1971-04-26

CONGRATULATIONS TO MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH ON ELECTION AS NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADER

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, from your perspective at the end of the chamber it may not have come to your attention that the hon. member for York South, as a result of certain events over the weekend, has moved two feet to the right of his previous position in the House. I am delighted to view such a moderating trend in that party. When one reflects that the cost of the NDP convention was about $25,000, this represents the sum of $1,000 per inch-surely the highest unit cost of any political shift in Canadian history.
On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I wish to offer congratulations to the hon. member in his new leadership position. His election is a deserved recognition of a long and dedicated political career.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself and my colleagues with the welcome expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the arrival of the new leader of the New Democratic Party in the House. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) is to be warmly congratulated on being selected as national leader of his party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sure we all applaud his new status, which might be described as "even-Stephen or even better".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I compliment the new leader on the high tone and the serious calibre of the convention which elected him. It again exemplified to me that, while we may have wide-ranging philosophical differences, in the party structure in this country there are common aspects of our behavior that tend to hold us together.
The group in the New Democratic Party who get together and argue strongly for principles divergent from the main stream are referred to as the Waffle. In the Progressive Conservative party they are referred to as the membership-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and in the Liberal party they are referred to as the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to make it very clear to the new leader of the NDP that I was not one of those who went along with the argument that he was too old for the position. I seem to recall that the same type of argument was made some time ago when it was thought that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) might contest the leadership of their newly formed party. There were people at that time who said he was too tall to be leader! In any event, Sir, the new leader has arrived, and although some may suggest that the letters NDP may be now thought of as standing for the words, "now David's problem"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -in all sincerity, Sir, my colleagues and I wish him well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I am joining with all my colleagues in this House to convey to the hon. member for York South my most sincere congratulations on his election as leader of his party.
I would also like to wish him a most rewarding and very long mandate.
On behalf of all my colleagues, I am pleased to convey to him our most sincere congratulations, and to wish him a long stay in Parliament.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, as the most recent unemployed party leader in the House I should like to say on behalf of all of the members who sit in this party how proud we are of the new leader who has just been elected to head the New Democratic Party in Canada.
May I say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that the reason the new leader has moved right and that I have moved left is that there was a strong suspicion in our party that I was being subverted by the Tories, and so I have been moved left to regain some of the pristine purity of the party.
The members of the NDP caucus met this morning and our first item of business was to move an unanimous motion of confidence in the new party leader and to pledge to him our undivided loyalty and support. I can assure the House that that is exactly what he will get from me and from all of us in this party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 26, 1971
Salaries and Allowances


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I am naturally very grateful for all the kind words. I should like to say to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that if his party wants to see our organizers and find out how voting at a convention should be conducted, I shall take personal steps to make sure his party is educated in that regard. I find it rather difficult to find some other way in which I can help to educate his party, but we can give him better voting machines.
I should like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for his kind words. I am always impressed by the way in which he notes details very carefully. He noted that I had moved two feet to the right. I should like to say, I hope without offence, that at least the distance I moved to the right was noticeable and short, Mr. Speaker.
I intend to do my best, as I have tried to before, to hold the confidence of my colleagues, to win the respect of the House and to serve the people of Canada as best I can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are aware that for several months the government has been seized with recommendations and suggestions concerning certain classes of persons whose salaries are drawn from public funds. I wish now to inform the House of the recommendations which the government is prepared to make to Parliament in these respects.
A heavy responsiblity rests upon the government at any time to balance and discharge properly its dual obligations to the public: one, to attract and hold persons of outstanding ability and proper motivation and, second, to guard the public purse against unnecessary or imprudent expenditures. During an inflationary period of rising prices and increasingly high salary awards, these obligations become even more onerous for in issue is the role of the government as a leader in restraint. For these reasons the government has taken a stringent approach to those salaries directly dependent on government initiative and is grateful to those concerned for their patience and understanding.
It has become increasingly apparent however, Mr. Speaker, that public salary questions cannot be deferred indefinitely. Hon. members are aware that no complete review of salaries of senior public servants has been undertaken since 1969, that judicial salaries have not been increased since 1967, and that parliamentary salaries have not changed since 1963. The government has sought the advice of distinguished consultants in relation
to these categories of office-holders. It has consulted as well with members of Parliament including spokesmen of the opposition parties in this House and with members of the other Chamber with respect to the question of compensation for Members of Parliament and Senators.

