobs.
Many portions of this legislation are very good. The severence pay concept is good, but my belief is that it does not go far enough by only allowing two days severence pay for every year that a person is employed. If a person is employed for five years, he receives payment for 10 days when he is released, fired or laid off through no fault of his own. Although it does not go far enough, it is a step in the right direction.
The whole concept in the House of Commons today is to repeatedly pass legislation which narrows the opportunities for Canadians. I have to point that out with regard to every piece of legislation that comes before this House, because this is the only way I can get the message across to the people of Canada and this government. We have to broaden the opportunity for Canadians to participate fully in our society. This legislation does not do anything in that regard. It attempts to protect those people already employed and, at the same time, narrows the opportunities for those people who are unemployed. For that reason, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) should not find any great pleasure in having this legislation passed. He should perhaps do this dutifully, but in conjunction with labour legislation which creates opportunities for employment. We have not seen such legislation yet.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank three members for their courtesy in yielding their right to speak to me at this time because I have an engagement later this afternoon outside the city. They are the members for London East (Mr. Turner), Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg).
I wish to make three comments on the measure before us this afternoon. The first is with regard to the minimum wage. I know the difficulty of trying to establish one figure which will be suitable for all Canada. As I am not wiser than Solomon, there is very little I can say in that regard.
The idea of giving the Governor in Council the right to establish these wages in the future is fraught with danger. I suppose the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) is aware of the danger. Perhaps I can put my fears on record so that they can be dealt with in committee. This approach may put the Governor in Council under a great deal of stress at certain times, probably once every four years. Also, it could be capable of abuse. At least the advantage of having the change made here is that we

April 27, 1971

have an opportunity to openly apply pressure to see what we can come up with. The minister should be specific in committee and spell out the factors which will enter into the formula for the minimum wage so that we, and through us the country, will have a good idea just how the wage is determined for the 530,000 people under federal jurisdiction. In this way, a lot of grief for the Governor in Council can be avoided in the future.
The second point on which I want to comment concerns the equal pay provision. I have no quarrel with that in principle. It is a step forward that the policing will not have to be done by the individual. In the past, a woman usually had to complain that she was being discriminated against. That is an awkward burden to put on any person. We are not all ready to yell for our rights, and perhaps more women are in this category. If a woman does yell for her rights and gets them, she fears that she may be shown the front door of the factory. It is much better to have the department do the policing. I suppose the department will still be following up complaints. As this part of the bill is remarkably brief, I suggest that some policy of warning to employers might be instituted so that they will not be hauled holus-bolus into court as a result, perhaps inadvertently, of breaching the law.
One question which may be interpreted one way by the employer and another way by the employee is whether a female employee is doing the same sort of work as the males in the plant are doing. That may be a contentious factor. The employer might, in good faith, have a different level of wages, but the court may consider that both the male and female employees are doing the same type of work and that the female is being discriminated against. There has to be an element of common sense in the policing and enforcement of this section of the act, particularly as the law is now compressed into these two subparagraphs.
I welcome the maternity leave provision. It is indicative of a measure of civilization and common sense. I do not think there will be any danger of abuse through the granting of such a right to the female portion of the work force. As I promised to be brief, I will simply say that I welcome this principle.
Finally, I wish to deal with the question of the extension of the 40 hour work week. When the act was originally introduced, there were some, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who felt there should be very little derogation from the 40 hour work week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: As the hon. member says "hear, hear", I know that is still his philosophy. I listened to his contribution last night which, as usual, was excellent. However, there are some people for whom the extension of that provision that Would be very unjust. An element of that group lives in my constituency. These are the people who work on the longshore in Halifax, and I suppose my argument would also apply to those who work on the longshore in Saint John where the work load is apt to be very uneven. There are large amounts of work in the
Canada Labour (Standards) Code wintertime, because these are year-round ports, but smaller amounts in the summertime. So, people on the longshore at Halifax and Saint John earn their bread during a very concentrated period, two or three months. I know the present Minister of Labour has been very receptive to using the provision of the act which enable the 40-hour work week to be exceeded by such people, and I am grateful for this. I hope the changes provided for in the present bill will allow this situation to continue. The minister nods. I gather this is the case, and I am pleased that it should be so.
This may be illustrative of industries where technological change may hurt people such as longshoremen, stevedores, checkers and the like, because the technology in the new system of transportation is hurting their earnings seriously. This is as good a place as any in which to exercise a large modicum of common sense and not tie ourselves down with too exact formulas. Since the Minister of Labour does a very good job thinking of those whose livelihood depends on what they can earn at work to which they take their lunchpails, I am not fearful of the law being administered by him; I just hope the good direction he pursues will be continued by others in future generations.
Before I sit down I wish to express my approval of this legislation. I think these are good changes, and important changes.


Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: Mr. Speaker, the general objectives of the amendments to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code are to provide minimum standards and benefits not previously provided under the Code and to update some of the existing standards. At this time I wish to talk about two parts of the bill which I believe must be drawn to the attention of members of this House for their consideration: first, group termination of employment and, second, individual termination of employment.
The introduction of these changes will provide federal employees with the minimum protection from the less responsible employers. Looking at the railroad industry since the introduction of diesels, we find that drastic cuts in the work force have taken place and many who were once proud employees of the nation's railways now find themselves on welfare during the winter months. Due to the fact that they were over 40 or 50 years of age when the lay-offs took place, it was not possible for many of these employees to be reabsorbed into the labour market on a permanent basis.
Each year many industries in Canada make changes in their production methods; many decide to lock the door and move to some other part of the world. The rapid pace of technological progress and economic growth can and does have adverse effects on the working population. If resistance to change on the part of employees is to be less harmful, as must be the case if Canada is to achieve its full potential as an industrial power, trade unions and governments must accept responsibility for the develop-

April 27, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code ment and implementation of policies designed to cushion the impact of change on individuals.
More and more, Mr. Speaker, people of this nation are becoming aware that high labour costs have been leading managements in Canada and the United States to think in terms of closing out Canadian plants and transferring certain operations to other parts of the world. But the same managers seem to forget that the men they put out of work are also the consumers of their products. Most foreign demand for our products is concentrated, first and foremost, on our resource industries. Exports of grain, oil and gas, minerals and forest products are necessary to a trading nation such as Canada, but we must rely on heavy factory production and employment to provide the necessary lift to our Canadian economy. Any successful business is a combination of money and labour working toward a common goal of high production at lowest cost, so that both parties can compete in the home and export markets.
Down through the years employers and employees have worked hard to build many successful business establishments in this country, and much of their achievement has been accomplished with the help of foreign investment. We, as Canadians, welcome foreign capital but when the time comes for parent organizations to make any changes in the work pattern or plant operation, I say it must be done by prior consultation with the employees and their representatives. During the past few months, several plants in this country have closed down and it is certainly not in the best interests of the employees or residents of the communities affected to be saddled with the problem of relocating the employees without the help from the industry causing the shift.
For many years employers and trade unions have included in their collective agreements provisions designed to make the procedures governing lay-offs and recall more predictable and equitable, and settlements have included various arrangements to provide employees with some degree of protection against the effects of displacement. Governments, too, have recognized their responsibilities in this area and are pursuing policies designed to maintain conditions of general economic growth by offering a variety of manpower services, providing displaced employees with opportunities for retraining, relocation and job placement, providing short-term support for loss of income resulting from displacement under a general system of unemployment insurance and other special supplementary arrangements such as the transitional assistance benefit program which may apply when displacement results from government action designed to cause or accelerate industrial conversion.
Now, for the first time, the federal government requires appropriate notices of termination of employment to be given, thus enabling the manpower authorities to effectively utilize their various services. Bill C-228 provides that any employer who intends to terminate the employment of a substantial number of employees, and this includes managerial personnel and members of certain professions, shall be required to give advance notice to the Minister of Labour, the Department of Manpower
and Immigration and any trade union certified to represent the affected employees. The minimum period of notice required to be given varies with the number of employees involved. If 50 to 100 employees are to be dismissed, eight weeks' notice is required; if the number is between 101 and 300, 12 weeks' notice is to be given; if the number is greater than 300, 16 weeks' notice shall be given. Notification shall include the proposed date of termination and the estimated number of workers concerned. Regulations will prescribe circumstances in which a lay-off will not be deemed to be a termination of service. Employers and trade unions shall co-operate with the manpower services to assist workers under notice of dismissal to find alternative employment. The Governor-in-Council may make regulations that include exemption of employees employed on a seasonal or irregular basis, and provide for notification of group dismissal of less than 50 workers where industrial or regional conditions are of particular significance.
Waiver by the Minister of Labour of dismissal notification is provided for where it would harm the interests of employees, be unduly prejudicial to employers, or seriously hinder the operation of the industrial establishment concerned. Enforcement of the notice requirement will be the responsibility of the Department of Labour, as is the case with a wide range of other provisions. Any employer who violates this part of the law would be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine of up to $10,000 or, on an indictable offence, by a fine of up to $100,000.
The information supplied by employers proposing substantial job terminations in a relatively short period will assist the manpower authorities to carry out their programs to help the affected employees in such matters as placement, retraining, relocation and others. There is no existing federal legislation on group termination of employment, and therefore this legislation is desirable. The legislation proposes that an individual who has worked continuously for an employer for three months or more is entitled to at least two weeks' written notice of termination of employment or, in lieu of such notice, pay at the regular rate for the regular hours. This provision does not apply in cases of dismissal or just cause.
A special provision is included to deal with situations where employees whose positions become redundant have "bumping rights" under the collective agreement. In such cases, the employer must give two weeks notice to such an employee and to the trade union, and must post a copy of the notice in a conspicuous place on his premises. If the employer fails to give the required notices, he must pay two weeks' wages in lieu of notice to the employee who is ultimately displaced as a result of the bumping process.
A layoff is regarded as a termination unless regulations prescribe otherwise. Wages and terms or conditions are not to be altered during the period of notice without the consent of the employee. Compliance with the notice provision in a particular case lapses if the employee continues in employment for two weeks beyond the

April 27, 1971

notice period, unless he consents in writing, and any subsequent notice to that individual must comply with the proposed legislation. Notice of individual termination will not apply to managers, supervisors and members of designated professions. Absences which do not interrupt continuity of employment and the meaning of "regular hours of work" are to be defined by regulation. "Successor rights" also apply to this section. There is at present no federal legislation regulating individual termination of employment.
Six provinces, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Ontario and Quebec, have legislation requiring an employer to give an employee a specified period of notice or, except in Manitoba, compensation in lieu of notice on termination of employment. The Quebec provisions are contained in the civil code, which is at present under revision. In Nova Scotia, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to be entitled to notice of termination of employment an employee must have been employed by the employer continuously for three months or more. In Manitoba notice is not required if employment is terminated during an employee's first two weeks in a job, unless the employer and employee have agreed in writing that the notice requirements of the act will apply. In Newfoundland notice is not required during the first month of a probationary period established by mutual agreement.
In closing, I would like to point out that during the war years thousands of Canadians joined our military services and went overseas to protect our freedom and way of life. They did not worry about leaving a steady job because the basic fibre of democracy was being threatened. They were willing to make sacrifices to protect these principles. When they returned thousands of veterans went directly to new jobs, and once they became established in the communities of this nation they naturally thought that they were set for life. The foreign industries of this nation have a responsibility to these Canadian employees to make sure that in the event of close-out everything possible in the way of retraining and severance pay is offered to these displaced employees.
Governments must have rules and regulations to make it impossible for foreign industry to close out without disclosing to the government departments the reason for their action. It is tragic when industry forces hundreds of people on to the labour market at an age when it is impossible for them to make the necessary changes without prior consultation. No one is resisting change, but all branches of society must be fully informed of industrial change so that ways and means can be found to cushion its impact on the lives of all Canadians and communities.
Many changes in this bill must be complemented by changes in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, whereby close-outs and changes in working conditions will be the subject of negotiations between companies and unions under government supervision. I know that the minister is very concerned about all the details of the changes as well as the problems of the
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
working people of this nation as we move ahead into the seventies.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief comments on Bill C-228. I think the main points have already been made by my colleagues who have spoken previously. All members of the House would rather see free, collective bargaining than the implementation of legislation to govern such negotiations. At the same time, I hope that the provisions of Bill C-228 will provide some spin-off and not a brush-off by some of the legislatures of this country. It appears that in many cases it does take the initiative of the federal government to bring about changes in provincial laws.
It seems strange that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) would bring in a bill at this time to provide for wage uniformity, since the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) not too long ago was substantiating the wage differential that existed between certain areas of the country. I have in mind the dockyard workers at Nanaimo and at Halifax, whose wage disparity was not eliminated. I am pleased to see that at least the Minister of Labour sees the need for bringing about uniformity throughout the country in this regard; I hope I am correct in that assumption.
The greatest problem with any bill is the enforcing and policing of the regulations that must go with it. A short while ago Canadian National Railways was fined because they violated the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. I have before me an article dated Saturday, May 31, 1969 which reports that:
The Canadian National Railways was fined $175 in Quebec Superior Court tor violating the Canada Labour (Standards) Code for failing to pay three of its employees time and one-half during national holidays.
We all recall the recent statements in the House of Commons with regard to CNR. I am pleased to say that once again the Minister of Labour stated he would not stand for any of this type of manoeuvring on the part of a Crown corporation like Canadian National. I refer to the attempt to pay provincial rates of pay when the uniform standards provisions of the act should have applied. I hope this matter has now been resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned.
A short while ago, specifically on December 4, 1968, it was being suggested that a new law would be introduced to regulate lay-offs. At that time, pressure was mounting in the cabinet to introduce legislation that would prevent companies from laying off employees with little or no prior warning to the employees or the government. Let me refer to an article dealing with this matter which puts it in this way:
Two federal cabinet ministers have publicly denounced major layoffs in recent days. They contend that management made no effort to help labour adjust to unemployment.
Labour Minister Mackasey said in the Commons last week "I think the time has come for the minister of labour to convince his colleagues that legislation emphasizing management's responsibility to its employees in the area of technological change is long overdue."

April 27, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
Then, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) also said in the Commons:
-that recent heavy lay-offs, which caught both labour and government by surprise, raised the question whether it might not be necessary "to oblige companies by law to provide advance notice".
I am sure the dissatisfaction of the government and the Minister of Labour in this regard has brought about some of the changes we see before us at this particular time.
The only suggestion I should like to make in respect of this legislation is that it would require employers to give advance notice of up to 16 weeks in the case of mass lay-offs, and severance pay to employees with at least five years' service. Advance notice is required only in the case of lay-offs of 50 or more employees, leaving an apparent loophole for employers to spread their lay-offs over a longer period. I hope when the committee studies this bill it will take this situation into consideration. I have in mind irresponsible companies which would deliberately use the provisions of this bill to lay-off fewer than 50 employees in order to avoid the obligations of the provisions of this bill. I understand there have been lay-offs recently of fewer than 50, and everyone knows that this practice will become progressively worse as time passes. I am sure this is an area all of us will consider in the committee when the time comes, in order to determine exactly what should be done as far as amendments are concerned.
There is no need to repeat some of the thoughts which have been expressed in this House. Most of us agree that this bill is very necessary, and with some amendments could be a model bill acceptable throughout this country, particularly to labour organizations and responsible companies.
It is interesting to note that there is some danger in the provision for equal pay for equal work. We should realize there are some 2.5 million women in the labour force and that more than 50 per cent of them are married. Some of the provisions in this bill will require a great deal of regulation and policing in order to ensure some type of uniformity. I am sure that the provision regarding the same or similar jobs requiring the same or similar skills, effort or responsibility, might bring about definitions by employers. I am sure we will all be responsible when we consider this fact. We all realize that all too often women are not brought into so-called decision-making positions. I am sure that a simple law requiring equal pay for equal work will be completely inadequate, because the work may be comparable or similar but different job classifications will be adopted allowing women to be hired for lower paid positions. I am sure it is not the intention of the Minister of Labour to bring about this type of situation.
It appears that these provisions must be accompanied by regulations which will require that all job classifications be open to women. This suggestion will be considered when the bill is before the committee for further discussion. At the present time there are no laws in respect of equal pay for equal work which require that
all positions be open to everyone, regardless of sex. The provisions of this bill, I suggest, will not make any noticeable change in the present situation. Let us look at the situation in the House of Commons where we have one female member. This makes one wonder whether we consider there is equal opportunity for both sexes in so far as election to this House is concerned. I believe the government is serious in bringing about an end to discrimination and that it will make funds available for the staff required to seek out the inequalities which exist at this time.
In respect of maternity leave, I believe we must be serious when looking at the situation which exists. The bill before us requires a woman to have 12 months' employment with one employer to qualify for 17 weeks' maternity leave. To say the least, this does not seem equitable. Since an employer is not required to provide leave with pay, but merely an unpaid leave of absence, it is difficult to understand the need for such a requirement at this time. This provision limits a woman's mobility in the work force and restricts the amount of leave to which she may be entitled, in relation to her biological function of childbearing. It also seems to me that this is a most crucial time to a woman in the work force, a time when she encounters added expenses. This provision would still allow an employer to fire a woman who becomes pregnant if she does not have 12 months of continuous employment before the need for maternity leave arises. I hope this aspect will be seriously considered by the standing committee.
The committee must also consider the provision for 11 weeks' leave prior to confinement and six weeks after. This is another point which will receive the consideration to which it is entitled by the committee.
Let me now refer to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code suspense account. On January 15 a return was tabled in this House to a question I had asked. My question was:
What payments have been made into the Labour (Standards) Code suspense account and what wages have been paid out of it to entitled employees for each year 1965 to 1970 inclusive?
The answer was that there was a continuous increase in money paid in and a smaller amount paid out. I suggest that there must be a better method for the determination by various departments, not necessarily the Department of Labour alone, of these people who have paid into this account and who are entitled to some repayment.
I asked also what policies and practices were carried out by the minister to locate the employees who were entitled to payment, once a payment was received into the Labour (Standards) Code suspense account. The answer at that time was that a program to have the Department of National Revenue locate and advise employees of their entitlement was presently under trial, using social insurance numbers. It appears to me that by using the social insurance numbers these employees could be contacted and advised that they might receive the money they had paid into this account.