With respect to parliamentary salaries and expenses, the government has also reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Parliamentary Salaries and Expenses chaired by Mr. T. N. Beaupre. It will be recalled, Mr. Speaker, that that committee stated in its report that it was guided by six basic principles which I shall attempt to summarize as follows:
First, the future of Canada depends largely upon the ability of the public to secure the services of the best possible people as parliamentarians.
Second, salaries should be high enough to attract persons of proven ability at a time when their earning potential may be at its highest.
Third, the position of the parliamentarian is essentially a full-time occupation; his working day in the House of Commons is usually much longer than the industrial average.
Fourth, the tenure of office of a member of the House of Commons is uncertain; 292 members have been defeated in the past 12 years, with probably more to come.
Fifth, the nature of the position is becoming increasingly more time-consuming, more complicated, more sensitive and requiring considerable moral courage.
Sixth, a member of Parliament must meet many expenses that are not common to other salary earners and that are not deductible for income tax purposes, as is the practice in many other countries.
It is the view of the government, Mr. Speaker, that the interests of Canada will not be served if Parliament fixes the levels of compensation of the elected representatives of the people at a level which is either so high as to attract candidates for reasons of financial gain, or so low as to deny effectively the opportunity of parliamentary service to all but those possessing private incomes. In the judgment of the government the second hazard is of more immediate cause for concern than is the first.
For these reasons, the government proposes to introduce, in this session, legislation to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act in the following respects: salaries for Members of Parliament and Senators would be increased from $12,000 per annum to $18,000 per annum. This increase amounts to approximately 6 per cent per year since 1963, about one-half of the size recommended by the Beaupre Committee. Expense allowances for Members of Parliament would be increased in the amount of $2,000 with new differentials for members representing the northern constituencies. Expense allowances for Senators will continue to be one-half of those for Members of Parliament. It will be proposed that these changes take effect from the beginning of the present session.

April 26, 1971

The government will not propose at this time changes in the salaries of office holders in Parliament as recommended by the Beaupre committee.
The government will introduce in this session as well amendments to the Judges Act which will increase judicial salaries significantly in an attempt both to recognize more adequately the heavy responsibilities of these persons, and to facilitate the appointment to the bench of younger candidates who may have family responsibilities.
Legislation will also be introduced to provide for an increase in the salary of the Auditor General by equating the salary of the holder of this important public office to that of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government intends to introduce as well legislation to amend the Prime Minister's Residence Act to bring within it provisions for a residence for the Leader of the Opposition and for a residence for the Speaker of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This measure recommends the conversion of that act into an Official Residences Act, placing the three residences on a rent-free basis consistent with the recommendations of the Beaupre Committee. In the case of the Prime Minister's residence the new provisions would come into force after the next general election, while provisions for the residences of the Speaker of the House and the Leader of the Opposition would be effective as of January 1, 1970.
I wish now, Mr. Speaker, to turn briefly to the question of salaries for senior members of the Public Service. The government has received and approved in principle the second report of the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation in the Public Service, chaired by Mr. J. V. Clyne.
In the report, the advisory group has once more stressed the importance of performance evaluation in the application and continuing administration of individual rates of pay for executives in the Public Service. It examined the existing executive salary structure in relation to the trends and levels in executive salaries in the private and public sectors as well as to the results of collective bargaining in the Public Service, and concluded that if the Public Service is to attract and retain the services of the best available personnel for executive positions, executive salaries must remain reasonably competitive with those in the private sector.
Although the advisory group recommended that the salary ranges for executives and deputy ministers be adjusted, it did so subject to the following reservation which the government strongly endorses:
We wish to stress once again that we are not recommending salary increases for senior executives, but rather that we are providing a salary framework that should permit the government to obtain and retain the best available people for the most important positions in the Public Service.
The government has decided not to approve at this time the recommendation which would have had the
Salaries and Allowances
effect of extending the maxima of the ranges by 20 per cent in exceptional circumstances.
The advisory group recommends that the managerial group excluded from collective bargaining should be more clearly identified and enlarged, and the government is prepared to have this matter studied further in conjunction with the review of legislation affecting collective bargaining. The government has also approved the four principles which would govern the determination of pay and conditions of work for the management group, whatever its size or composition.
The report deals with the proposals for early retirement which are reflected in the government organization bill which received first reading on December 9, 1970. The administrative recommendations relating to early retirement have been referred to the Treasury Board for action, as have the recommendations relating to nonsalary compensation.
Salary revisions for both judges and senior public servants will be phased in over a two-year period, deferring full implementation until January 1, 1972, but moving half-way with effect from January 1, 1971.

Finallly, Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to express my appreciation and that, I am sure, of all hon. members to Mr. Beaupre and the members of his committee, Mr. Arthur Maloney and Monsieur Marc Lapointe, for the time which they have devoted to these important matters and for their excellent report. We also thank Mr. Clyne and the members of his advisory group, Drs. J. J. Deutsch and Roger Gaudry, Mr. Allen Lambert and Monsieur Marcel Vincent.
In conclusion, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table the second report of the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation, as well as a document containing details of the proposed increases in judicial salaries.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) forecasts legislation of a type that is, I believe, of basic importance to the Canadian nation, Therefore I wish to express appreciation of the fact that a copy of the statement was made available in advance.
The statement deals with the most important institutions of our democratic system of government, including the position of Parliament itself with relation to the remuneration of the membership of the Senate and House of Commons. The provision of residences for two of the most important officers of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and the holder of the position of Speaker, is long overdue. The salary of the Auditor General, one of the most important servants of Parliament, is also of great importance, as are the salaries of judges. Finally, the salary ranges of senior public servants in the executive class range and the salary ranges of deputy ministers are of importance.
Referring to the last matter, I note that the government is closely following the recommendations of the advisory group on salary ranges for executives and

April 26, 1971
Salaries and Allowances
deputy ministers. This matter will be carefully examined when the legislation is before us.
With regard to the salaries of judges, I believe it is essential that salaries in this field be kept at a level which will attract the most qualified members of the legal profession. However, members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and others more qualified to speak on this matter will deal with this item at greater length when the legislation is before us.
I commend the government for accepting the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts with regard to the salary of the Auditor General. 1 consider it appropriate that it be at the level now proposed.
With regard to the provision of residences for those holding the positions of Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Speaker, I believe that Canada has been niggardly in this regard. Its record has been poor. There has been an official residence for the Prime Minister for the past number of years but no official residence for the Leader of the Opposition. Incidentally, there are some reservations attached to the former which I do not think appropriate. I hope they will be corrected. Up until this time, no residence has been provided at public expense for the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is time that this was corrected. The important position of Speaker of the House is one which should carry with it the provision of a suitable residence. We lag behind other countries of the Commonwealth in this regard.
I turn now to the subject of adjusting the salaries and allowances of Senators and Members of Parliament. Not since 1963 has anything been done in this field. I should like to quote briefly from what was said by the Prime Minister of the day on the occasion of the last salary adjustment. He said as reported at page 2735 of Hansard for July 29 of that year:
This resolution, Mr. Chairman, involves a responsibility which, if action is to be taken at all, cannot be escaped either by the government of the day or by Parliament itself, since it cannot be delegated to any other body.
I should also like to quote briefly from the remarks of my right hon. friend from Prince Albert who was then the Leader of the Opposition. Speaking in the same debate, he said:
I begin by saying that I am in agreement with the Prime Minister when he says the responsibility must rest upon the government. That responsibility is theirs. On the other hand, the matter is one that, being concerned with personal interest, denies consideration being given on a partisan basis. In other words, each and every member should be in the position of determining for himself or herself the attitude to be taken on this matter-I agree with the Prime Minister that legislating to one's own benefit is something that must be subject to the conscientious viewpoint of each and every member. It cannot be decided on the basis of party considerations or party purposes.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to bind members of this party as to their attitude to this measure, nor would I wish to do so if I could. I have, however, interested myself on behalf of this institution in the financial position in which members of the House of
[Mr. MacLean.j
Commons find themselves as a result of serving the nation in Parliament. A considerable number of members are in the fortunate position of having independent means in consequence of which they are in a position to serve in Parliament regardless of what their remuneration may be. However, without belittling their services in any way I think it is fair to say they would be the first to believe that service in the House of Commons should not be limited to people who are so fortunate as to be blessed by independent means.
There is another group in the membership of the House who can manage fairly well on the present level of salaries. They are people with few or no dependants and members who, though perhaps in some cases they would not want to admit it, have working wives. Again, there are members who come from urban areas and who are able to vacate their homes and rent them to help pay for living accommodation in Ottawa during the year. However, I was struck by the number of members, especially younger members with young families, who are suffering real economic hardship because they are serving their constituents as Members of Parliament. I believe that if Canada is to be well served by a cross-section of age groups and economic groups representative of the general public, some improvement in the salaries and allowances of Members of Parliament is imperative.
It is imperative for a number of reasons, I believe. There has been a continual rise in the cost of living. There have been no increases in members' salaries since 1963. I suspect there are few other salaried groups in the country whose position has not been changed since 1963 either in the private sector or in the public sector. As a result, the salary ranges of Members of Parliament have fallen badly out of line with salaries paid in other fields, including salaries paid to members in other jurisdictions. In most cases, relatively speaking, Members of Parliament are in an unfavourable position compared with members of provincial legislatures and in some cases they are in an inferior position in absolute terms.
Over the period since 1963 there has been a great increase in the expenses hon. members must incur because they are subjected to increased costs in carrying out their representation of their constituencies adequately. I note that the increase in salaries recommended by the government is well within the wage increase guideline of a maximum of 6 per cent per annum. I note, too, that the increase in salaries is roughly half the increase recommended by the Beaupre Commission after a careful study of the question last year. Expense allowances on the average are probably less than those recommended by the Beaupre Commission, but a comparison in this field is difficult to make because of a difference of approach to this matter. I note with approval that differentials are being provided in the case of members who represent the vast northern constituencies.
I would hope however, that the government would envolve a more systematic method of dealing with parliamentary salaries. I believe that on the whole these proposals will commend themselves to the membership of the House. I think it behooves members to look at this matter as objectively as they can, recognizing that these
April 26, 1971