April 27, 1971

We realize that the railroad industry does often have deferments. I realize that it is practically impossible to adopt any regulation or guideline for operation in respect of the transportation industry. We should have some regulation or an agreement as a result of collective bargaining between management and labour covering the hours put in by truckers and railway employees. It appears there should be a determined effort made, perhaps with a little prompting by the minister, to bring about some resolution in so far as the hours of work of employees of the transportation industry are concerned.
In closing, I should like to say I am extremely pleased to note that provision in the bill dealing with the garni-sheeing of wages. I know of too many occasions when employees have lost employment because their wages have been garnisheed. In the past, this has been sufficient reason for dismissal. I am exceedingly pleased that the minister and the government have decided to bring in a regulation prohibiting the dismissal of an employee for this reason. Far too often we find irresponsible employers will take advantage of such a situation to dismiss an employee. This has been the case in respect of the garnishment of wages. The minister is to be congratulated for this move. I will be pleased to see this bill sent to the committee. It is not my intention to hold it up at this time. I am anxious to see it discussed by the committee and amended as they might see fit.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it will take me but a few minutes to say the nice things that I want to say about the minister; the other remarks I will have to make will take a little longer. This bill, in so far as it goes, is a good bill. I would not imagine there are too many people who think there is no longer much need for the minimum wage provision. There are surprising and tragic numbers of young people and others still employed receiving the minimum wage. I think that any t	allows the government to ensure a minimum
Jnd a minimum wage is all to the good. I think this bill brings us up to date in this respect.
Then, there is the question of maternity leave. I think this provision follows the thinking of the population today, x do not believe anyone would object to it, except perhaps the men, because the other clause dealing with equal rights does not give this privilege to men, but then very few men ever get pregnant.


An hon. Member:: There will be changes.


Steven Otto: Yes, all sorts of changes are possible. I am glad to see this section of the bill dealing with maternity leave, as opposed to the inclusion of such a provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act where, as I already indicated, it does not belong. But even under this bill, there will be a difference. Of course, I take it that the maternity leave _ provisions in this bill will apply to women who are in the labour force and who will remain in the labour force. In other words, this part of the bill will apply to women who will continue working after they have had a child. There is a distinction between the
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
women who have to make a living, who have to remain in the labour force after pregnancy and the majority of women who do not come back to the labour force. The latter group will not apply for the leave permitted by this bill. But under the Unemployment Insurance Act, with which we dealt a few days ago, no distinction was made between these two group. For that reason, I am glad to see the inclusion of the provision in this bill but not in the other one.
So far as notice of lay-offs is concerned, I think that is a worthwhile provision. The minister has made himself familiar with the problems arising in cases of mass layoffs which come almost as a surprise. In most cases, notice could have been given. This bill makes such notice mandatory, and again I think that is a good provision.
Enough has been said about equality of wages. I believe Canadians accept this principle. I am glad also to see the provision with respect to garnishment, as the member who just sat down said. It is a little thing but it is evil because the debt collectors never bother collecting. They secure a garnishee order and immediately hound the employer until he gets so sick of it that the next fellow who gets a garnishee order against him will be laid off or fired. I should now like to see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) do away with garnishment completely. It is an old fashioned practice which serves no purpose in this day and age.
When we have dealt with these items in the bill I wonder if we have really dealt with our labour problems. This is the labour code, and I would have liked to have seen the brackets taken away and the act entitled the Canada labour code, not the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. The bill covers little things which do not solve the vast problems of labour today. The problem is that the population at large is beginning to look with suspicion at organized labour and organized labour is beginning to defend itself, but neither one nor the other has a labour code to follow. We have no labour policy. We have been going along, adding item by item. We have this bill and we have other minor bills, but to say that we cannot deal with the labour problem because they are within provincial jurisdiction is nonsense. I think that today the federal government must take the whole labour question in hand and deal with it.
We have inflation, and what happens? We immediately have to institute controls, or at least the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) thinks we have to do so, and then we have unemployment. Then, we have another round of inflation. The employer blames the employee, and the employee says "it is not my fault, you are making too much profit, Mr. Employer". Then, there is the question of what to do with our unions. No one has set down a policy, nor has this government done so. What will we do with the problems of labour? I think they must be recognized as problems which we have left alone for too long.
The hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) spoke about lay-offs as a result of the implementation of new techniques. He said, justifiably so, that it is not equitable to have people laid off and thrown on the welfare rolls merely because a new machine has taken over. He must also recognize that in order to keep up with the produc-
COMMONS DEBATES________________April 27, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code tion capacity of other countries we must introduce new techniques. I would suggest to him, and to this government as well as to labour, that deadheading is not the answer. Deadheading is a practice of that part of our existing labour institution by which, if you do not need firemen because you no longer have fires in the boilers of steam engines you employ one anyway. In fact, an employer is required to train apprentices to be hired when there is no longer any need for firemen. That does not make sense, even to the gentlemen opposite.


John Leroy Skoberg: I should have spoken after you.


Steven Otto: But then what is the answer? In Toronto, the three large department stores send a mat to the three newspapers, the same mat appearing in all. It is not necessary to set up all the type, and the ad is printed on the same date. For years people have been employed by the three newspapers, days after this advertisement has appeared and the newspapers have been thrown away, to line up the advertisements, print one copy, which is then thrown away. Even to the gentlemen opposite this does not make sense, and it should not make sense to this government. However, no solution to that problem seems to have been found.
So, we have all these labour problems, but no answers have been provided in this bill nor in any other bill, nor has this government a policy. We are faced with strikes more frequently than ever. Can anyone tell me how a strike, which throws people out of work and closes down the factory, will ever improve the current position of the employer or the employee? What really happens is that at the time of the strike workmen go home without pay. They dig into their savings and into the strike fund which the union has provided. When these funds are exhausted they finally receive an increase which never makes up the loss which they sustained. In the meantime, the employers have lost their reserves, and it just becomes a tactics game. Surely, one hundred years after the institution of this old fashioned scheme of things we should, as a government, put forward some ideas by which labour can get its fair share of new techniques and new production, by which the employer can use new techniques, and by which the nation can prosper and increase its productivity. For months before a strike, labour becomes antagonistic. For months after a strike is settled, labour usually has not settled the details and is still antagonistic, so the loss of production continues. I have been involved on both sides of this question and I know what can happen to production. This is an evil thing and we have not done anything about it.
Surely, in this day and age we can find some method of dealing with labour-management disputes without having work stoppages.


Mr. Orlikow:: Tell us how.


Steven Otto: At one time I introduced a bill telling how, and I will repeat the details for the hon. gentleman. But the question is not one of labour-management disputes; it is one of labour-consumer disputes. Management does not worry too much. It merely adds on the cost of a strike

and the consumer pays. Under the terms of the bill that I introduced when a strike is declared, instead of work stoppage actually taking place, people would continue to work but the profits made by the corporation during the time that its workers were without a contract would be taxed 100 per cent. No one would suffer; the country would benefit, and the dispute would still be settled through negotiation. Such a provision is not made in this bill, and there are other things which are also not provided in it.
I am trying to inform you, Mr. Speaker, of something that is a fact today. There is no sense in closing our eyes and saying that everything in the labour-management field is fine. The fact is that this is not so. Surely, Mr. Speaker, you have known for a number of years that there is irritation in this field, and we do not seem to know what to do about it. But somebody has to come to some conclusion, and I suggest it is the government's responsibility to come up with a full labour policy, a full labour code, rather than the few words that are in this bill. This bill should have been four times as long and should have included many other matters.
One subject which seems to be taboo, and which is not covered in this bill, is the election of union officers. It has been said that anyone who stands up and opposes the slate of union officers usually nominated cannot lead a free life any more. It is true that some unions have secret ballots in the election of officers, but most do not. Surely, it is time we settled that question and said that from this time on the election of all officers of all associations and fraternities should take place by secret ballot. Why can't we include that in this bill?


An hon. Member:: For corporations, too?


Mr.   Olio@: Corporations, fraternities, churches, everyone.


Mr. Bigg:: And the cabinet?


Steven Otto: I am speaking of responsible positions. If you were talking about electing deputy ministers that would be fine, but I do not think it is important for cabinet members.
We must also soon recognize unions as legal entities. If they enter a contract they must observe the terms of that contract and be responsible for them. At present, we have a wishy-washy situation because the courts have said that unions are really fraternal associations, and are not a body corporate. That is nonsense.
I have already said that this bill should not require much debate. All of its provisions are acceptable to the public at large. The minister has earned a kudo for including some of the things, such as prohibition of dismissal for garnishment of wages, and the provision of maternity leave. I think we should get on with the bill as quickly as possible, but also as quickly as possible we should deal with the whole range of labour problems and the provision of a labour code setting government policy once and for all. We do not have much time in which to tackle that larger issue.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have studied with interest the measures proposed in Bill
April 27, 1971

C-228, an act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and, in general, I support what other speakers from my party have had to say in principle regarding the proposed legislation. I believe that all of us in this House have a moral obligation to ensure that for the many people whom this bill will affect there will exist humane and reasonable standards of employment, under conditions which represent as enlightened an approach as we can bring to this important subject.
Clause 5 of the bill deals with the requirement of a ministerial permit for an employer to work any group of employees in excess of the maximum hours prescribed by the legislation. I have some reservations about the practicality of this measure, although I quite agree with the principle. It seems to me that a number of situations must surely arise in which an employer has urgent and immediate need to extend the permitted maximum hours of work of some of his employees, and where the requirement that he obtain a permit in advance would be quite impossible and unduly onerous.
As a simple, practical illustration of this I am reminded of a situation of which I have personal knowledge. A local contractor was completing work on a new roof on a commercial establishment. It was imperative that the work be completed as quickly as possible because any serious rainstorm could have resulted in extensive damage to the interior of the building. The contractor has scheduled the work for completion at the end of a certain week. However, when Friday came he found that his schedule would have to be extended by at least another working day. His only real option was to work his employees on the Saturday, or to trust to luck that there would be no weather damage if he did not. He chose to leave the work unfinished over the week end and the weather held fine. It seems to me that under the terms of this bill it would have been difficult for him to get a permit in advance in order to complete the work on the Saturday. I appreciate that general contractors are not covered by this bill. Nevertheless, I am sure that similar situations could arise affecting employers who will be subjected to the requirements of a ministerial permit. All I am trying to say is that I hope when the bill is studied in committee some more flexible provision will be made regarding the matter of ministerial permits.
On the matter of overtime work, I wonder if there is not some wisdom in pressing for incorporation in this bill of a practice which has been followed by certain provincial departments in my province of Manitoba. For example, I know that payment for overtime work in the provincial department of highways, which is done mainly in the summer months, is banked and becomes payable on a regular weekly basis to tradesmen during the winter months when they are most likely to be unemployed. In fact, it would be impossible for that department in Manitoba to employ its work force throughout the whole year with any degree of efficiency. In this way tradesmen benefit from having a more continuous income throughout the year, without the necessity of relying upon unemployment insurance benefits to provide them with an income in slack periods. I think that this system makes a good deal of sense, both from the employee's viewpoint
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
and from that of the government, his employer, which otherwise must subsidize him through unemployment insurance payments to compensate for the irregular nature of his employment.
On the matter of minimum hourly wages, I support the principle involved in this concept. However, I wonder whether the legislation really solves as many problems as some of its supporters think it does. Certainly, in some of our smaller urban or rural communities a minimum hourly wage of $1.75 per hour, as this act proposes be the case on July 1, 1971, would be quite an adequate remuneration to enable one to enjoy reasonable minimum standards of living. Indeed, in some areas it might be in excess of this and if employers who come under this legislation constitute a significant number of the employers in the area, this provision could then have the effect of obliging the other employers to establish in their businesses or industries a minimum wage structure which could even work some hardship.
On the other hand, in a large urban centre, and for someone who may be married, I do not think $1.75 an hour would accomplish the desirable objectives of this section of the proposed act. If one has dependent children in addition to his wife, and he is employed in a large urban centre at the minimum hourly wage, it may very well be that he would be substantially better off on welfare. We assume that with our welfare we are giving the minimum standard necessary, compatible with a reasonable degree of sustenance. Indeed, even assuming such an individual were to work the maximum permitted hours of work under this act, namely 48, his gross weekly income would be $84. A married man could almost certainly exceed this amount through welfare payments. I think the foregoing illustrates that this very important section of the proposed act requires substantial further consideration to see if amendments cannot be proposed which will remedy, in a more effective manner than the present bill permits, the situations to which I have alluded.
I want to commend the minister, Mr. Speaker, for the provision in his proposed act which forbids an employer dismissing someone solely because a court order has been issued garnisheeing a portion of his wages. Many people, through circumstances quite honestly beyond their control, become the objects of a garnishment order, which in itself is a sufficient hardship, embarrassment and obstacle to their becoming financially solvent that I do not think employers should be permitted to add to such an individual's hardships by dismissing him solely for this reason when he most desperately needs employment. However, we recognize that people do have garnishments and that this adds to the employer's trouble.
As a related act to the Unemployment Insurance Act, this proposed bill provides for pregnancy leave of 17 weeks, consisting of 11 weeks before confinement and six weeks after delivery. This is one area where I think improvement could be made in the proportioning of leave. Pregnancy is a physiological phenomenon and is not considered an illness. The date of delivery is uncertain, even under the best regulated circumstances.

April 27, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code Indeed, it is probably safe to say that not more than 50 per cent of births fall into the category of a week or two on either side of the expected date. Then, add all the problems of deciding when a pregnant woman may deliver and you are left with a wide margin for error on either side.
In addition, to the difficulty of deciding when the expected event will occur, both for the medical praction-er and the woman, there is the question of how long a woman can work before her confinement. This depends on her job to a significant degree. If she is in a sedentary occupation, such as stenographer, she may well be able to work almost the full time; if she is in a more manual occupation she may be required, both for safety and production, to leave her job much sooner. After delivery, when complications may well arise, six weeks does not seem too much. In my observation, it is significant that most women do not return to their original employment. This may not be true in very large companies but it certainly bears investigation. Women often choose an occupation, usually at a lesser salary and with lesser work, in order to be able to devote more time to their family or to be closer to home.
I would like to see this section changed to 17 weeks to be given totally, proportioned as the woman herself decides. If she wishes to work up to nearly the time of her delivery and her employer is willing, it seems that she should be entitled to the full 17 weeks. I do not think it is practical to divide the time into two periods. This would create a lot of injustice and would not be happily received by many people.
These are a few short observations that I have on this bill, Mr. Speaker. I hope that in committee some of the provisions I have mentioned can be improved, and I will look forward to that.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker,
this bill is important because the few provisions which it proposes to add to the Labour (Standards) Code can and will have an effect on millions of Canadians. When we passed the original legislation in 1965, we set the minimum wage for workers under federal jurisdiction at $1.25 an hour. At that time I doubt if any province in Canada had a minimum wage for workers under provincial jurisdiction of more than or even up to $1 an hour. A recent survey indicates that in the province of Ontario the minimum wage under the Employment Standards Act is now $1.65; in Quebec it is $1.45; in British Columbia $1.50; in Newfoundland it is $1.25 for men and $1 for women; in Manitoba $1.50 an hour, and in Saskatchewan $1.15 an hour. I have no doubt, therefore, that if we increase the minimum wage from the $1.65 at which it was set some months ago to $1.75, this will have a very fast effect on provincial governments. We will see similar increases in the provinces and I support that completely.
When introducing the legislation the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) made the valid point that it is particularly important to the 60 per cent of the labour force which does not belong to trade unions, and do not have the protection of collective bargaining and union rates of pay. For those people who do not belong to
labour unions, the only protection with regard to wage rates is that given by legislation such as this or by the minimum wage legislation passed by the respective provinces.
A high percentage of unorganized labour has to depend on the protection provided by legislation. So, I am disturbed by the fact that in the year 1971 the minister has seen fit to propose a minimum wage as low as $1.75 an hour. That comes to just $3,600 a year for the person who works 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year and gets two weeks off.