salaries are provided not for the individuals who happen to be occupying seats at the moment but for the positions which are held.
Finally, I join with the Prime Minister in expressing appreciation for the work done by the Beaupre Commission, by the Clyne Committee and by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the subject of members' salaries is a delicate one and that there is a great deal of uneasiness and some tension in connection with the matter. I also recognize that since the salaries and expense allowances have not been adjusted for eight years there may be some justification for increasing them now. I am most anxious that no one in the House should interpret what I am about to say as amounting to a "holier than thou" attitude, but 1 cannot agree to an increase of 50 per cent in the salaries of Members of Parliament when the government and the Prices and Incomes Commission have told the workers of Canada that they cannot have increases of more than 6 per cent and when the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission now says they should not have increases of more than 4 per cent to 5 per cent.
It is true to say that the job of a Member of Parliament has now become a full-time job, that we are working long hours and all the rest of it. It is also true to say that the overwhelming majority of working people in this country have no alternative but to take the jobs they have, no matter how low their wages, and that Members of Parliament have an alternative as to whether they want to be here or do some job elsewhere which may pay them more. I do not think this comparison is at all justified, either morally or factually.
I appreciate that there are differences in this House, that there are some people who are better off, some people who are worse off, some people who have more dependants and some who have fewer dependants to take care of. I do not condemn anyone for supporting this proposal, but I say that increases of 50 per cent in salary and 33 per cent in our expenses are far too large to place before Parliament. This is far too large an increase for us as Members of Parliament to accept and vote for at a time when a large proportion of our working people are unemployed and at a time when we have told workers there are limits to the amount of increases for which they ought to ask.
1 find particularly unsatisfactory the suggestion that these increases be retroactive for six months to last October 1. Nor can I accept the explanation that there is a make-up provision by which we average out the increase to 6 per cent per year since 1963. The railway workers were negotiating very recently and demanded a make-up provision because they had fallen behind. They got something, but very little, and we were on the verge of a strike because of the attitude taken by the railway companies, particularly the publicly-owned company
Salaries and Allowances
which depends on this Parliament for additional funds to deal with increases in the wages of its workers.


An hon. Member:: What about plumbers and
electricians?


David Lewis: An hon. member refers to plumbers and electricians. Let me say without any hesitation, speaking for myself, that I think the increases in the construction trades did not take into account the need for homes, the cost of homes and the public welfare of this country, but that does not justify Members of Parliament taking steps which are socially unjustifiable in the circumstances in which we live.
The Prime Minister says that the government took into account the Beaupre report. May 1 suggest that the government did not do that at all. Two of the things the Beaupre report emphasizes are that there ought not be large expense allowances without expenses being justified by voucher and, second, that there ought to be a large increase in the kind of services we are able to give our constituents and the kind of facilities we have to do our jobs. Both of these suggestions were ignored by the government. The government merely proposes to increase from $6,000 to $8,000 the non-taxable expense allowance, for which we are not required to provide any vouchers at all. This is a pretty large sum of money that can now be used by Members of Parliament and members of the Senate for expenses without having to account for it.
There are differences in my party, as there are differences elsewhere, as to what level of increase there might be. But I am sure I remember correctly when I say that all my colleagues, when we discussed this matter some time ago, were unanimous in emphasizing that an increase in facilities and assistance for Members of Parliament in serving their constituents and their country is a more important matter than the question of an increase in salary. There is no adjustment whatsoever in the facilities which Members of Parliament are given although there is an increase in salaries and in expense allowances.
I knew when I rose that there would be catcalls, needling and catcalls round the House, but that is not going to stop me from making very clear the position I feel is the proper one. I suggest to the Prime Minister that the entire system in fact is wrong. I do not agree even with the appointment of a special committee or commission to deal with this matter. I think the time has come to place the salaries of Members of Parliament in some appropriate classification of the Public Service in order that members will obtain adjustments in the regular, annual way that public servants receive adjustments and will get no more than public servants receive from year to year.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


David Lewis: If all hon. members agree with the proposition-


An hon. Member:: What classification?

April 26, 1971
Salaries and Allowances


David Lewis: The classification might be suitable for the hon. member for Ontario or it might even be too high; I do not know. But if all hon. members agree that this is what should be done, surely this is the time to do it. Salaries should be set at some appropriate and not exaggerated level so Members of Parliament do not have to go through the unpleasant and distasteful job every few years of voting large increases because over a period of years there has been no adjustment at all.
I am particularly disturbed by the fact that increases of considerable size are being given members of the Senate. Their job is certainly not full time. They have ample time to carry on whatever business they have. We have always thought the Senate was an unnecessary institution anyway, and we do so now. I cannot in my mind justify the very exaggerated increase suggested for members of the other place any more than I can justify the increase suggested for members of this House.
May I say a word or two about one or two other matters. It is my understanding that the adjustment with regard to the residence of Mr. Speaker, and I hope I am wrong, is merely to legalize something that has already been done for some time. My understanding is that it refers only to the farm at Kingsmere. I think I am right in suggesting that the general feeling in the country as well as in the House is that we should make the Speaker's position more permanent and that one day Mr. Speaker will be provided with a home in Ottawa rather than being limited to the farm at Kingsmere.
As far as other personnel are concerned, I do not know exactly what the government is proposing because the details are not yet before us. I have already spoken too long and I do not wish to take any more time, but let me say to the government that the time is overdue for the setting up of machinery to take the place of collective bargaining for that part of the civil service which is not entitled to collective bargaining under the law.
I have deliberately spoken without the emphasis I usually employ because of my knowledge of the sensitivity of the problem. I conclude by repeating that, while in my view an increase in the salaries of hon. members is obviously justified after eight years without any adjustment, the government is wrong and the people who advised it are wrong when they come up with a figure of a 44 per cent increase in total, a 50 per cent increase in salary alone and a 33 per cent increase in expense allowances for which hon. members do not have to account by vouchers showing actual expenses. I am certain it was done in good faith. I am not making any accusations. But I am always impressed by the double standard we use in our society. We use one standard for people like ourselves who are in a privileged position and another standard for people who are not in a privileged position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I see the government is no longer reluctant to

introduce the conclusions of the Beaupre Committee. Judging from consultations that have been going on behind the scenes, there was anxiety.
However, I do not think that at any point of the negotiations there has ever been any threat of strike in the event the proposals would have been deemed unacceptable. Everything seems to be geared towards friendly relations among all concerned and the solution of what appears to be a salary increase problem.
I am pleased to congratulate the members of the Beaupre Committee for having given a report which does not apparently lead to too many unfavourable comments. I had the opportunity of finding out that arbitration reports on some negotiations are not always that welcome.
On the second page of the right hon. Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) remarks, it is mentioned that the committee was guided in its report by six basic principles of which I will quote some:
(1) The future of Canada depends largely upon the ability of the public to secure the services of the bast possible people as parliamentarians.
We agree entirely on that.
The fourth is as follows:
(4)	The tenure of office of a Member of the House of Commons is uncertain; 292 members have been defeated in the past 12 years.
No doubt would it be interesting to analyse the causes of past changes. I do not think they could be attributed to the members' indemnity.
Here is the fifth:
(5)	The nature of the position is becoming increasingly more time consuming, more complicated, more sensitive-
In fact, this is true in some cases.
-and requiring considerable moral courage.
An hon. member is undoubtedly liable to exhaust his fortitude reserves in order to bring Canadians to accept the present system.
In so far as incomes are concerned, I see that a great percentage of civil servants earn more than $25,000 a year, some $35,000 or $40,000, and I would like to mention in particular the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who earns $75,000 a year.
After that statement, I will add that we were much more interested in the improvement of working conditions in Parliament offices. Many hon. members are faced with space problems which should be solved. We think that it would have been in order for each hon. member to benefit from a secretarial office in his constituency in order to make available to his constituents the information which they need.
It can be read on page 44 of the report of the committee, and I quote:
For Members of the House of Commons wishing to establish constituency offices, provision of space in federal buildings or alternatively, payment up to $1,200 per annum for the rental of office accommodation and payment up to $1,500 per annum for office assistance.
April 26, 1971

I note that there is no mention of this in the statement.
To conclude what I had to say on this matter, I think that it is in order to repeat here what I said in 1963, since the last salary raise dates back to that year.
I have in hands the full text of what I said on a practically similar occasion, not very long after the salary raise which had been granted then, and I quote:
Has a second thought been given to the feeling of fathers who can barely make both ends meet with incomes of $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000 a year, to the feelings of those who, in their sickness, must accept the restrictions imposed by social service officials regarding their own subsistence and that of their families, and even worse, to the feelings of the unemployed? There are thousands of them, as everybody knows, who live in constant fear.
What was their reaction-
-or what will be their reaction-
-when they saw that legislators were looking after their own interests instead of settling urgent problems such as unemployment, family allowance increases, boosts in old age pensions-
-in this respect, there already has been clear improvementand in pensions to veterans who, more than any others, have given their all for the survival of democracy, for which their countrymen should have been ever grateful-
-members of Parliament thought of themselves first.
I could continue enumerating quite a number of undeserved cases of destitution. Have we considered those unsettled cases before granting ourselves an increase of indemnities?
It is unfortunate, but such actions contribute to increase dissatisfaction among the people. Canadian citizens are always ready to pay their administrators handsomely,-
-provided that they render good services-
-as long as they do not forget to give them in the first place the necessary means to earn a decent living.
Let us compare the imbalance between the increasing rise of salaries of the average Canadian heads of families and the unchanged rates of family allowances.
I said this in 1963, and there is nothing I have to withdraw. I have no reason for changing my opinion because the system has not improved.
This is what I had to say concerning the statement we just heard.
* *
*



POST OFFICE ACT


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for ihe minister responsible for the Post Office) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-240, to amend the Post Office Act.
Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.) CBC-SPORTS BROADCAST TIME
["I have been informed by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission as follows: 1. Yes.\n2. Canada's price performance in 1970 was the result of several factors in addition to the price restraint program. These include a weaker demand for goods and services, the appreciation of the Canadian dollar, and special circumstances affecting food prices in certain parts of the country.\nOrders for Returns"]
Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Stale):: 

Mr. McQuaid: 1.	How many residents of the Province of Prince Edward Island were drawing unemployment insurance benefits as of (a) January 31, 1969 (b) January 31, 1970 (c) January 31, 1971?
2.	What was the total amount paid in the Province of Prince Edward Island in unemployment insurance benefits on each date?
3.	During the months of October, November and December, 1970 and January, 1971, how many applications for unemployment insurance were rejected and for what reasons?
4.	As of January 31, 1971, how many people in the Province of Prince Edward Island were enrolled in the various upgrading courses sponsored by the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
5.	What was the total amount paid during the month of January, 1971, to those enrolled in the various upgrading courses sponsored by the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Un-
5216