Mr. Perrauli:: What did you say it was in Manitoba?


David Orlikow: I said it was $1.50 an hour in Manitoba. I have already said, if the parliamentary secretary would take the trouble to listen, that the provinces traditionally follow the federal government. The parliamentary secretary, who I presume met with the ministers of labour of the provinces who were here last week, should know the province of Manitoba intends to raise its minimum wage again in the near future. The federal government has always set the example. I would hope it would set an example in this case. It is easy for the federal government to do this. Only a parliamentary secretary as stupid as this one would not know that-


Raymond J. Perrault: Keep it non-political.


David Orlikow: If the parliamentary secretary, who is not sitting in his own seat, would stop making stupid interjections I would ignore him, which is what he deserves. He should know that the industries which come under federal jurisdiction are by and large the railways, airlines, flour mills, the telecommunications systems and the banks. These can afford to pay the higher minimum wages proposed in the federal legislation. For this reason, I would expect any federal government, no matter what party is in office, would have a higher minimum wage than any provincial government, regardless of the party in power in that province.
I say the $1.75 proposed in this legislation is completely inadequate. The $3,600 a year, on the basis of $1.75 an hour a person would earn under the provisions of this legislation, is below the poverty line established by the Economic Council of Canada for a family. I suggest that the parliamentary secretary read-if he can read, which I sometimes doubt-a statement on income security which was made public this morning by the National Council of Welfare. This National Council of Welfare is not an NDP organization, an organization established by some trade union bureaucracy or an organization established by some revolutionary radical movement. It is an organization appointed by the federal government. It has, as members, representatives from every province in Canada. I would assume this government would have appointed to it people who are not very revolutionary. I would assume they would be people who, if not Liberals, would certainly not be very antagonistic to this government. I would commend to the members of the government, and the parliamentary secretary, this report because it deals with the whole question of income. I believe it gets to the guts

April 27, 1971

of the type of things I am talking about, the difficulty in respect of a minimum wage of $1.75 an hour in the year 1971.
For the benefit of the parliamentary secretary, I might read a few excerpts from this report. It points out that a large number of people do not have adequate income at the present time in Canada and that these can be divided into three groups. The first group is that of a family which has no employable member. The second group is one in which no employment is available for the employable member of the family. We know that almost three quarters of a million people are unemployed at the present time in this country. In the third group, the income from employment of the employed member or members of the family is inadequate to the needs of that family.
The report points out that it is estimated there are almost four million Canadians represented by families in which the earnings are less than the amount required to meet their needs. Need I remind hon. members of this House that there are people living on farms in Canada, people engaged in fishing, people living in the bush and Indian and Metis people whose income is far below the poverty level established by the Economic Council of Canada. I shall read one section of this report:
We have ensured that the stigma of poverty-
"We" means the people of Canada and the government.
-attaches to, the children of the poor by providing insufficient income for them to dress as their classmates, to afford a class picture as their classmates, to participate in class outings or extra-curricular activities involving expenditure. When they consequently learn to hate the school situation in which they are thus made to feel inadequate, drop out at the earliest opportunity in quest of a job-are the first to be laid off and thence drift into delinquency and crime, we blame the "culture of poverty" and talk piously of "cultural deprivation".
What amount is required to maintain a family? Let me quote what the National Council of Welfare says:
The Quebec Government Commission, updating Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures to 1971, identified these as $2,000 for a single person, $3,400 for a family of two adults, $3,900 for a family of three, and $4,560 for a family of four.
I believe I have already pointed out what is to be provided by this legislation. The fact is that the minimum wage in our country is to be something in the neighbourhood of $3,600. So, if this legislation is passed we will continue to ensure that a large number of people who come under federal jurisdiction because of their employment will be working fully but will not be earning enough money on which to live in anything but poverty. I do not think that is good enough. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), has a bill on the order paper which would set the minimum wage at $2 an hour. The Canadian Labour Congress suggested it should be set at $2.50 an hour and the Canadian Railway Labour Association suggests in its brief to the government that the minimum wage should be set at $2.25 an hour. I would be prepared to accept any of these suggestions but I am certainly convinced-


Raymond J. Perrault: What is the Manitoba figure going to be? Do you know?
Canada Labour (Standards) Code


David Orlikow: I have not spoken to my colleagues in Manitoba, but I am sure when this government moves up the province of Manitoba will do so too, as will the other provinces.


Raymond J. Perrault: Following the Liberal lead.


David Orlikow: I do not think the government of Manitoba will follow any Liberal lead, and the parliamentary secretary knows this. I cannot accept the proposal of the minister that the $1.75 an hour in the future be amended through order in council as need is demonstrated. We have seen-and I shall deal with this later in respect of another aspect-how difficult it is to get the government to act. I had hoped the minister would have been prepared to spell out in this legislation that the $1.75 an hour he is proposing, which I have already said is much too low, would be adjusted annually and automatically based on increases in the cost of living.
With the exception of last year, we know the cost of living has been going up something in the neighbourhood of from 3 per cent to 5 per cent or more a year. This year's increase in the first three months of 1J per cent indicates we are to have in this year an increase in the cost of living of between 5 per cent and 6 per cent. That being the case, I am not prepared to leave the adjustment of the minimum wage to the whole cabinet. I would not mind if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) could do it on his own, because I have a good deal more confidence in him than in most other ministers of the government. I certainly am not prepared to leave the adjustment of the minimum wage to the whole cabinet through order in council, because we know from experience how slow a process that can be.
Before I leave the question of a minimum wage, I want to repeat what I said in 1965. I regret very much that this bill does not provide for a basic wage of even $1.75, as it does for all employees who come under federal jurisdiction, and give protection to the workers in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. These two territories are almost entirely dependent upon the federal government for their way of life. Because of their tremendous distance from the main centres of population in Canada and their very difficult terrain, these areas have the highest cost of living in Canada. These two areas have a very high, if not the highest, percentage of native people, Indians and Eskimos, in Canada. This is not the time to go into the terrible problems which we have foisted upon the descendants of the original inhabitants of this country. The incomes of the Indian and Eskimo people of this country, whether derived from work or other sources such as welfare or pension, are a disgrace.
Yesterday I spoke to a Canadian who spent five years working in backward, underdeveloped Africa. That person spent last week not in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon, but in The Pas, Manitoba. She told me she had never seen the kind of poverty, hopelessness and despair in backward, underdeveloped Africa which she witnessed among the Indian and Metis people in The Pas.

April 27, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
It would have been very easy for the government to include a clause in this legislation which would give the protection of this miserly $1.75 minimum wage to the workers in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon.
I want to deal with one other matter, the supposed provisions in the act passed in 1965 with regard to the hours of work. The then Minister of Labour hailed this act as a great step forward, since it provided for not only a minimum wage but a 40 hour week. When the bill was originally introduced, it provided that where industries might be adversely affected by the implementation of a 40 hour week, they could apply to the department for a deferment before the 40 hour week provision would be implemented. The act provided that the minister could give up to an 18 month deferment. At that time, some hon. members, including myself, protested that the 18 month deferment was too long a period of time. I must confess that I was an extremely naive Member of Parliament in 1965. I did not realize that not only could the minister give an 18 month deferment, but by taking the request under advisement he could in fact give what amounts to a permanent deferment.
Six years after being given such glowing hosannas about the paradise which this bill would create for the working people of Canada, almost every industry that comes under federal jurisdiction not only applied, but got and still has a deferment. The railway, marine, shipping and trucking industries still have not been brought under the provisions of the act with regard to the hours of work for workers.
The trade unions know the difficulties in their industries. At the time we passed the original bill, the Teamsters Union made representations to members of all parties about what might happen. The railway institutions made and are still making representations. The Canadian Railway Labour Association dealt with this problem in their April 19, 1971 submission. They agreed that there are problems which make it difficult to implement the sections of the act with regard to those who operate the trains. They made it clear in their submission that there is no excuse, six years after the original enactment of this bill for the non-operating employees, who represent 85 per cent or more of all railway employees, not yet being covered by the provisions of this act. If this is true, it denotes the most cynical collusion between the Department of Labour and the government on the one hand, and the railway employers on the other.
I hope the minister will make good the sentiments he expressed in his speech when he introduced this bill and that in the near future, certainly within a year, the number of workers who are still exempt from the protection which this bill supposedly gave to employees who come under federal jurisdiction will be reduced to the irreducible minimum. They would those employees for whom there is a relevant reason why the 40 hour provision cannot be applied.
I am going to vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker, mainly because what it provides can be agreed upon by all parties and all people in Canada. Those matters raised by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) about strikes, the labour code and other matters can be debated in
more detail and more relevantly when the minister brings forward the amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act which he has promised.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. It being five o'clock it is my duty, 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 Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)- Unemployment-Plans for provision of summer jobs for students; the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latu-lippe)-Inquiry of the Ministry; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Unemployment-Rate of hard-core unemployment.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond-Delia) moved: that Bill C-38, to prevent the invasion of privacy resulting from the misuse of information stored in data banks, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be well for me to begin by outlining the reasons that I took it upon myself to bring forth a bill such as this one. It might seem to hon. members, and I am sure we will hear from them in the course of this debate, that a matter of this importance should be dealt with by the appropriate ministers of the Crown. After all, these ministers have the expertise of whole departments at their disposal. Surely, the country should not have to wait for a backbencher to bring forward a measure of this urgency and importance; a bill designed to meet the threat posed to the very foundation of our existence as a free people by the misuse of computer technology. Yet this is exactly what has happened.
The logical next question, then, is why is this independent action on my part necessary? Is nothing

April 27, 1971

being done by the Department of Communications? The short answer to that question appears to be that the departmental leadership is not especially interested in the role computers and data banks are playing in depriving us of a vital part of our freedom. Let me cite, for example, the words of the minister in a speech to the Montreal Chapter of the Data Processing Management Association on February 19 of last year:
It is not my intention here to dwell at length on the threats, real or imagined, that the computer utility poses for Canadians either individually or collectively. We are much more interested in the promise.
Well, I am interested in the promise, too; the promise of a future without Big Brother.
There have been a few glimmers of hope. In a one-sentence statement late last November it was finally announced that a special group within the task force on computer-communications will prepare a separate report on privacy. Even more significant perhaps is the fact that the Department of Communications did join with the Department of Justice, the Information Processing Society and Queen's University in sponsoring a conference on computers and privacy last May. To those assembled at the conference, however, the minister chose to deliver a speech some 14 pages in length during which he devoted only one and one-half paragraphs to the subject at hand, and those few words were spent minimizing the problem. "This conference", the minister said, "is a step, and no more than a step, in exploring the potential-and I emphasize the word "potential"-invasion and circumscription of privacy which may be brought about by the rapid development of computerized information systems and data banks." He closed his meagre remarks on the privacy issue by proclaiming: " I intend to say no more on the issue of computers and the invasion of privacy. In the first place I am in no sense an expert. In the second place, it is the business of this conference."
I am willing to admit, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) may not be an expert, but I think the people of Canada have a right to expect that he at least approach this subject with the interest of a concerned layman.
Nor does the report of the telecommission issued earlier this month give much cause for satisfaction on this issue. Despite catchy headings such as "Soul in the System" and "The Human Goldfish" it is clear that the hand of the technocrat lies heavily on this report. This is only to be expected, for the primary concerns of the telecommission are technological issues. I submit, however, that privacy is very much a human issue and must be treated as such.
As I read the report, the authors argue that while there is a potential problem it is not one that we in Canada have to deal with immediately. Neither the public nor the private sector, they argue, are computerized to the extent we see in the United States and therefore it would be "premature to concentrate too much attention on locking the stable door before there is a horse inside." Well, Mr. Speaker, if we must sink to dealing in proverbs I have one for the Telecommission: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Data Privacy Act
So, as the Minister of Communications becomes more and more entangled in the Wired City where does that leave us? Well, fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is a member of the cabinet who is concerned. I refer, of course, to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). He has stated on many occasions that he is alarmed about the growth of techniques which permit infringement on our privacy. Everything from devices the size of a pin which can transmit voices a distance of 25 miles, to parabolic microphones which can capture the conversations of persons miles away, to miniature cameras capable of photographing a subject two blocks away by moonlight-all of these devices can and are being used to destroy the privacy of Canadians. This is frightening, but there is a more severe threat yet. The minister expressed it in a speech last May. He said this:
The threat to privacy from electronic eavesdropping in both an individual and societal sense, pales before the privacy-shrinking enormities inherent in the computronics of data surveillance. It is here that the new information transfer technologies, with their capacity to accumulate, manipulate, store, retrieve, transmit and disclose information, come into their own.
The Minister of Justice then went on to quote Professor Arthur Miller of the University of Michigan Law School on the subject:
The computer, with its insatiable appetite for information, its image of infallibility, and its inability to forget anything that has been stored in it, may become the heart of surveillance system that will turn society into a transparent world in which our homes, our finances and our associations will be bared to a wide range of observers.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the time is close at hand. We must not delay taking corrective and preventive measures while we still can. In the August-Septem-ber, 1970, edition of Data Systems News, a trade journal of some considerable repute, Mr. Robert P. Henderson, Vice-President and General Manager of Honeywell Corporation's Electronic Data Processing Division, put it very bluntly. He said:
We have until, possibly, 1975 to come up with a solution. If we wait until 1977, it will already be 1984.
Mr. Henderson says "possibly 1975", 1975 at the outside. Do you really want to wait that long? Do you really want to live in a world where there is no refuge, where your every dealing, no matter how intimate, is known?
The Minister of Justice has said that he is concerned and alarmed. I believe that. I also believe that the Department of Justice is working on controls for computer systems. But the unfortunate fact is, as one of our leading newspapers pointed out not too long ago, the Minister of Justice has been concerned and alarmed since he took over the portfolio, and still parliament has taken no legislative action on this matter.
The reason for the introduction of my bill at this time, then, is to impress upon not only this government but upon governments at all levels that the time for action is now. What I am presenting is an alternative to the general lack of protective legislation for Canadians in this vital field. I have drafted the bill in the widest possible way so that hon. members may be able this afternoon to address themselves to almost any aspect of this most complex and far-reaching subject.

April 27, 1971
Data Privacy Act
Briefly, what Bill C-38 would do would be to establish a register of virtually all data banks in Canada. The operators of these data banks would be required to give the individuals concerned a print-out of all information stored about them, the names and addresses of all who receive it and a note on the purposes for which it has and is being used. There would be criminal penalties for failure to comply with the law and civil remedies for aggrieved persons. Individuals about whom information is contained in data banks would have the right to apply to have the information expunged or amended.
The bill does not, however, deal with another danger of the computer age-the storage of information about Canadians in foreign-controlled data banks. This omission does not mean that I think lightly of the danger of a situation in which, potentially, the nationals or government of another country could gain uncontrolled access to information about the private affairs of Canadians. Just the opposite. I believe this subject must be dealt with as soon as possible in legislation which would prohibit storage of such data outside our borders. Such legislation is a necessary companion-piece to the bill I am presenting today. The full title of this bill is "An act to prevent the invasion of privacy resulting from the misuse of information stored in data banks". In order to understand just what is meant by the phrase "invasion of privacy" we must examine the concept of privacy itself.
Is privacy really that important a factor in our lives? Must we have privacy in order to have dignity and freedom? The answer to these questions must, I submit, be an emphatic "Yes". To exist without privacy is to exist as something other than a full human being. Professor Charles Fried of Yale University has put it this way:
Privacy is not just one possible means among others to insure some other value, but it is necessarily related to ends and relations of the most fundamental sort: respect, love, friendship and trust. Privacy is not merely a good technique for furthering these fundamental relations; rather without privacy they are simply inconceivable. They require a context of privacy or the possibility of privacy for their existence. To make clear the necessity of privacy as a context for respect, love, friendship and trust is to bring out also why a threat to privacy seems to threaten our very integrity as persons. To respect, love, trust, feel affection for others and to regard ourselves as the objects of love, trust and affection is at the heart of our notion of ourselves as persons among persons, and privacy is the necessary atmosphere for these attitudes and actions, as oxygen is for combustion.
But does there exist a right to privacy? I would have to argue that in legal terms there is a very serious doubt that most Canadians can claim such a right. Canada has clearly been backward in this regard, especially in comparison to the United States. For example, the first article in an American legal journal setting forth the proposition of the right to privacy was written in 1890. The first article on this subject in Canada was not published until 1961, 71 years later. For over 70 years while writing, debate and legislative activity on this vital issue were taking place in the United States, Canadians did virtually nothing. This is a difficult fact to accept, but it
is true and it reflects badly on both our scholars and our
legislators.
So, it is that we must look to the U.S. experience. As I have said, the right to privacy was first seriously postulated in that country by Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren in 1890. They described the right to privacy as the right to be left alone. Some 40 years after he had examined this right in the Harvard Law Review, Louis Brandeis, as Associate Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, wrote a dissenting judgment that described in this way the philosophic underpinnings of the right to privacy:
The makers of the constitution undertook to secure conditions favourable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfaction of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect people in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
So, gradually the majority of U.S. jurisdictions came to accept the right of privacy as a legal right providing protection for American citizens, while that right continued to have practically no status in Canada.
It was not until 1968 that the first breakthrough was made in Canada. In that year my home province of British Columbia passed its Privacy Act which Jerome Atrens, in an article in The Advocate, called "the first legislation of its kind in the Commonwealth". Mr. Atrens, a member of the faculty of law at the University of British Columbia, commented:
The enactment of the British Columbia Privacy Act is one of the most significant recent developments in the law of torts. Anglo-Canadian common law has never recognized an independent right of privacy. Under our common law the privacy of the individual receives indirect but inadequate protection through various causes of action, such as defamation, breach of contract, interference with a property right, trespass, nuisance and infringement of copyright.
The Privacy Act is the first legislation of its kind in the Commonwealth.
In the two and a half years since that article was written, the provinces have done little to advance the cause of protection of privacy; the federal government, nothing at all. The intention of my bill is to correct that act of omission in an extremely sensitive area, that of the improper use of computer technology.
The computer has quickly become a dominant influence in the commerce, industry and administration of western society. Experts rightly caution that the output of such machines depends on the material and facts fed into them. Men, not machines, are to be blamed for the abuses that may flow from "electronic brains". Electricity, gunpowder and the internal combustion engine are all valuable servants but dangerous when misused.
It cannot be denied, however, that it is the very efficiency of these machines that makes abuse both relatively easy and extremely tempting. Discussing the growing power of computers, M. S. Stone and Malcolm Warner, in an article in the Political Quarterly, note that the computers of 1968 were 1,000 times as fast as the largest of those manufactured in 1954. They have become smaller

April 27, 1971

and more compact while the cost of computing power and data storage has declined sharply.
In economic terms, it has become not only possible but profitable to maintain exceedingly detailed information on whole populations. In fact, the computer technology of today almost invites this. For example, if a corporation, or a government agency for that matter, is devising a form to be completed by its clients for later conversion into computer language, what is the difference if a few extra questions are added? They may not be relevant today but the answers might be handy to have a month or a decade from now. Before the advent of the computer such an attitude would have meant more work, bulkier files, and more difficult retrieval. Unfortunately for our privacy, this is no longer a problem.
Consider this case. In Washington, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has awarded Honeywell a contract to develop a laser-storage technique that will allow one 4,500 foot magnetic tape to record and instantaneously feed back the equivalent of 12 pages apiece about every person in the entire United States. Less than one mile of tape containing the life history and habits of over 200 million people!
I must emphasize again that I do not mean to imply that computer technology is somehow bad and that data banks are dangerous in and of themselves. Of course, this is not the case. It is not some evil mastermind that I fear but rather those who, in the name of efficiency, start us on the road to that glass prison that is an existence without privacy. It happens that government itself is very prone to this sort of thing. Attacked on all sides for not being efficient, governments are apt to do what is expedient in the personal information field, much to the detriment of the people. An example of this type of thing, I believe, is to be seen in the decision of the government of Ontario to provide the following service, as reported in the Globe and Mail of December 15, 1970:
Anyone with $2 will be able to find out all your major debts in Ontario under a new computer storage system being launched January 1.
The searcher will have to get an account number with the Ontario Department of Justice, but anyone will be able to get such a number.
I am sure that this new system is much more efficient than the old method of searching through records in 48 offices across the province. Whether efficiency alone should be the criterion used to judge a plan such as this, I leave to the consideration of the people of Ontario. What would really bother me if I were a citizen of this province would be the decision the provincial government has taken to use the same data bank to store this information with information from another department. With just a slight change in the computer program, this could provide the basis for computer dossiers for most adults in Ontario. Legally there is no protection against such an abuse.
A potentially even more dangerous trend came to my attention last summer. On July 10, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) announced
Data Privacy Act
that the federal government was going to contribute over $97,000 toward a pilot project in Prince Edward Island to evaluate the use of social insurance numbers in providing health services to the public. According to the press release the project would "test the use of social insurance numbers assigned to P.E.I. residents in administering health services, in research and possibly in other social fields." I just wonder what those "other social fields" might be. I do not know. I do know that the use of social insurance numbers is being required more and more often on everything from tax forms to medicare applications. This is, I suppose, a reaction to one of the findings of the royal commission on government organization. This is what the Glassco commission report had to say-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. Is it agreed that the hon. member may carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Henry Goode: I will conclude in a very few minutes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Put it on the
computer.


Thomas Henry Goode: This is what the Glassco commission report had to say:
The real benefits of integrating the flow of information can only be realized by automatic handling throughout, which will facilitate the exchange of common information between different systems. A numbering system that could be used to identify individuals for all purposes would contribute significantly to improved efficiency both in government and outside.
I am not satisfied that enough thought has been given to the implications of this suggestion. I recognize, even though somewhat reluctantly, the need for numerical identification in the computer age. However, I feel I must sound a warning note. If the trend continues for individual Canadians to be known more and more as one specific set of digits, our social insurance number, then we may well be in very serious danger of loss of privacy. Because of the increasing compatability of the latest computers and their ability to communicate with each other, our social insurance number could become the key which would open up our lives to the unscrupulous data bank manipulator. Computer languages have become so standardized that data may flow easily in and out of separate systems. For instance, information about 705-113-405 could easily be traded between various data banks to form a complete record of the subject's dealings and activities. We must take steps to ensure that this does not happen.
In summary, put in its simplest terms, the problem is that many generations after the development of the original computer data systems, we still do not even have laws to govern the use of first generation computers. My bill will not solve all the problems I have raised this afternoon. I do not claim that. But it would be a start, and that is what is needed. The rapid expansion of the information processing art has left us with little time remaining to deal intelligently with the situation. We just cannot afford to put this vital matter off until next year,
5280

April 27, 1971
Data Privacy Act
next session or next month. The time for action is now, for ultimately it will be too late.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to commend the hon. member for bringing forward this bill. His last few remarks regarding this existing problem in Canada were very cogent. The time to move is now, because we do need some kind of control over the rapid explosion of the data bank systems in credit bureaus and other areas which is taking place in this country of ours. The privacy of individuals can be invaded very easily in this highly technological era in which we live.
I am amazed to some extent that a bill such as this should be brought forward by a private member rather than by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). We, in Canada, are sometimes motivated in our legislative thinking by fears which date back to the depression years of the 1930's. We are trying to pass legislation geared for the 1970's based on our thinking of the past. Certain legislation in respect of whether my wife or another housewife buys the proper size can of pork and beans must be based on eighteenth century thinking. Our whole education system has failed completely if we are no longer able to judge the per ounce cost of a can of beans which contains 28 ounces. I suggest this whole concept is misguided and motivated by fears which arose during the depression years. Perhaps this is understandable when one thinks of the sociological effects of a depression. Many people in the government and in the House of Commons today were of young and tender years during the past depression. This may have had a formative effect on our thinking.
Our computers are here to stay and we are wondering whether we can effectively manage machines or whether machines will manage men. This is a question of the 1970's and we are very concerned about it. About a year or two ago, I attended a seminar of UNESCO which studied the whole question of computers and data banks. This was attended by two members from each of the many influential nations which belong to the United Nations. They discussed what was being done in their countries. There were two members from Russia, two from Sweden as well as representatives from other countries. I was particularly interested in this subject matter as a firm believer in the suggestion that the individuality of man must be protected. Man must always have control over machines and the society in which he lives.
The rapid increase in the use of computer systems and data bank information is beginning to have more and more effect on our society. The Swedish delegates to this seminar explained that the government of Sweden has a national data bank system with information on everybody. If my memory serves me correctly, it is against the law there for anybody else to have such a data bank system. The government system contains all the factual information that can be gathered in respect of the individual. An individual can have access to that information merely by dialing a telephone number. One of the delegates suggested that this was perfectly all right. If an individual wanted to hire someone in Sweden, all he had to do was phone this number to find out the job that individual now held, how much he was receiving and how many jobs he had held over the last ten years. In other words, he could ascertain quickly whether an individual was likely to stay in his employ for some time. He could ascertain quickly what the individual's former employer thought he was worth by finding out his present wage. This seems to be a bit frightening.
The Swedish delegates went on to explain that this system went a little further. The government had developed a scheme whereby they could put an isotope on the fingertip of every person in Sweden. Instead of having a social security number, as suggested by the former speaker, each person would have this isotope on his finger. In this way one could gain access to the whereabouts of that individual at any given time. The isotope could be fed into a computer system and at any time within the range of the computer system a government official could find out in what part of the city that isotope was. He could even determine whether you were at home with your wife or in a neighbouring city, where you were supposed to be, or down the road and across the street.
It is a frightening experience to listen to educated men explaining how carefully and closely you could be watched by a machine. We in this country have reached the stage of having a social security number. But they were even thinking of putting everybody on a particular isotope which could be implanted in the finger tip and all you would have to do is record the individual so that a computer could indicate where he was at any given time.
Surely we have advanced far enough in the system of data banks, credit bureaux and the relationship that a credit bureau will have to a particular individual to sit down as educated people and say that we must bring in legislation to protect the individual against possible false compilation of information. A section of Bill C-38 deals very fully with the ability of an individual to dial and receive information about himself filed in the bank and to request that the information be changed. I would go further than is suggested in the bill. If the data centre is not prepared to change the information, it should be possible to sue them and take them to court because they are releasing false data about a person. Then at least the courts could decide whether they were releasing false data.
It seems to me that our whole society depends on the individual and on his having as much freedom as possible to do what he wants to do. Our society is geared to the belief that we must have a higher quality of life. In my way of thinking we cannot have a high quality of life if some persons are allowed to compile false data about us and to release it without our knowledge.
We have had extensive discussion in the House about the RCMP compiling dossiers on Members of Parliament and anyone else. We may have some sense of security because surely the information they compile will only be released to a few people. However, credit bureaux and data information banks release information for a price- information which may be completely false.
Another interesting aspect of data banks and credit bureau systems established in this country is that in most

April 27, 1971

cases they are owned by U.S. concerns: all the information is being fed to a computer in a foreign country. It seems to me it is high time we took steps to control this machinery. They could exchange data bank information for a price and data banks could be drained dry in exchanging information. This is a very alarming possibility, because an individual might now know what information is compiled about him by data banks and with whom they have exchanged it.
This bill attempts to set out rules and regulations whereby a data bank would have to inform the individual who has asked what information was given about him. He could then ascertain how it was used and whether it was used in a manner which might detrimentally affect the health and welfare of his family and himself. I believe it is very important that an individual in our society knows what information is being spread about him throughout the country and how it is being used. If we believe in the concept that the individual is the all-important being in our society, surely we must take concrete action to assure individuals that in fact the government believes them to be all-important. If we do not accept that concept we can no longer believe that we are striving for a higher quality of life for the individual, because the misuse of information compiled without the knowledge of the individual can be detrimental to society as a whole.
I commend the Ontario government for establishing some sort of control. I think that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is operating from a fear complex, which perhaps originated in the 1930s, that if in fact 20 per cent of the tax dollar is spent on education, a person in our society will sooner or later be sufficiently educated to understand what is the proper size of a container in which he buys his food. But even with the best education that our society can provide, we cannot match the complex data systems that are being established on the North American continent-and I stress the words "North American continent". We are alarmed, as individuals, at their wide use and at the misuse of information which may detrimentally affect our society. If the government will not bring in legislation to give the individual tools with which to cope with the complex situation in which he finds himself in the twentieth century, then it is failing miserably to live up to its responsibilities in this day and age.
I commend the hon. member for introducing this bill. I hope he will be able to convince the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) that action along this line should be taken. I hope the bill will be sent to committee where it will receive exhaustive study. I am not naive enough to think that the government will accept the bill as drafted, but I would like to think that after studying it the government will bring in a similar bill or one with the same purpose, that is, the protection of the individual from a computer system which can compile and release false information about him which might be detrimental to him and his family.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I support the principle of this bill because I believe we
Data Privacy Act
must take steps to prevent the invasion of privacy-not just the invasion of privacy resulting from the misuse of information stored in data banks but the invasion of all privacy.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), before he was Prime Minister, said that the state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation, I agreed with him and commended him. When the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) proposes to bring in a bill which will, if not prohibit the use of wiretapping and electronic surveillance, certainly regulate and control it, I commend him and support it. When the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) is asked whether the RCMP are listening to telephone conversations of Members of Parliament and refuses to make a clear and unequivocal denial that such practice exists, I am critical of him-not because I believe, as some people have said, that Members of Parliament are a special class of citizens entitled to privileges to which nobody else is entitled, but because I believe that it is wrong to permit wiretapping.
Even if there are occasions when wiretapping or electronic surveillance may be necessary, it is wrong to permit it without the most severe checks on how and when it is done. So, Mr. Speaker, when the Solicitor General gives answers that can only be interpreted to mean that in all probability the RCMP are wiretapping the phones of some Members of Parliament, and when the police in Toronto issue a report-as they did a few days ago-that over a certain period of time they had wiretapped 57 telephones in Toronto without accounting to the Attorney General of the province, to a superior court judge or to anybody else except, I presume, to the chief of police of the city of Toronto, I am concerned because I have always believed and will continue to believe and hope that the people of this country are entitled to privacy.
I could not help being struck by some of the comments made by the hon. member who introduced this bill. He held up the horrible example of the province of Ontario which, according to him-and I remember reading the news item at the time-was considering permitting any person on payment of a $2 fee to get information stored in data banks, information which had been compiled for government purposes by the province. I am not enthused over that idea. I feel no needs to defend the government of Ontario, but one would have hoped that the hon. member would have been fair and would have also told hon. members of the House that recently the province of Ontario announced it was introducing legislation which would control the use of information collected by agencies, particularly private agencies, and would permit any person who asked to be shown the information collected about him in the records of agencies. The hon. member did not do that, and in all fairness I think it should be pointed out that the government of Ontario is to be commended for its example to all other provinces.
I am much more concerned about invasion of the privacy of the people of Canada by private agencies than I am about the invasion of their privacy by governments. But the hon. member who introduced the bill did not
April 27, 1971

Data Privacy Act
mention that at all. I suppose very lew ol us in Canada have not on occasion bought something without paying lor it lully in cash. Usually a person needs a mortgage to buy a house, credit to buy a car, a television set, a radio, a stove, a Irig or lurniture.
When we get credit cards, whether they be Irom Frei-mans, Eaton's, Simpsons-Sears or credit cards covering gas and oil purchases, we know that the companies issuing them will have made inquiries about us. But I wonder how many people realize that when such inquiry is made the inlormation collected is in all probability exchanged among the oil companies, the merchants and the credit bureaux all across Canada. In lact, as mentioned by the hon. member lor Crowloot (Mr. Horner), in all likelihood such inlormation is sent down lor processing to the United States. That is a risk which most ol us who want credit must lace.
What we have not realized is that during this collection ol inlormation about us, agencies not only get inlormation Irom the banks with which we deal, Irom retail companies and oil companies with which we deal, but also talk to our neighbours and acquaintances. Mr. Speaker, your neighbour may not be your Iriend. Your neighbour may have had an argument with you. Your neighbour may be ill-disposed to you, and to the inquiring organization your neighbour may give inlormation which in whole or in part is lalse. Your neighbour may tell somebody who inquires about you that you do not pay your bills. Your neighbour may tell somebody inquiring about you that you drink to excess.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or that you have not stopped beating your wile.