April 26, 1971
Questions
employment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. The total of active benefit claims on January 31 of each year were:
(a)	1969, 6,687; (b) 1970, 5,946; (c) 1971, 7,003.
2.	The total amount of Unemployment Insurance Benefits paid in the month of January each year was: (a) 1969, $691,818; (b) 1970, $719,114; (c) 1971, $730,142.
3.	The number of claimants who failed to qualify for benefit by reason of insufficient contributions to the fund during each month were: (a) October, 1970, 48; (b) November, 1970, 223; (c) December, 1970, 2377; Cd) January, 1971, 949.
4.	2,086 full-time trainees in both skill and educational upgrading courses.
5.	$412,224 was paid in training allowances during January, 1971 to trainees in Prince Edward Island.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES-INCOME DERIVED FROM COMPUTER SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry
(c)	to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and
Resources does not provide computer services to: (a) other departments; (b) industry; (c) provincial governments; (d) municipalities.


SASKATCHEWAN-SECOND NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Southam: Has a site for Saskatchewan's second National Park been definitely established and negotiations completed between the federal and provincial governments and, if so, on what date will the development work commence on this project?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No site for a second National Park in Saskatchewan has been definitely established. Discussions are continuing between Saskatchewan and the Federal Government to this end, however, and no development work will commence until an agreement is reached.


WOOD BUFFALO NATIONAL PARK-TIMBER BERTHS
Mr. Harding: 1.	In Wood Buffalo National Park, how many timber leases are currently in force (a) when was each lease granted (b) what is its termination date (c) what is the acreage involved
(d)	who holds the lease?
2.	(a) What was the total revenue received from these leases for each of the past five fiscal years (b) what was the total timber cut involved?
3.	(a) Who is responsible for reforestation on the leased areas
(b)	has any replanting of cut-over areas been carried out and, if so, by whom and in what amounts for each of the past five years?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Three timber cutting agreements are currently in force in Wood Buffalo National Park: (a) Timber Berth No. 367, June 8, 1955; Timber Berth No. 378, January 11, 1956; Timber Berth No. 408, May 24, 1956. (b) Timber Berth No. 367, July 31, 1972; Timber Berth No. 378, May 31, 1975; Timber Berth No. 408, July 31, 1981, with provision for one 21-year renewal, (c) Timber Berth No. 367, 13.4 square miles; Timber Berth No. 378, 26 square miles; Timber Berth No. 408, 216 square miles; (d) Swanson Lumber Co., Ltd., 600 Bentall Building, 10180-102 Street, Edmonton 15, Alberta.
2.	(a) 1970, $23,208.16; 1969, $25,301.01; 1968, $21,928.63; 1967, $18,745.55; 1966, $14,248.59. (b) 90,475,021 FBM.
3.	(a) Natural regeneration, (b) No.


GLACIER NATIONAL PARK-TIMBER BERTH
Mr. Harding: Have all the titles to private timber berths in Glacier National Park been transferred to the Crown and, if so (a) who was the previous owner of each (b) what was the acreage involved (c) what was the amount paid for the holdings purchased?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes. (a) Previous owners of each were: (i) Kicking Horse Forest Products Co. Ltd., in Golden, B.C. holding cutting licences for Timber Berths Nos. 40, 292, 328, 329 and 342; (ii) Selkirk Spruce Mills Co. Ltd., Donald, B.C., Timber Berth No. 117. (b) The acreage involved was approximately 31.85 square miles, (c) The amount paid for the purchases was $2,943,032.


GRANTS UNDER REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT
Mr. MacGuigan: Have any individuals, firms or companies received more than one grant under the Regional Economic Expansion Programme and, if so, which ones?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes; under the Regional Development Incentives Act and the Government Organization Act (1969), the following firms have accepted more than one offer: Bruck Mills Ltd., Canadian International Paper Co., Chemcell Limited, Dominion Textile Ltd., Ecstall Mining Ltd., Green Lantern Wholesalers Ltd., Lakeside Farm Industries, L. E. Shaw Ltd., McCain Foods Ltd., Moore Business Forms Ltd., Murdock Lumber Co., National Sea Products Ltd., Noranda Mines Ltd., Ocean Harvesters Ltd., Red Earth Lumber Co. Ltd., Stanfield's Limited, Sydney Steel Corporation, and United Sawmill Co.


DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS- INCOME DERIVED FROM COMPUTER SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Af-

April 26, 1971

fairs (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: (a) n/a; (b) n/a; (c) n/a; (d) n/a.


PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION-VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES, 1970
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In preparing its voluntary guidelines in 1970 did the Prices and Incomes Commission make any normative assumptions about the distribution of income?
2 Did the Prices and Incomes Commission consider what the impact of its guidelines policy would be on the distribution of income and, if so, what was the expected impact?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have been informed by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission as follows: (1) The pricing criteria approved by the National Conference on Price Stability and endorsed by the Federal-Provincial Conference of First Ministers were intended to ensure a narrowing of average profit margins for the business sector of the economy as a whole during 1970. The wage and salary criteria, in conjunction with the pricing criteria, implied a greater moderation of the rise of consumer prices during 1970 than the corresponding moderation of the rise in average compensation per employee. Wage increases for employees earning $2.00 per hour or less were specifically exempted from the suggested upper limit of six per cent. (2) Taken as a whole, the guidelines for 1970 were intended to be consistent with some enlargement of the share of employee compensation in net national income during the year, involving some contraction of other income shares, including corporate profits.