David Orlikow: As my colleague Irom Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says, your neighbour may say that you have not stopped beating your wile. Your neighbour may say you run around with somebody else's wile. All that inlormation-true, lalse, partially true, partially lalse-goes into your record and you may not know anything about it. II I had time I could read into the record many cases where mistakes were made, where people were denied jobs because allegations had been made about them which were not true but which the people concerned did not know about and which they could not disprove. I could cite cases ol people who were accused ol the most heinous crimes and did not know about the accusations.
It is because this kind ol thing goes on that I support the principle ol the bill. I believe a person is entitled to privacy. I believe a person has a right to know that adverse allegations have been made about him, so that he may defend himsell. I believe in the principle that the people ol Canada are entitled to privacy and are entitled to inspect data bank records and credit reports which are made about them. I believe that people are entitled to privacy, unless they are lawbreakers, against the incursions ol both government agencies and private agencies. Because ol this I am prepared to support the principle enunciated in the bill, although I was less than enthused over the arguments put forward by the hon. member who introduced it.
I listened with a great deal ol interest to the remarks ol hon. members, particularly the hon. member who just sat down. I am sure we all agree that in a democratic society we have a very strong obligation to preserve the rights ol individuals, and the right to privacy is very much part ol that. None ol us wants to create mechanisms which could be subverted at some luture date to the workings ol a police state.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker-and I am sure there is no disagreement in this respect-there are other aspects ol this bill which call for very carelul consideration before Parliament or any other body in Canada adopts it.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, briefly what is at stake here in our national policy with regard to computers. I suggest we have very basic objectives. We want to create in Canada a computer technology ol lull range Irom basic computers ol the so-called hardware type and design to the application ol special machines to serve business and consumers and to the creation ol computers to assist small, competitive businesses engaged in service to the public.
We want to create a leading place lor Canada in this industry because we recognize its basic importance in the development ol technology and improvement ol productivity in industry. I think we also want to provide a maximum range ol service to consumers. We want to prevent Iraud, and we want to make it possible lor consumers to use a credit card to purchase gasoline il they go on a trip to our neighbour to the south, rent a hotel room or purchase a number ol other things.
In an attempt to reach these basic objectives I suggest we are obliged to distinguish between private and public use ol data banks and computers. The hon. member exempted Irom his bill certain categories ol police investigation and data banks used lor that purpose and other public services. However, I note that many areas in which the hon. member claimed there was the possibility ol abuse did involve government. He talked about possible extension ol social security numbers and ol a test project ol the Department ol National Health and Welfare to ascertain what can be done with the application ol these numbers. He raised questions about the possible extension to other areas.
The very areas he has excluded Irom the bill, government services, are those wherein the problem he posed arises in its sharpest form. On the other hand, there are developments in the area ol private industry, to which this bill would primarily apply, which I think would create unnecessary restrictions and impede the development ol a national policy with regard to the best use ol computers.
Along with a number ol other members ol this House I accepted the invitation ol a local computer firm last week when Systems Dimensions Limited asked us to visit them, see what they are doing and learn something about the computer industry. I very much appreciated their hospitality. The service they placed at our disposal, the senior staff now accompanied us and the opportunity to

April 27, 1971

freely ask questions gave us a better understanding of what goes on.
One thing that struck me forcibly was the elaborate provision for privacy which was the essence of their service. They operate 24 hours a day. In many businesses, after closing at five o'clock an hour or two is spent putting basic data on computer tape, which is then fed by electronic devices, or in some cases over the telephone, to the computer bank. However, this firm had an elaborate precaution, extending to every member of its staff, which ensured that information coming from one customer was completely shrouded in secrecy. They were selling the service to industry and prided themselves on the fact that they had built security and privacy into their data bank that was foolproof against raids by competitors. It was the essence of their service that the 150 people using it were confident that when they bought the service none of the information would be available to anyone else.
I was pleasantly surprised to find that this company had developed an export business fully competitive in its pricing and range of service. It has a number of customers south of the border who find that they can come to Ottawa and buy the service more economically and efficiently than in neighbouring northern United States cities.
The hon. member who proposed this bill would prohibit the use of memory banks across international borders. I suggest that this cannot be prohibited. It has to be examined on its merits. We are developing an industry in this country with a population of 21J million people and the very essence of the industry is that it should be free to compete for business in the large market to the south. If we are prepared to do business to the south, we must be prepared to allow businesses based in the United States to have certain reciprocal access to our market where we offer a specialized service.
I use an international brand of gasoline and I cannot conceive of the situation where I cannot use my credit card almost anywhere on the North American continent. I know very well that when I make a purchase on my credit card, the details of the purchase will go into a computer bank. I would be naive to think that the computer bank would have to be located in Canada through any type of legislative compulsion that would fly in the face of the economics of the industry. I want to the service of that credit card and I have to face the consequences of the industry having a certain international aspect.
I agree with the intent of the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I agree that this is an important question. It deserves a place in the legislation not only of this House but of all democratic societies in the western world. The answers are not simple; they are not black and white-but they do not involve a prohibition on computer information going across an international border. They do not, I think, involve placing elaborate, red tape restrictions on access to information from data banks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.
Canada Labour (Standards) Code The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard): Order, please. The hour set aside for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I have just one remark to make about the subject under consideration. Perhaps we should legalize only those data banks which would store and freely provide information on the qualities and good points of individuals.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackasey that Bill C-228, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have dealt very thoroughly with our criticism of a number of the features of this legislation and it is my intention to emphasize only two of the points in the bill, the provision that deals with equal pay for women and the provision having to do with maternity leave.
This bill provides for the repeal of the Female Employees Equal Pay Act of 1956 and its replacement by new provisions. The minister emphatically explained that these new provisions are stronger than those in the old legislation. We certainly hope so. Under the old act differences in rates of pay were prohibited for men and women performing "identical or substantially identical work". Under the proposed section of the code this prohibition is extended by referring to "the same or similar work on jobs requiring the same or similar skill, effort and responsibility". The wording undoubtedly is more elaborate and detailed. I wish the minister had been a little more detailed in his explanation of the difference. I hope there is a difference and not merely a change of wording. I hope, also, that this provision will really represent a difference in practice. One wonders how fool proof the new legislation will be in practice.
The president of the Canada Labour Congress has referred to the fact that this provision is somewhat loosely worded: it is not very explicit. The new provision will make evasion a little more difficult for employers. It will still allow them to pay women at a lower rate for work which involves more skill and responsibility than work done by highly paid male workers. This situation exists in some industries. The minister said he wanted to carry

April 27, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
out the recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Paragraph 218 at page 67 of that report reads:
Canada has not, however, ratified the International Labour Organization convention concerning equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value (Convention 100). We believe that Canada should do this. Therefore, we recommend that a federal-provincial conference on labour legislation affecting women in Canada be called to prepare for Canada's ratification of the International Labour Organization convention concerning equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value (Convention 100).
The minister could indicate his stand with regard to this point which is made in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. I would like the minister to specifically state whether at the recent meeting in Ottawa the labour ministers discussed this point. Could I get the ear of the parliamentary secretary for one moment? I would like the parliamentary secretary to take note of this question. When the minister replies, will he state whether during the labour minister's conference there was discussion on the advisability of Canada ratifying the International Labour Organization's Convention 100. This is a recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.
The Canada Labour (Standards) Code affects approximately 530,000 employees who are under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Labour. There are approximately 2.5 million women in the labour force. In order to have effective legislation regarding equal pay for equal work, it would have to be parallelled by provincial legislation. Will the parliamentary secretary inform the minister that we would like him to report on whether this matter was also discussed at the recent labour ministers' conference and, if so, what was the result? If there were discussions, what was the general feeling about the possibility of getting parallel legislation in the provinces which would make the equal pay changes effective in the provinces?
One big improvement in this legislation, to which the minister referred, is the matter of complaints. He stated, quite rightly, that under the old legislation women were afraid to complain because of the fear of still further discrimination. Under the new bill, the minister stated that the onus will be on the inspectors of the Department of Labour to lay complaints and launch prosecutions. These provisions are only as good as the system of inspection that is established. How thorough will the inspection services be, and how will they be enforced? The fines will be higher, but not much higher than those under the Combines Investigation Act which have been criticized as being very inadequate for large firms.
My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), suggested that the Department of Labour should do more than just wait for complaints to turn up. He suggested that where more than 80 per cent of the positions in any job classification are held by members of one sex, the minister should order an investigation into the hiring, training and promotion practices of the industry concerned to see whether there could be a more equitable balance as between male and female employees. We do not say this should be on a 50-50 basis,
but where there is a large discrepancy between the number of male and female workers there should be an investigation into the hiring, training and promotion practices. A number of these points should be considered in committee.
While the new legislation is an improvement, it will be no better than the inspection and enforcement of its provisions. It will not be widespread or universal unless the provinces follow it through. I hope the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) will not wait for the provinces to do this on their own. One of the jobs of a federal minister ought to be to persuade the provinces and to follow through good legislation if only for the reason that there is a great deal of mobility of workers across Canada. There is no use having protection for a worker in one province if he moves to another province which is not under the legislative umbrella. This is equally true of women workers.
I want to deal briefly with the maternity leave provisions. I wish to express my satisfaction that the m.nister has introduced these two companion provisions. They represent a real advance in the promotion of women workers in Canada. However, I must make some criticism because this legislation does not go far enough. Although it is a step in the right direction, it is far from perfect. Many people will now be experiencing a degree of protection which they did not have before.
One shortcoming in this legislation is that an employee must be employed for 12 months with the same employer in order to qualify for 17 weeks of maternity leave. As the employer will not be required to provide leave with pay but merely unpaid leave of absence, it is hard to understand the need for such a requirement. We would like to know wherein the need lies. It limits a woman's mobility in the work force and restricts the recognition of her right to be in the work force regardless of her biological function of childbearing. At a time when a woman is most in need of a job because of the additional expenses involved, this provision will still allow employers to fire a woman who becomes pregnant if she has not had the luck to work for him for 12 months before becoming pregnant. This seems to us to constitute a real hardship and a shortcoming in the legislation, which ought to be modified. Here again, the minister has probably noted that his legislation differs from the report of the royal commission which recommended 18 weeks of maternity leave, not 17. Again, we should like to know the reason for failure to follow the commission's recommendation.
Moreover, the act only prohibits an employer from dismissing a woman solely because of her pregnancy. The royal commission suggested a blanket prohibition against dismissing a woman, on any ground, during her pregnancy. This blanket provision was recommended because it would prevent an employer from citing a spurious reason for releasing a woman when the actual reason for dismissal was her pregnancy. This is a situation in which the advice of the commission might well be taken. Many employers do not like having pregnant women in the labour force: as a matter of fact, they do not like having

April 27, 1971

women in the labour force at all and they might well be inclined to cloak their dismissal of a pregnant woman by some other excuse. For this reason it might be well to follow the commission's recommendation by flatly preventing dismissing a woman during her pregnancy.
Another criticism I should like to make concerns the lack of flexibility of the legislation. The clause providing for 11 weeks' leave prior to confinement and six weeks after should be changed so as to eliminate the distinction between before and after childbirth. There is little reason for most women to sit at home and do nothing in the last 11 weeks prior to childbirth. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; I am afraid my sore throat is the result of our convention.


Raymond J. Perrault: All that cigar smoke!


An hon. Member:: I did not know she smoked cigars.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I warn hon. members that I intend to get through this speech. I hope it will not be too embarrassing for them, but I intend to finish it.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: Such women are not sick. In most cases they are fully capable of performing their jobs. A woman with a new baby, a baby she might be nursing, would have much more use for time off after the birth than before. If a woman were allowed to make her own arrangements regarding the 17 weeks, she might well prefer to take one or two weeks off prior to the birth of the child and 16 weeks off afterward. Some of our women friends note that this clause clearly shows the effect of masculine thinking in the drawing up of legislation, rather than that of women. I hope the parliamentary secretary is not responsible for the drafting here, because if he is he will have a lot of explaining to do.


Raymond J. Perrault: It was a very complicated clause.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has had no
experience.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Maybe it is complicated, but it is too rigid; it lacks the flexibility it ought to have. Again, in this case it is important that there be consultation between the department and the provinces. While unemployment insurance covers all women in the labour force, this does not; it refers only to women in industries and services which come under federal jurisdiction. It is most important that maternity leave should be extended to all women in the labour force in addition to unemployment insurance, and I trust such leave will be granted in a parallel way.
These are some of the points I wanted to emphasize, although I realize they have been raised earlier. I hope that this legislation will, as a result of consultation with the provinces and consequent action, be extended across Canada in an even-handed way. This may be a small step but it is a genuine step in the right direction. If the inspection and enforcement arrangements can be made foolproof we shall have registered a definite gain in
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
increasing security for women workers across this country.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Before the House rose for dinner, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) spoke of his trusting naivety back in 1965 when he was first elected a Member of Parliament. He indicated that when the Labour (Standards) Code was introduced at that time he believed it was a great document, one which would do great things for workers in the federal sphere.
As a matter of interest I decided to look back in Hansard to see just what kind of trust he had in the bill when it was passed at that time. I will put just one short quotation on record to show that his views have not changed a great deal since then. As reported on page 11534 of Hansard for February 19, 1965, he said: "Indeed, the whole act probably ought not to be here at all." I presume he meant here in the House, or before the House. So I suggest his critical attitude today is not much different from what it was then.
There was also an exchange between the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Winnipeg North prior to dinner in connection with the minimum wage standard, which this bill suggests ought to be $1.75 an hour. The hon. member told us that his party thought it should be higher, that perhaps it ought to be $2 an hour. I am not quarrelling with that. I think the committee ought to look into that side of the question. But it is interesting to note that the only province in Canada where the New Democratic Party is in power has provided for a minimum wage of $1.50. I hope they will follow the example of this bill and make it at least $1.75 an hour.


John Leroy Skoberg: You were not here to hear my hon. friend.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I was here and I did listen to him.


André-Gilles Fortin: Speak on this bill instead of bawling! [English]


Norman Augustine Cafik: If we may have order, I will continue, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, I hope they follow our example. It is interesting to recall that last year we made a change in the legislation to raise the minimum wage to $1.65 an hour, and that has not yet been followed by all the provinces, including the province I have mentioned which has an NDP government.


Mr. Stanbury:: Shame!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I should like to make a few observations at this point before the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. First, I hope the measure will be passed expeditiously in order that these amendments may take effect on the proposed date of July 1 this year.
As we all know, federal labour standards were first introduced in 1965. The importance of these standards rests on the example the federal government sets for

April 27, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
other jurisdictions as much as on the degree of assistance given to the limited number of employees presently working under federal jurisdiction.
In 1965, the first federal code established the minimum wage at $1.25 an hour. In July, 1970, this was changed to $1.65, and in these proposals it is suggested this figure be amended to $1.75. I support this proposed change, but more importantly I endorse the fact that under this legislation the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, can increase the figure from time to time without specific legislation being required. The power given to the minister and to the Governor in Council will, I hope, eliminate the long delays in making changes and, hopefully, will result in an annual review of the minimum wage for people working within federal jurisdiction. I hope the committee will give consideration to recommending that the Minister of Labour review this minimum standards annually.
This bill is of particular importance since we have an obligation to protect the unorganized labour forces in Canada which come within federal jurisdiction. Hopefully, as I said before, this legislation should set an example to other jurisdictions and encourage them to take the same action within their areas of responsibility. Most of the members of this House realize that approximately 60 per cent of the labour force of Canada is without the protection of a labour union. On the federal level there is a 50-50 split between organized and unorganized labour. In view of the large numbers of people concerned, these amendments assume particular importance.
The minimum wage standards set in this legislation do not apply to employees under 17 years of age. In 1965 specific regulations were established to set the rate for such people at $1 per hour. In July last year, this rate was raised to $1.40 per hour. It is my understanding that the minister will recommend to cabinet, following passage of this bill, that the regulation be changed to establish the rate at $1.50 per hour. I hope that the minister will review the minimum wage for those under 17 years of age in our work force at the same time as he reviews the over-all minimum wage for those over the age of 17, and that this will be done annually in both instances.
In clause 17, at page 13 of the bill, there is a provision dealing with the individual termination of employment whereby two weeks' notice, or pay in lieu of notice, must be given to an employee with three months' service or more. This provision will apply to all regular employees but not to those performing managerial functions or in professional categories. Frankly, I fail to see why this distinction must be made between ordinary employees and management or professional employees and I trust that the standing committee will look carefully at this question and satisfy itself that there are compelling reasons for making this exception. If there are not compelling reasons, I hope the committee will recommend the elimination of this distinction.
Still on clause 17, I want to talk for a few moments about severance pay and to support the provision where-

by an employee with five or more years' service receives two days per year severance pay, to a maximum of 40 days. Obviously, this does not apply to an employee whose employment has been terminated for just cause, or who is entitled to pension whether it be the Canada pension or the like. I hope the committee will give consideration to reviewing these provisions with the thought of establishing a two-day benefit for every year of service without the five-year minimum requirement.
I make this suggestion because it seems to me that if it is valid to give a person 10 days' severance pay after five years' service, then it is unfair to cut any benefit for a person with only four years and 11 months' service. If we were to establish benefits on the basis of two days for every one year of service, then after one year a person would receive two days' pay; after four years he would receive eight days' pay, and so on. I think that is a reasonable suggestion to make. Although the minister may well have some valid reason why it cannot be implemented, I hope the committee will carefully review this suggestion. Excluded from the severance pay provisions are those in a managerial or professional category. Once more, I fail to see why the distinction has to be made between them and ordinary employees.
The bill also covers group termination of employment. This proposed new part provides that an employer contemplating the termination of employment of 50 or more workers within a four-week period must give the Minister of Labour notice in writing. A copy of the notice must be sent to the nearest Canada Manpower centre and to the trade unions concerned. This part will apply to all employees, including persons performing managerial functions and professional people, but will exclude those who are seasonally or irregularly employed. I suggest that the committee give careful consideration to this proposal, because those employees who are not covered by labour union contracts-in other words, those who have an individual relationship with their employer-are not really given specific notice under this legislation.
I should like to read the provision on page 11 of the bill. The section deals with the notice that must be given to the Minister of Labour and to the labour union. As far as the person not covered by labour union agreement is concerned, the bill provides:
-and where any employee in such group is not represented by a trade union, a copy of such notice shall he given to him or posted forthwith by the employer in a conspicuous place-
I suggest that when the committee reviews the bill, it should give consideration to deleting the word "or" and substituting therefor the word "and", so that the bill would then provide that there is an obligation on the employer to give notice to the individual not covered by labour contract as well as to post that notice in a conspicuous place. I do not think that this proposal would be difficult to implement. Generally speaking, I am 100 per cent in favour of the provisions dealing with group termination of employment. I think they are long overdue. Under these provisions, an employer who wants to lay off between 50 and 100 workers within a four-week period would have to give eight weeks' notice; if he wanted to lay off between 100 and 300 workers he would have to
April 27, 1971

give 12 weeks' notice; and to lay off more than 300 workers would require 16 weeks' notice.
Clause 17 of the bill also makes provision for dismissal for garnishment. I think it is high time the government implemented this kind of legislation and I hope that other jurisdictions will follow suit. I think this legislation is an example for them and, as I said before, it is high time we ended discrimination against those who find themselves in financial difficulties, who have their pay cheques garnisheed and who prior to now were very often, if not in the vast majority of cases, fired because the employer did not like the inconvenience of having to go through the garnishee formalities.
I should like also to comment on the maternity leave provision of this bill. I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). I know the interest she has in the rights of women and I share much of her concern in this regard. The hon. member has made two or three suggestions that are worthy of careful consideration by the committee. I agree with her when she said I hope I quote her correctly that the maternity leave provision and the equal pay benefits Eire real advances for the women workers of Canada.
I do not believe, however, that any piece of legislation is perfect, and I am sure there is room for improvement in this bill. Under the proposal, an employee who has completed 12 months' employment with her employer would be entitled to maternity leave of up to 11 weeks before delivery of the child and six weeks after. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway suggested that the 12 months ought to be reconsidered and I agree with that. I also agree that perhaps there should be a degree of flexibility as to whether a person should be entitled to the leave prior to the birth of the child or after. In my experience, being the father of five children, often the real crisis is after the birth of the child and not before. This varies a great deal, depending on individual conditions including the temperament of the woman involved. There is good reason for the committee to consider this suggestion very carefully.
I am heartily in favour of the equal pay provisions. As a matter of fact, at a convention in Ottawa about a year ago, in the Chateau Laurier, I remember putting forward a resolution which was passed, changing the approach from equal pay for equal work to equal pay for similar work. It is much easier to say that someone is performing a similar function than to say it is an equal function. "Equal" implies that it is equal in every detail. I believe that if it is similar work, that is enough.
I believe that the provision for equal pay for similar work with similar responsibilities is a considerable improvement in terms of terminology and I think it will have a practical effect in terms of the relationship between employers and employees. I hope the employers will look upon this as a meaningful change and will be much more careful in the way they apply salaries to men and women in order to ensure that they are in fact equal if the work is similar.
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
In closing, may I say I strongly support this bill to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. It is a major step forward in the protection of workers in Canada under federal jurisdiction. Even more important, I think it is a great step forward by way of example for other jurisdictions to follow. I sincerely hope that the provinces will follow the lead we have given so that people all across Canada will be able to work under some kind of universal labour code which would be in their interest and the interest of the country as a whole.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, speaking of the lay-off of 500 employees by Canadian Vickers Limited, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) said this to the House on May 26, 1969, as reported on page 9040 of Hansard:
Last fall I undertook to bring this kind of legislation forward and... all parties supported me. I said on that occasion, however. that I could not visualize such legislation being before the House until late fall or early spring, and I see no reason which would enable me to advance that date.
At that time, the minister recognized that present legislation is inadequate and obsolete in many respects. Today, as we study Bill C-228 amending the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and setting up new labour standards, it would seem that the minister has at last found the spring he spoke of then, and I congratulate him.
Although the amendments introduced by Bill C-228 have long been overdue-a practice which, by the way, seems to suit this government-I am in agreement generally as to the principles involved.
None the less, as our group usually does when we find errors in a bill introduced by the government, we make whatever criticisms and suggestions that seem appropriate.
It has been a long time since the government first promised such a bill, and more specifically since the 1968 general election, and we would have expected this bill to be the result of thorough consideration. Unfortunately, in spite of this long wait, this bill is definitely inadequate. At the most, it is but the pretence of a bill dealing among other things with termination of employment and I will endeavour to limit my comments to this matter even though there are other less important issues discussed in this bill.
I will give an example in order to prove how superficial and confusing this bill is. As regards group or individual terminations of employment, clause 17 of the bill provides for the addition of several Parts, and I should like to quote subclause (4) of clause 341 of new Part I VC. It reads as follows:
Except where otherwise prescribed by regulation, an employer shall, for the purposes of this Part, be deemed to have terminated the employment of an employee where he lays off this employee.
First of all, it will be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the beginning of this clause is drafted in this way:
Except where otherwise prescribed by regulation...
5288

April 27, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
In short, when reading this bill we find that it is somehow a statement of principle or of general philosophy about the Canada Labour Code and that there is, moreover, a series of rules which hon. members may not even discuss in this House and that may very often be inconsistent with the Labour Code itself.
It is quite clear that a one- or two-day lay-off, does not come under the clause I just quoted and, to support this, I wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues subclause (d) of new clause 34K. Here is what strikes me and what should be brought to the attention of the House: no limit is set; everything will be decided through regulations.
We can see in the Quebec Labour Code that a lay-off at the provincial level cannot be final before six months.
On the other hand, under Ontario employment standards, a lay-off is considered as final if it exceeds 13 weeks out of 20.
There are other standards in other provinces.
There is quite diversity and, for sure, we can say that there is no uniformity, comparison or co-operation from one province to the other in this field.
If the minimum lay-off period which commands a notice under the proposed legislation is one week only, it is too short. However, if the minimum period is six months as in Quebec it would be too long but I will never get the opportunity to say anything about it as a member of Parliament because this period is not to be established by this House through the passing of a bill but through regulations. This system which gives precedence to regulations by putting only general provisions in the standards is unacceptable. This is often the problem with this government.
The bill we are asked to pass is high-sounding but it gives rise to injustices and doubts of all kinds and invites all kinds of interpretations. Even after a three-year study of the question, the solution is no nearer than it was before. The government bring this measure forward in hoste, a method which is more or less effective and always uncertain. In that way, the government hopes to get some support from the Canadian people and the agreement, at least in principle, of the opposition. But the legislation is so awkwardly drafted that the opposition has no other alternative then to object to details.
Unfortunately, the electorate does not realize that and it is easy then for the government to accuse us of obstruction. The opposition is blamed for not having allowed the government to approve a social security program but as a matter of fact, it is its own fault.
The young offenders' legislation was withdrawn so as to correct political as well as drafting errors.
The government organization bill was a failure, for lack of proper policy and drafting.
Today we have a major problem, although a ridiculous one, which is being met by the bill before us now. That is why, instead of a thorough account of Canadian labour standards, all we find in Bill C-228 are general ideas, many superficial things and nothing precise. For instance,-and I should like to make a detailed study of

that to illustrate my point-this is what we find in the
new section 34K:
The Governor in Council may make regulations
(b) requiring employers to comply with the provisions of this Part in respect of terminations of employment of groups of employees numbering less than fifty but greater than a number prescribed in the regulations;
Nobody knows under what conditions such a regulation could be used. There is nothing about it in the bill; the governor in council will decide that unilaterally, without consultation with Parliament. Are these estimates as those made in Ontario or are these different considerations? How many employees will be required for an employer to come under this regulation? Nobody knows.
The figure stated in subclause (b) of the new clause 34M is essential to the operation of the legislation. This is not at all a minor detail. In fact, it is important to know exactly the meaning of the word "figure". But nothing is said about it. Moreover, most labour standards in the other provinces are based on the forecast concept. Nevertheless, as regards the group termination of employment, new clause 34L provides for detrimental applications of the act and does not provide for forecast. Any notice of lay-off is probably detrimental to the employer or the employees but if we want a fair application of the law, no exemption should exist in the case of foreseeable termination of employment.
In the case of individual terminations of employment, I wonder why all employees, whatever their seniority undistinctly receive the same notice.
In Ontario, the notice period depends on how long the employee has been working for his employer. The notice depends on seniority. If he has been working, for instance, for two years, the notice should be one week. If he has been working from two to five years, the notice should be two weeks. If he has been working from five to ten years, the notice should be four weeks; if he has been working for over ten years, it should be eight weeks. It is considered that an employee with more experience is more important to the employer, and the employer because of the importance of this employee cannot fire him under such a short notice as those with less experience.
But, anyway, under the current administrative system, whether someone is experienced or not, whether he has education or not, he does not work and the bill now before us will not change his condition.
It is easier to predict the laying off of an employee with years of experience than it is in the case of a worker with little or no seniority. This procedure also seems fairer since an Ontario worker with 11 years of experience, for instance, among a group of 48 will get the same notice as if he were part of a group numbering from 50 to 200 people.
Now, under the scheme provided in Bill C-228, this man will get only two weeks' notice notwithstanding his years of service or anticipation of impending lay-offs,
April 27, 1971

whereas, belonging to a group of over 50 workers, he would get eight weeks' notice.
This is a fine example of how the government complicates its legislations and makes them incomprehensible for the ordinary worker and even for those attempting to become experts in that field.
Moreover, the Ontario Labour Code specifies that the legislation in no way alters any right favourable to the employee. But such a clause cannot be found in the standards put forward by the federal government today. Why should there be such inconsistencies between federal and provincial legislations?
Mr. Speaker, does this mean that in the case of a single lay-off, the individual laid off can claim only two weeks' notice? Is he not entitled to request a longer notice under a collective agreement or common law? If not, the standards proposed today will be prejudicial to the employee who would otherwise be entitled to a longer notice.
Furthermore, in order to make as complicated a study as the proposed legislation itself, I will say that common law provides for a notice on the part of the employee who wishes to leave his job, a notice which is not at all affected by the bill under consideration, and the required notice involves many factors, including the period of payments, the terms of employment and so forth.
At any rate, the period of notice must be reasonable- and I use here the expression of the bill itself-that is in many cases, the notice required from an employee who wishes to leave his job will be longer than that required from his employer, if the latter decides to lay him off. Such a situation is so abnormal that it must be dealt with first, but in this connection neither the minister nor his parliamentary secretary would give us any explanation.
At least, the requirements about the period covered by the notice should be the same for both sides. That is my first request to the minister. There is no reason to make them heavier for the employee than they are for the employer.
Mr. Speaker, it would be better to assure workers the period most favourable to them on the basis of seniority and, thus, on anticipation in order to recognize the rights usually granted to those who have more years of service with the employer.
We might also consider the problem of vacations. After a certain period of employment, a worker is entitled to vacations, but according to the bill now before us, the employer decides when to grant them. No provision of the present legislation prevents the employer from giving two weeks' notice to an individual, saying that the period coincides with his vacations. This does not seem to run counter to new clause 34N, because this would not decrease the rate of pay nor change any other condition of employment. This way, an employer might withhold from his employee two weeks' pay to which he would be otherwise entitled, without the employee being able to say anything against it. That is another inequity which workers cannot and should not put up with.
As for garnishment and its effect on employment, another part of the legislation deals with it. I agree
24081-54S
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
entirely with the content of new clause 34U, although its introduction is late.
There are several other things remaining and which have not been provided for in the proposed legislation. I shall deal with them through questions which I shall put very humbly and politely to the minister, in the hope that he will give a reply before the end of this debate.
First of all, what would be the effect of a strike on the notice period? Secondly, can an employer give notice to his employees while a strike is in progress, without having to pay them compensation? Thirdly, would employees having been given the required notice be allowed to strike and, at the same time, be paid by the employer, pursuant to the same act? Further, will an illegal strike be dealt with in the same way as a legal one, with regard to the notice? What will be the effect of a lock-out?
Those are important questions to which, at present, no answer is given. I do not want to take up any more of the time of the House, but I do feel that answers to those questions should be given by the Minister of Labour or his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Perrault) so that no doubts should subsist with regard to Bill C-228.
May I say that this is one of those bills which are very complicated and very difficult to understand by the worker and by the employer, both of whom we wish to protect.
It seems to me-and this does not come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Labour-that those who are responsible for the drafting of bills should make an effort to simplify the text.
Being unaware of the minister's intentions, I should like to recommend to him-
[English)


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member? The hon. member has asked a number of important questions, but with all due respect I think the questions he directed to this side would be more appropriately asked at the committee stage. However, they were important questions and I will make certain that the minister is apprised of them before he makes his formal reply tomorrow.
However, Mr. Speaker, I wish to know whether the hon. member is seeking detailed replies from me this evening, because I think it would be impossible to give such detailed replies in anything but a committee setting. This is the question I ask: Does the hon. member expect replies this evening?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the attention paid to my remarks by the parliamentary secretary. Of course, I do not expect an answer to these questions immediately, since I am hoping for a detailed and full answer about these basic problems, as the parliamentary secretary said himself. I hope at least that I shall obtain a full answer to these questions before the vote on

April 27, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
the motion for third reading of this bill in order to be aware of all the consequences.
In view of the complex drafting of this legislation, I should like to recommend to the minister that he redraft the bill so as to make it understandable to everybody, to employers and employees who have not all had the chance to become learned draftsmen such as those whom the government employs to draft legislation that, besides, they are the only ones to understand.
Considering the importance of this bill-and I should make the same remarks about the unemployment insurance bill-the wording should be clearer.
While speaking on this bill, my colleague from Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) quoted some clauses that are completely incomprehensible: a cow would not recognize its own calf, which shows how complicated this bill is.
It seems to me that as Members of Parliament, our first duty is not only to pass intelligent laws, but also and foremost, if we really want to serve the interests of Canadians, to make these laws easily understood by all. They should be drafted in French and in English, instead of being translated word for word, because very often the French version is incomprehensible in regard to the English text.
At any rate, without any intention of blaming the Translation Bureau, which does excellent work, I feel that because of the complexity of the present bill, a point on which the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me, the department should be strongly urged to bring out some kind of leaflet explaining each clause of the bill in simple words, illustrated by examples, in order to enable all those the bill is to help, both employers and employees, really to derive therefrom the benefits planned by the government.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that throughout my remarks I have stressed the striking disparities between federal and provincial legislation in this particu-liar field. Actually when we try to solve a problem we must refer to innumerable acts and compare provincial legislation to federal legislation, since employees are not treated the same way in all provinces.
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Department of Labour should make a special effort in this direction and cooperate closely with the provincial governments in order to ensure more uniformity as far as Canadian labour standards are concerned, and a better treatment for the employees. It is not normal that the workers of one province be treated in a different way than those of an other province.
It seems that those are promising avenues which the minister may not open up at this time, but in respect of which he can work hard in order to give back to the workers, the employers and employees, not merely in words, but by means of legislation the security and uniformity of labour standards recognized from one province to another.
Nevertheless, this bill deals with termination of employment, lay-off, advance notice, and the like, but
there remains that as long as our financial system is not entirely revamped, this type of bill dealing with lay-offs, leaves, etc., will not solve the basic problem.
Accordingly, this bill, just like so many others, is nothing but a poultice on a wooden leg.