REDUCTION IN LEVEL OF PRICE INCREASES, 1970
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the Prices and Incomes Commission contribute to a reduction in the rate of price increases in 1970?
2.	To what factors other than its own activities does the Prices and Incomes Commission attribute the reduction in the level of price increases in 1970?


Hon.   Ron. Basford@Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: I have been informed by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission as follows: 1. Yes.
2. Canada's price performance in 1970 was the result of several factors in addition to the price restraint program. These include a weaker demand for goods and services, the appreciation of the Canadian dollar, and special circumstances affecting food prices in certain parts of the country.
Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many architectural firms have been retained for specific projects by the government since June 25, 1968?
2.	(a) What are the names of the firms retained (b) what is the specific project in each instance (c) what is the amount they have received to date in fees and expenses for services rendered (d) what will be the final estimated cost in fees and expenses in each instance?
Return tabled.


GRAIN-CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACCOUNTS
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What was the surplus or deficit in the Canadian Wheat Board accounts for durum wheat, other wheat, oats and barley in each of the past twenty crop years?
2.	How many bushels of each class of grain were delivered in each of the same years?
3.	In cents per bushel, what were the initial and final Wheat Board payments on the top grade of each of those four types of grain in each of the same years?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL CONTRACTS LET TO KATES, PEAT AND MARWICK
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	How many federal contracts have been let to the consulting firm of Kates, Peat and Marwick, in 1968 and 1969 (a) what was the total cost of the contracts in 1968 (b) what was the total cost of the contracts in 1969?
2.	How many of these contracts for consulting services were awarded by competitive tender?
3.	Were there any contracts let to the firm of Kates, Peat and Marwick concerning the survey of coal reserve estimates in any part of Canada and, if so, in what areas?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether, in light of answers given last week in the House, he is now in a position to tell the House what action, if any, is intended with regard to the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, sometimes referred to as the Turner act? Can the minister tell the House now what will happen to it?
5218
April 26, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: No, Sir. We will make an announcement in the House as soon as feasible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of what I understood was the assurance given by the minister that a proposal would be put before the House in such a manner that it could be discussed, is the minister prepared to give the House an assurance that this matter will not be introduced and a conclusion forced upon the House before the expiry date of the Turner act on April 30?


John Napier Turner: My assurance was given and it stands. As for the date of April 30, the hon. gentleman will have to wait and see.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister why he cannot tell the House, or rather when he will tell the House, what action the government proposes to take and not simply stall and procrastinate on this important matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a supplementary question.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: My supplementary question is simple and straightforward, and I hope I will get the same kind of answer. Will the announcement the minister will be making be made before April 30 next?


John Napier Turner: I cannot be categorical about that.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-APPLICATION CRITERIA-EXPLANATION OF REFUSALS-INCREASE IN MONEY ALLOCATED

David Lewis: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister with regard to the student employment program about which he told the House some time ago. It arises out of a suspicion across the country about the criteria which have been used for the acceptance or refusal of proposals made to the Department of the Secretary of State. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could take steps to make sure that those whose programs have been refused will receive a full explanation of the reasons for refusal and an elaborated idea of the criteria which are being used in judging these proposals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the rumours on which the question is based are obviously wrong, because no program has either been accepted or refused as of this date. Obviously, in view of the figures which were given by the Secretary of State, we will have to refuse some of the proposals, and reasons will be given why they are refused.


David Lewis: I am glad to stand corrected, Mr. Speaker, but will the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State

assure the House that proposals which are made will be dealt with a great deal more rapidly, and that machinery for discussing the proposals will be made available to the people who have ideas instead of making them wait for weeks before they even receive an acknowledgement?


Gérard Pelletier: I can
promise that, Mr. Speaker. That is at present the main goal we have in mind in the Secretary of State's Department for administration of the program.


David Lewis: Although I have not had any time to look through all of Hansard in the last few weeks, as the minister will understand, I did look quickly through the statement he made last Thursday in which he pointed out that a large amount of money would be involved if he accepted all the programs, which seemed to me to be not very relevant. May I ask the Secretary of State-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member asking a supplementary question?


David Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State whether the government is considering increasing the amount of money made available for the Opportunities for Youth program?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government is considering the matter.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF PROJECTS

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: My question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that there may be considerable delay, because of the number of applications under the Opportunities for Youth program, has the Secretary of State or the government considered extending the deadline for the completion of projects, since obviously some of them will not be starting as early as anticipated?