Mr. Paul Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great satisfaction that I participate in this debate on amendments to the Canadian Labour (Standards) Code. I understand that the Code only applies to workers directly under federal jurisdiction, but nevertheless we are now discussing an important component of the social policy of the government.
Of all the sections in the Code, there is one which appears capital to me, namely, the section on minimum wage.
The provisions of the amendment in this respect are a good reflection of Canadian tradition in the field of labour. Indeed, we all consider as unjust the existence of starvation wages which allow some industries to survive by generating poverty. I am proud to support this tradition whereby natural market forces can operate freely only above a vital minimum for workers. I believe in the principle of free enterprise, I believe in a minimum of government intervention in the market, but I also believe that government has a responsibility to ensure that employers in this country pay their employees with a minimum of decency.
As I was saying a few moments ago, the establishment of a minimum wage is a significant milestone in the social policy of any government. However, one of its special features is that the cost is not directly and totally absorbed by the government. In other words, in establishing the minimum wage, the government is asking the private sector to carry its part of the load to bring about a society where social justice prevails. The minimum wage affects this class of citizens who are not covered by other social measures, that is low wage-earners. As a rule, since these people are working, they are not entitled to welfare and unemployment insurance benefits and they cannot avail themselves of manpower retraining programs. Therefore, they cling to the minimum wage, and in my view, the government must not only make sure that its level is adequate, but that all employers under federal jurisdiction comply with it. I believe that the basic question lies in the establishment of a minimum wage and knowing who receives it, who foots the bill and what the effects of these two factors are.
As I was saying a while ago, the one who benefits from it is the worker who, in spite of his salary, still lives in poverty. We find this worker in industries where labour is the most important factor and, generally speaking, he is not trained. I should like to add that, according to my experience in the world of labour, an important part of these workers are women, and as all hon. members know, the ratio of women in the labour force

April 27, 1971

has considerably increased in the last few years. Moreover, in most cases, where both husband and wife work, the woman's salary allows the family to live barely beyond the poverty level. In that perspective, it therefore seems imperative to me that in setting a minimum wage, one should be realistic and take into account, not just the needs of the workers, but also his contribution to the economy of the land.
It must be noted that by setting the minimum wage at $1.75, we give a new incentive to the Canadian citizen to leave the ranks of the people on welfare and join those of the labour force.
I should like to touch on another subject now, namely, who pays the bill when the government increases the minimum wage? Obviously, it turns to the employer. Unfortunately, we hear too much criticism to the effect that the minimum wage will force some industries to close their plants. In this regard and without hesitation, I say that the employer who cannot guarantee his employees a vital minimum has no right to stay in business. On the other hand, on a more positive basis, the minimum wage may spur these industrialists into modernizing their equipment, into rationalizing their operations and, consequently, into putting themselves in a more favourable position to face national and international competition.
I recognize that too high a minimum wage could create unemployment. I believe the answer to this problem is to keep the minimum wage within bounds.
I have followed last night's debate with a great deal of interest. The ease with which some opposition members recommend a higher minimum wage has surprised me. Do they not know that the minimum wage that is being proposed is above that provided in any provincial legislation, and that barely a year ago, the minimum wage provided by the federal government was only $1.25? Are they not aware of the disturbing effect of too high a minimum wage on some of the poorer areas of this country?
Obviously it is easy'-and some take pleasure in doing so-to recommend a higher minimum wage than that provided in the bill. But why stop at $2.00 per hour? Why not propose $2.10, $2.15 or even $2.25? If no consideration is given to the balance between social justice and economic vitality, why should hon. members show such moderation in their suggestions?
Therefore, I would like to point out that Canadian tradition has always been favourable to the collective bargaining system, and that is felt in all labour negotiations in Canada. In my opinion, the determination of wages must normally be the result of negotiations between employers and unions, according to the rules established by government. However, since unionization is not compulsory, the government should guarantee that workers not covered by collective agreements are protected by the law. In that regard, I approve its position in determining minimum standards in a variety of cases such as severance pay, maternity leave, notices of termination of employment and hours of work.
Canada Labour (Standards) Code


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


An hon. Member:: I thought the member wanted the minister to reply.


Raymond J. Perrault: I think the understanding has been that tomorrow the minister will be granted an opportunity to make his final reply.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there was some discussion and I think there was an understanding that when we reached the point where no one else wished to speak, we would agree that debate be considered closed except for the minister's concluding speech. Of course, if anybody else wants to speak, let him do so now or forever hold his peace.


Mr. Peters:: That can only happen if we call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I take it that no hon. members wish to participate in the debate at this point. As I understand it, if there is agreement there will be an order that the debate be concluded at this stage of the bill subject to the right of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) to make a closing speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Then we call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Speaker, we are agreed on that. We are even willing to call it ten o'clock, if you like.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would like to speak on the point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Raymond J. Perrault: It is not a point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I understand that debate on Bill C-228 will continue when the minister returns; he will speak on second reading before the bill is referred to committee. I have reason to believe that members who are away today for reasons unknown to us may wish to speak at a later date. Will this be permitted, or is debate being held over for the sole purpose of allowing the minister to speak? I wonder if this point could be cleared up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome).


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.

April 27, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, there was a suggestion this afternoon from members opposite that a more appropriate way to handle this matter would be that rather than having the minister's statement made in his absence by someone else, which is what we suggested at first, the debate be concluded at this point and the minister would make his final speech tomorrow. It was agreed that if the minister were here and did speak, it would conclude the debate. If hon. members opposite do not want to go along with that suggestion, we can adjourn the debate to another day.
It has been suggested that if the minister were here and intervened tonight, that would conclude the debate. The simpler thing to do would be to conclude the debate by agreement and have the minister's intervention tomorrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think hon. members would want to take a great deal of time discussing this point. The Chair's understanding is that there was unanimous agreement among the House leaders, but of course if there is not agreement the order cannot be made and the Chair will be guided by the House and will call another order of business.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might speak again for a few moments in order to facilitate the passage of this legislation. The minister is not here this evening and, as the assistant government whip has pointed out, the minister would like to close the debate. I would like to hear him because he is a very imaginative and informative Minister of Labour. In light of this I believe passage of the legislation could best be facilitated by calling it ten o'clock and hearing the minister's remarks on another occasion.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on the point of order advanced initially by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). The minister is absent this evening because he is speaking to the Ontario school teachers. Because of the complex nature of the legislation before us-and a series of very complex questions have been asked-it was the minister's intention to study carefully the debate as recorded in Hansard this evening so that he could answer in detail the pertinent questions raised by hon. members on the other side of the House.
Accord was reached earlier today to the effect that we would deal with the second reading stage this evening and that tomorrow the minister would be given the privilege of replying to these questions. I would hope hon. members on both sides of the House would consider this to be a useful procedure.


William Arnold Peters: Calling it ten o'clock is the easy way out.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no such agreement.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It has been moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome), seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode), that the debate be now adjourned. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the circumstances we will agree to dispense with a motion in writing because of the very urgent nature of this motion.



FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AGENCIES BILL


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-176, to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. On the report stage of Bill C-176, which is now before the House for consideration, the Chair understands there have been discussions on the procedure to be followed. As hon. members know, there is authority in the Chair to group or combine certain amendments. I believe there are some 30 amendments to be considered at this stage of the debate. Perhaps I might put to hon. members what I understand is the agreement, and if there should be a divergence of opinion I know hon. members will say so. I will read the notes I have, and if there is agreement it could be put in the form of an order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Chair has a difficult job in attempting to sort out the amendments, some of which have a great deal of similarity. I regret very much that the Chair has not consulted the movers of the amendments. The motivation behind the amendments can best be described by the movers, and therefore the grouping of the amendments can best be determined by the movers with the expertise of the Chair. Therefore, I suggest to the Chair that there may be disagreement in respect of the grouping of the amendments because the Chair has not seen fit to consult the movers.
I raise this point, Mr. Speaker, only as a suggestion. We are all grouping under a new set of rules with regard to report stage. I raise this point now to suggest to the Chair that on a future occasion a similar situation might arise and it might be advisable if the Chair, before
April 27, 1971

grouping amendments, consulted the movers of the amendments to agree on their grouping.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the hon. member's suggestion. The Chair is about to put forward suggestions with which it is hoped hon. members will agree in order to facilitate the debate. Of course, the hon. members in whose names the motions stand are primarily concerned and I agree that their wishes might well be considered, but hon. members realize the Chair has authority to make the grouping. However, the Chair would not want to force it on hon. members who are reluctant to accept it.
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 inclusive relate to subclause (c) of clause 2 and it is suggested that these three motions be grouped for the purpose of debate but that the question on each be put separately.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I realize your grouping is final in this instance, but it might be advisable to seek-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I thought I had indicated that these groupings, at least in the opinion of the Chair, at this point are not final. I would hope they would be and I believe there is general consent, but I do not want to impose the suggestions I have in mind on the hon. member for Crowfoot, although I hope he will accept them.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interruption by the Chair because I have always worked on a very sparse margin of hope. I suggest that you consider grouping amendments Nos. 1, 5 and 22. In so doing we would still be taking three amendments together. I might briefly explain the reason. If one quickly reads amendment No. 1 he will see it suggests basically that no commodity group be included in the bill.
The argument put forward repeatedly by the minister and the chairman of the committee has been that this is permissive and enabling legislation. The context of amendments 1, 5 and 22 basically is that the bill would be made enabling or permissive legislation. The order paper, however, lists these amendments in the order of the clauses in the bill. In other words, clause 2 automatically comes before clause 18. Amendment No. 22 deals with clause 18. The intent of the amendment to clause 18, the intent of the amendment to clause 5 and the intent of the amendment to clause 2(c) would make the bill permissive and enabling legislation, as the proponents of the bill suggest. That is why I object.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, to take the other amendments which Your Honour suggests should be grouped, state in essence that all farm products should be in the bill except, as No. 2 suggests, cattle and calves and, as No. 3 suggests, except hogs and pork products. There is a basic difference. No. 1 suggests that nobody shall be included unless they request to be included and can prove to the minister and the Governor in Council that the majority of the producers want inclusion. In order to give that amendment some teeth, further amendments have to be moved to clause 2(g) and clause 18(1) and (2).
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
I would rather Your Honour followed the pattern of grouping amendments and calling on the movers, to better understand their intent on moving these amendments, rather than grouping them in the way suggested. The Chair might then better follow the intent of the amendments, the debate would become very much simpler and it would be clearer for Your Honour to rule on the amendments.
As I understand it, the purpose of grouping amendments is to create a situation in which Your Honour can rule a certain speech in order or out of order. The speeches at report stage must pertain to the amendment specified. I do not object to the authority of the Chair to group amendments, but I believe that in future it will be better to have consultation with the movers of amendments so that their intent in moving the amendment can be considered. The debate would then follow the intent of motions so grouped.
I suggest to hon. members, the government House leader and Your Honour-the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture are not here-that owing to the efforts of the assistant government whip a few minutes ago and in light of the argument I have put forward with regard to grouping, perhaps we should now call it ten o'clock. A regrouping of amendments could take place tomorrow morning before the bill is debated. I would be in favour of that; I think it would facilitate early agreement on how these amendments should be dealt with.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would like to read a suggestion into the record so that hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), might have an opportunity, in line with this suggestion, to give further consideration to the manner in which the motions should be grouped. This will be done with the assurance that it is no more than a suggestion. It will form a basis for consideration by hon. members overnight and tomorrow, particularly hon. members in whose names the motions stand, as to the way in which the Chair feels the groups might be made. Again, these are only suggestions.
Of the 30 motions to amend Bill C-176, it would appear that only motion No. 30 is defective from a procedural point of view in that the motion seems to amend the Export and Import Permits Act. An opportunity to submit procedural argument might be deferred until that motion is called for consideration.
Motions Nos. 1 to 3 inclusive relate to subclause (c) of clause 2. It is suggested that those three motions be grouped for the purpose of debate, but that the question on each be put separately. It is suggested that motions Nos. 4 and 5 be debated and disposed of separately. It is suggested that any deferred division then standing might be disposed of before proceeding to part I of the bill.
It is suggested that motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 be grouped for the purpose of debate, but the question on each be put separately. It is suggested that motion No. 9 be considered and disposed of separately. Motions Nos. 10 and 11 could be grouped for debate and disposed of with one vote. Motion No. 12 might be considered and dis-

April 27, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill posed of separately. At this stage any outstanding deferred division might be taken.
Motions Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 all relate to clause 7 of the bill. It is suggested that those motions be grouped for the purpose of debate, but that each question be put separately. Deferred divisions on the foregoing, if any, might be taken at that time. Motions Nos. 17 and 18, which are on clause 8 of the bill, should be grouped for debate but voted upon separately. Motions Nos. 19 and 20 might be debated and voted upon separately. At this stage, any outstanding deferred division might be taken before proceeding to part II of the bill.
It is suggested that motions Nos. 21, 22 and 23 be debated and disposed of separately. It is suggested that motions Nos. 24, 25 and 26 be grouped for the purpose of debate, but the question on each be put separately. At this stage, it might be desirable to take any outstanding deferred divisions. It is suggested that motion No. 27 be debated and disposed of separately. It is also suggested that motions Nos. 28 and 29 be grouped for the purpose of debate, but the question be put on each separately.
As suggested earlier, motion No. 30 might not be acceptable in that it purports to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and it would appear to be irrelevant to Bill C-176. It might be desirable to hear representations when motion No. 30 is reached. After motion No. 30 is disposed of, any outstanding deferred division may be taken to complete the report stage.
If hon. members are in agreement, the Chair will call motion No. 1. We can then proceed in the time remaining this evening. Hon. members might give some thought to the memorandum I have just read into the record.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) moves amendment No. 1 as follows:
That Bill C-176, an act to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, be amended bydeleting from subclause (c) of clause 2 all the words after the word "agriculture" at line 14, page 1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Gerald William Baldwin: May I make one suggestion at this stage, now that Your Honour has read the reasons for the groupings? I had a chance to discuss and consider these groupings earlier; I did not have a chance to complete my consideration. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has indicated what might be a reasonable ground for urging the Chair to review the grouping including motion No. 1. There are two other motions in his name which have the same principle at stake as motion No. 1.
As Your Honour has called motion No. 1, in view of the argument made by the hon. member for Crowfoot would it be fair at this stage to say that the hon. member for Crowfoot will not be precluded from making his argument until there is an opportunity for the Chair to further consider the representations made by the hon. member? The hon. member for Crowfoot might be free to at least address his remarks to the grouping which he has urged upon the Chair as being reasonable. The Chair
would then have an opportunity to read his remarks. Acknowledging that Your Honour has complete discretion to accept the remarks of the hon. member for Crowfoot, it may be that tomorrow Your Honour could make an adjustment on this one particular grouping.
I urge this now in order that my hon. friend from Crowfoot will not be restricted as he otherwise might be in the remarks he has to make dealing with the first motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unless hon. members have objections to raise, the Chair feels that the hon. member for Crowfoot should be allowed to make his observations at this point on the basis of the procedural argument he put forward earlier, and all hon. members will have a chance to read it by tomorrow.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In rising in to debate what has now become a very famous bill, Bill C-176 I intend to speak on the concept of its basic principles. As I understand it, this is basically enabling legislation or, at the utmost, permissive legislation. Nobody will be involved unless he wishes to be. This is enabling legislation which will encompass no part of the agricultural industry unless it really wants to be encompassed.
It is necessary when considering this question to possess some concept of British justice or British tradition, a tradition inherited by our system in Canada, by virtue of which we are innocent until proven guilty. All kinds of latitude are given to an individual to govern himself or his property until the law says that certain things cannot be done. In essence, everything can be done unless the law forbids it. The bill before us has to do with agricultural products, but whether or not it will directly affect any particular agricultural product will depend solely on the producers of those products. To understand this concept perfectly, of course, I suppose one has to be a lawyer. I am not a lawyer but somehow or other, through seepage or through a process of osmosis in this House of Commons, these notions filter through.
Where did the concept of the bill before us originate, and why is this legislation being brought forward now? I think this can best be explained by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself by reference to a few curt remarks he made about the Liberal party in 1963. He said then that the Liberal party was a party madly in search of power and prepared to use power for the sake of power alone. I have the exact quotation here somewhere and will gladly read it when I find it. In any case, I should like to read from the Prime Minister's remarks with regard to agricultural policy and marketing arrangements made in a speech in Winnipeg on June 2, 1968. It just so happens it was prior to an election. He had this to say about national marketing boards:
More and more farmers are turning to marketing boards to provide them with a vehicle for the orderly marketing of their products. Existing boards established under provincial authority are finding it increasingly difficult to operate due to altered conditions brought on largely through changes in the techno-

April 27, 1971

logy of transportation and product handling. To meet this situation and to complement the action of provincial boards through the provision of a basis for orderly inter-provincial and export marketing the government proposes to introduce special legislation to provide for commodity marketing boards as the particular need for each commodity becomes evident.
I underline the words "as the particular need for each commodity becomes evident". One can clearly see that as early as June 2, 1968, the government was fully prepared to bring in legislation such as Bill C-176, or Bill C-197 as it was called in the first instance. The government was prepared to do so as a particular need in respect of each commodity became evident. My amendment clearly spells out that no commodity shall be encompassed by the bill until a need becomes evident to the producers.
Clause 17 clearly establishes that the majority of producers must request that they be included. In his speech of June 2, 1968, the Prime Minister left open the question who should determine when the need was evident. Of course, one can rest assured that a power-hungry government will do the determining. Nevertheless, we now have the concept accepted in the bill that the producers themselves shall determine whether or not they should be included.
Toward the end of his remarks on the occasion to which I have referred, the Prime Minister stated:
In order to meet the difficulties of divided jurisdiction in the area of the marketing of agricultural products, the government would undertake to raise for discussion with the provinces the possibility of providing over-all authority for the marketing of agricultural products as a federal responsibility.
The government did hold discussions with the provinces. But today there is no unanimity with regard to Bill C-176. Newfoundland said the bill was ultra vires; they did not believe the federal government had the authority to enforce it. The Saskatchewan Premier said the other day to his people: Don't worry about the bill. As long as I am Premier it will never come into force in this province. The Premier of Alberta, Mr. Strom, said just the other day: I want red meats excluded. A common definition of that term would be beef, pork and sheep products, basically lamb and mutton. There is no unanimity. The provinces have not agreed to this over-all concept.
A regrettable situation has developed across Canada inasmuch as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) pri-mised the nation that cattle would be excepted. It was found that his word was completely discredited since cattle were still covered by the bill. On September 9 a federal-provincial conference took place in Ottawa. The Premiers came out of that conference saying: From what we know of Bill C-197 at this time, we accept it and pass it. It may be the answer to the chicken and eggs war. But this agreement hinged on cattle being excluded from the bill.
Many Members of Parliament think the Minister of Agriculture has reneged on his undertaking to the cattlemen, that he has somehow misled the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. But he did not mislead the Canadian cattlemen alone; he misled the provincial Premiers. If
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill one wants evidence of this one can find it at page 18 of committee proceedings No. 7 for December 15, when the Minister of Agriculture outlined what was in the communique issued by the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa, at which the Premiers and the Prime Minister urged passage of the legislation provided provisions relating to cattle and calves were eliminated.
In Winnipeg the Prime Minister acknowledged the fact that in order to meet the difficulty of divided jurisdiction in the area of marketing agricultural produce, the government would undertake to discuss with the provinces the possibility of providing an over-all authority for agricultural products under federal jurisdiction. In other words, the federal government would take unto itself more power. Although there is a certain jealousy in Canadian society today among the provinces with regard to central government authority, on this occasion the provinces agreed to accept the Prime Minister's suggestion.
This acceptance was contingent upon the statement made on September 16 that cattle and calves would be excluded. This was the condition upon which the provinces agreed to early passage of the bill. However, today, six months after that statement was made on September 16, the provisions relating to cattle and calves are still in the bill. As a result, I say that the agreement reached between the provinces and the government is null and void. The only conclusion I can reach is that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture have no agreement at all with the provinces. Mr. Speaker, this situation vividly illustrates why the bill should not be proceeded with until it is ascertained whether agreement has been reached.
It may be argued that some provinces agree with the bill while others do not. It may also be argued that Members of Parliament are misrepresenting the facts. What are the facts regarding the agreement of the provinces and the jurisdictional question? This marketing legislation has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada by the province of Manitoba. If the government of Manitoba were in favour of this bill and wanted early passage, why would it refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada? At least seven of the ten provinces have informed the Supreme Court that they would be prepared to submit evidence to the court and to brief counsel. Unfortunately, owing to pressure of business the Supreme Court cannot hear the case until May 31, which is about one month away.
What has been happening in the meantime? There has been an escalation of the war between the "countries"- the provinces. Members may laugh at that statement, but I remember one of the greatest exponents of this bill in the Liberal party saying that Canada is not one country but ten countries under one nation. To me that is a terrible admission to make. I still hold out a ray of hope that in essence Canada is one country, that we are not building fences around our provinces.


Mr. Mahoney:: Who said that?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) said that. I have before me an advertise-

April 27, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ment that was put out by the department of information, and I am glad to see the minister of that department present. I went to a picture-show the other evening and heard him make a speech. This advertisement was sponsored by the Canadian Advertising Association and says that Canada stands together, that we understand together. I ask, are we really understanding one another when the whole country is torn asunder by Bill C-176? This advertisement states that had Canada not been faced with so vast a geography and an arc of people along its southern regions-


Richard J. Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Would he be kind enough to identify what it is he is reading? And if it is valuable enough to quote from, perhaps he would table it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to table it, but I may never get another copy. Let me continue to read it. It says that the problem might have been different-


Richard J. Stanbury: Identify it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: All hon. members can see it. It is an advertisement put out by Information Canada.


Richard J. Stanbury: No, it is not.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister shakes his head and says no. If he does not know about it, why is the stamp of his department on it and why did I receive it from his department. Let me just continue for a moment, Mr. Speaker, so I can finish this point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on February 5 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether in light of statements made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) and the Canadian Student Liberals about the deepening unemployment crisis, the government would inform the House if plans were being evolved to provide work for the large number of students who would be entering the job market from universities and high schools this summer. The Prime Minister replied that the government was working on plans for student employment this summer. Since asking that question last February we have had statements made by a battery of ministers-by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), who is co-ordinating the program; I think by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration-about a whole series of government programs.
We have the Opportunities for Youth program which calls for student employment. We have travel programs, including the student exchange program, with foreign countries and we have the hostel programs for students who will travel across the country. Those programs accomplish too little and have come too late. Programs were announced less than one month before university students finish their courses and start looking for work. They were put forward in a manner which can only cause confusion and difficulty. Students and other voluntary organizations were invited to submit proposals for new and imaginative programs. The criteria under which programs are to be selected are, to say the least, unclear.
In the last two days I have received letters from responsible organizations in Winnipeg, some of which expressed knowledge of what the government would bring forward. They contained details of constructive programs suggested for employing young people. These people as yet have no knowledge whether their programs will be approved or accepted. From the tenor of the questions they have asked, I conclude they are doubtful that approval will be given by the government departments responsible in this area.
When the program was announced I suggested there would not be time to evaluate the many proposals which might come forward in order that the best could be accepted. The Secretary of State has said that only $57 million has been allocated for youth employment programs. In fact, if all the programs which have been suggested to his department were accepted the government would have to provide $150 million to finance them. As I said, the program was announced in such a way there will not be time to pick and choose the best suggestions, although the situation is even more serious than it was last year.
There were about 450,000 university and high school students looking for work last summer. I am speaking from memory but I think about 90 per cent of them obtained work. That sounds like a very impressive figure, but when one analyses the actual results he finds that only 50 per cent of the students looking for work obtained work for more than half the period they were available.
A university student who finishes his course at the end of April and does not go back until the latter part of September, unless he has pretty substantial financial support from home requires work for the bulk of the summer months. Last year only half of the students obtained work for more than 50 per cent of the time they were available. This is a disaster for young people who want to continue their studies. The government, the Department of Manpower, the universities, junior colleges and technical schools have been telling young people they ought to continue their studies as long as possible. In recent years the people who have been unemployed for the longest period of time, and most frequently, are unskilled, uneducated and untrained.
But it is precisely these young people who are finding most difficulty in getting work. It is precisely these young

April 27, 1971

people who are trying to continue their studies at universities, junior colleges or community colleges, who are finding that while they need employment during the summer there simply is no work because they have to compete with people who are looking for permanent employment. Last month there were almost three-quarters of a million unemployed-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member, as I always do, and could not agree with him, which is usual. I do not think his criticisms are warranted, because since the question was put on the order paper there has been a statement in the House by the minister. On Thursday, April 22, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) spoke of the great success of the Opportunities for Youth program and of the fact that it has been substantially oversubscribed. Our youth have obviously accepted the challenge and have responded with most imaginative programs.
I was pleased to learn that the Department of the Secretary of State had indicated today that an announcement would be made this Thursday of the programs which have been accepted. It is true that all cannot be accepted, but I have every confidence that this will prove to be most worthwhile and the most imaginative program of this nature ever developed by a Canadian government and responded to by students.
There are those who will be disappointed. There will be programs that do not meet the necessary criteria and there will be programs that do meet the criteria but, due to budgetary considerations, cannot be accepted. It will not all be perfection. This program is in the form of an experiment. But this is a government that is not afraid to innovate. It has thrown out an imaginative challenge, to which youth has responded, and those who have not been successful in this program will I am sure find their way without waiting for the total welfare state, which my hon. friend would like to see, where it is handed to them on a silver platter. I do not think youth wants this, nor do I think that it is good for our youth. I think that the program as announced on April 22 and the projects which have been accepted and will be announced on April 29 will be a credit to the government as well as to the youth of this country.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, on April 6, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) the following question:
Would he tell the House If he Intends to ask the government to amend the Bank of Canada Act and the Bank Act concerning chartered banks to establish government participation in the major decisions of the banks and the economic independence they advocate?
We could note then that the minister was a proponent of economic independence. He says that the Americans
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion are absorbing us and that they are increasingly taking over our economy.
What is it that enables the Americans to gain control of our economy, our natural resources, our trade? Everything goes.
The Americans invest capital massively in Canadian securities. I urge the minister to do something, to instruct our great Canadian institution to intervene and issue credit on the same securities, because the reason why the Americans invest in Canada is that they have securities. They take Canadian securities to invest them. So, a national body can do exactly the same thing, and issue the same credit on the same securities.
I was then asking the minister whether he was willing to act along these lines in order that we may become masters in our own home, assume the control of our resources and undertake new development projects in connection with our natural resources. Briefly speaking, if the Americans can give securities or issue credit on new projects and new developments, why is it that the Bank of Canada would not be in a position to do likewise? Unless we take this action, we will fail to recover control over our economy. Day after day we will be losing some of this control and we will go on losing it until the Americans assume it completely. And I think that if we do not change our own policies regarding investment and control of our credit issues, we will soon become the exclusive property of the Americans. And we can count on the fingers of one hand the number of years that it will take to the Americans to swamp Canada with their investments.
I think that if the hon. minister is serious and wants to act effectively, it is high time that he urge the government to allocate the funds necessary for financing the development of our natural resources and our industries with the same guarantees.
I believe that it would be easy for Canadians to develop their country in an unheard of manner, because it is my conviction that all that is physically possible should be financially workable.
Presently, we are tackling pollution problems which we can only solve through investments. There will always be pollution due to lack of necessary funds. However, these will be provided by the Americans who will gain greater control over our natural resources, our waterways and finally our education by getting ownership of our school handbooks. Americans are getting into every kind of activity. It is not their fault but ours because we are too willing to be led, because we do not open our eyes before it is too late and because we do not take the necessary measures to settle this situation. This is a serious problem. If we really seek to remain Canadians, to develop our resources, to be masters in our own house, we shall need economic and political independence. By gaining economic independence, we shall necessarily accede to political independence. We have lost our economic independence and we do almost nothing to regain it. We make beautiful speeches but we take no action to regain our independence. Most of our activities are presently in the hands of Americans.

April 27, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I could quote figures but I have no time and I think that the parliamentary secretary to the minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) will be in a position to give me a satisfactory answer.
With this answer, we shall learn whether this government is in a position to do something or whether he wishes us to stay under the rule of the United States or any other country although we could well regain the control of our economy while it is still time.
[.English\


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, firstly and briefly I am advised that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) has no immediate or present intention of asking the government to amend either the Bank Act or the Bank of Canada Act. Certainly a comprehensive review of the Bank Act will be a major task of the next Parliament in the regular decennial revision. I think that I should assure the hon. member that all Canadians, including those in the government, share the concern that he has expressed for the degree of foreign ownership of our industry and our resources.
Among other things we are watching critically the manner in which all our financial institutions, including our banks, are serving the national interest. The government has proposed and this Parliament has enacted during the past 2 1/2 years important legislation making trust, loan and finance companies much more effective institutions in Canada's over-all financial structure.
The hon. member will be aware that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) has under review the whole matter of foreign ownership and that we are anticipating a full and comprehensive report on this subject. The hon. member will also be aware that the bill creating the Canada Development Corporation, Which will be a new, imaginative and highly effective instrument in Canada's financial structure, is currently before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
I might point out, since it was bankers' statements that gave a rise to this question originally, that the particular bankers who made their comments in New York, the banks they represent, none of the Canadian chartered banks nor the Canadian Bankers' Association have indicated any interest in appearing before the standing committee as it deals with the Canada Development Corporation bill.



UNEMPLOYMENT-RATE OF HARD-CORE UNEMPLOYMENT JOBS FOR STUDENTS

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on March 18, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether, in view of the fact that over the past 11 months the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment has varied from a low of 5.6 per cent to a high of 8.2 per cent, we should take it as government policy to accept an unemployment rate of 5 1/2 per cent to 6 per cent in the future. The Prime Minister did not answer my question because the Chair ruled that he had already answered a similar question.
The answer which the Prime Minister gave was in fact incorrect. The figures released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Manpower and Immigration in April for the month of March show that in March, 1971, there were 650,000 people unemployed, an increase from the 542,000 unemployed in March, 1970, of more than 100,000.
If we look at the regional rates we become even more alarmed. The very high unemployment in Quebec increased from 206,000 in March, 1970, to 236,000 in March, 1971. In Ontario, the most prosperous province in Canada, it increased from 141,000 in March, 1970, to
192.000	in March, 1971. In British Columbia it increased from 59,000 in March, 1970, to 73,000 in March, 1971. It is true that the seasonally adjusted rate declined to 6.6 per cent, but that does not help the 650,000 people who are unemployed.
Apart from the large number of unemployed we have a particular problem in respect of the hard-core unemployed which is becoming more serious. The number of Canadians unemployed for a period of four months or longer in March rose to 308,000. This is an increase from
263.000	in February and 225,000 in January of this year. Even more significant, however, is the fact that the figure of 308,000 in March of this year is more than 100,000 higher than the 200,000 people who were unemployed for four months or longer in March of 1970. In the hard-core category, the 182,000 who had been unemployed for a period of between four and six months in March this year, and 126,000 who had been unemployed for six months or longer, have a right to begin to think their unemployment will be of a permanent nature.
Dr. W. R. Dymond, who is now a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa and in other years was a deputy minister, I believe, in the Department of Manpower and Immigration, has written articles recently in which he emphasizes the gravity of the unemployment situation and suggests very strongly that unemployment will not normalize as the economy revives, if it revives. He points out that between 1960 and 1970 Canada has experienced an 11 per cent increase in unemployment over all age groups, but that the age group 14 to 19 years has experienced a 43 per cent increase in unemployment and that the comparable increase for the 20 to 24 years group is 49 per cent. I believe these figures substantiate conclusively the question I asked the Prime Minister, namely, whether we could expect that for the next year an unemployment rate which would vary between 5.5 per cent and 6 per cent for the whole year on a seasonally adjusted basis was, on the whole, a very conservative estimate.
The economists to whom I have spoken are doubtful it will hit 5.5 per cent even in the best months of 1971 and in the first part of 1972. This is not surprising. We have a government which was so concerned about inflation that it adopted policies of restraint-the government is proud of this-which kept the cost of living increase last year to 11 per cent, the lowest figure of any country in the

April 27, 1971

western industrialized world. The inevitable result of that policy of restraint which was urged upon the government by the governor of the Bank of Canada, the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission and other important government officials, was that we had the greatest rate of unemployment of any industrialized country in the western world. I have said before and continue to say this is exactly opposite to the just society about which the Prime Minister has spoken because those who are least able to carry the burden, namely, the unemployed pay for the mismanagement of the economy and for the inflation we have.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's original question, as reported at page 4373 of Hansard for March 18, 1971, stripped of its preamble, was:
-can we take it that it is government policy to accept an unemployment rate of 5.5 per cent to 6 per cent for the future?
A few minutes earlier, as reported at page 4371 of Hansard, the then leader of the NDP, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), after a preamble with respect to unemployment asked:
-if we can now assume that the government is prepared to settle down to a seasonally adjusted rate of 5J per cent to 6 per cent per year?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
It must have come as quite a shock to the hon. member to have had Your Honour disallow his question on the basis that it had been asked a few moments before. The hon. member is to be congratulated on his scrupulous loyalty to his leader, if not on his creativity. I am sure that his qualities are particularly valued by his party and leader early in the new reign.
The answer to the question is, of course, an unequivocal no. The government is not prepared to accept an unemployment rate of 5J per cent to 6 per cent seasonally adjusted or otherwise, for the future. Government policies are designed for and are working effectively toward a much more acceptable level than that experienced during the past winter. Positive results are being achieved both nationally and regionally. I would refer the hon. member to the testimony given today in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs by the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada with respect to the excellent performance of Canada's economy relative to that of other free market economies, including that of the United States, and I would in particular refer him to employment trends.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, April 28, 1971