Gérard Pelletier: That is a problem we have not faced yet, Mr. Speaker. After selection of projects and assessment of the time required for their implementation, we will get around to such considerations. I feel they are now premature. There are other more urgent problems.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-APPROVAL OF PROJECTS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Some members on this side may have misunderstood the Prime Minister, so perhaps he might wish to clarify one of his
April 26, 1971

answers. Did the Prime Minister say that none of these projects has yet been approved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oxford and eventually the hon. member for Broadview, but after these two supplementary questions we will go on to the hon. member for Portneuf.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the Prime Minister's answer can he give the House the assurance that approval of these projects which are pending will commence immediately and not be delayed indefinitely?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are expecting to do it by or before May 15.
Inquiries of the Ministry
now have a policy with regard to the dollar, and is there now an upper limit that the government will guarantee?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: If the government is going to take a position with regard to re-establishing a fixed value for the Canadian dollar, it will be announced in the normal manner.


Mr. Ryan:: Is the government considering the creation of a continuing joint federal-provincial financial and fiscal committee which would meet regularly, either monthly or quarterly, to co-ordinate borrowing and taxing policies?


Edgar John Benson: If my hon. friend had been listening he would know that I have stated several times in the House that provincial treasurers and Ministers of Finance and the Minister of Finance of Canada have arranged to meet quarterly.



TRAVELLING STUDENTS-SUGGESTED DELETION OF VAGRANCY SECTION FROM CRIMINAL CODE

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that many university students have completed their courses and will be travelling across Canada as a result of the summer youth projects, will the minister seriously consider deleting the vagrancy section from the Criminal Code so they will not be harassed in their travels?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



BANK OF CANADA-SUGGESTED PROVISION OF INTEREST-FREE LOANS

Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Portneuf wishes to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: 

FINANCE


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Minister of Finance.
Is he in a position to advise whether he has in recent days forwarded a letter to the provincial governments as well as to investment brokers asking them to restrict their bond sales and borrowings abroad?


Edgar John Benson: What I have done has been to urge Canadian borrowers to borrow in Canada rather than abroad, and I have done this before. When the current account is in surplus and there is an inflow of long-term foreign capital, it means that large borrowings abroad place pressure on the upward movement of the Canadian dollar.



REPEGGING OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FINANCIAL AND FISCAL COMMITTEE

Sylvester Perry Ryan: In order to avoid further appreciation of the Canadian dollar, does the government


Edgar John Benson: The Bank of Canada is at the service of all Canadians.



MINING COMPANIES CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS-ALLOCATION OF MONEY AVAILABLE FOR BORROWING IN CANADA

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister given consideration to the fact that indications from mining companies are that there will be a 25.4 per cent increase in their capital requirements this year, and if those intentions are acted upon they will pre-empt other borrowings on the market? Has the minister, therefore, given any consideration to finding some way of allocating capital where it can be most usefully employed in the economy and thus reduce pressure on the Canadian dollar?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in the past year the Canadian market has absorbed record amounts of long-term borrowing. There appears to be a good opportunity for borrowing in the Canadian market, and I have urged borrowers to use the Canadian market as much as possible.

April 26, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING-FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SUPREME COURT RESPECTING VALIDITY OF PROVINCIAL REGULATIONS

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the very forthright Minister of Justice if he has instructed, or if the government has instructed, counsel to intervene in the litigation involving the validity of provincial regulations restricting interprovincial trade which were passed by the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba? Has he instructed counsel to appear and oppose the legality of those regulations?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is talking about the appeal from the Court of Appeal of Manitoba on that type of legislation, the federal government will appear before the Supreme Court of Canada in that case.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure the House categorically now that the instructions which will be given to counsel will be to oppose the legality of these regulations, and not sit idly by and watch this problem in connection with national unity become worse?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the proper place for counsel to reveal his position on behalf of the Department of Justice is before the court.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the government to reveal its position.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Can he advise the House how soon this appeal will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as it is a
very important case I imagine the Supreme Court would want to put it on the preferential list, but that is up to the court.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether, in view of the statement of the Quebec Minister of Communications which one of the Prime Minister's own colleagues has termed rather flabbergasting, the subject of federal authority over communications will be a specific item on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference to be held in Victoria in June?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There has been no request that the matter be put on the agenda, Mr. Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Has the Secretary of State, who speaks for the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, submitted a proposal to the Prime Minister that this matter be placed on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference in June in view of the extensive remarks which the Quebec Minister of Communications made last weekend, regardless of what he said the weekend before, which clearly challenge federal authority in this field?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member who has just spoken sees clearly what threats arise from these speeches and on which particular points and group of points the minister wants to instigate changes, I must admit that he has been able to consider the minister's statements for longer than I have or with greater concentration. Indeed, from one statement to the next, growing confusion persists regarding the minister's intentions, and that is why I, myself, have not been able to submit any clear proposal to the attention of the government.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further supplementary question to the Secretary of State. When the Secretary of State has time to translate the statement of the provincial Minister of Communications, or to talk to the federal Minister of Communications to find out what the Minister of Communications in Quebec is saying about this important matter, would he be prepared to make a statement in the House on the position of the federal government, prior to the federal-provincial conference, as to whether this matter is going to be discussed at that conference, or are we going to witness another example of the federal government abdicating its jurisdiction and responsibility as it has with agriculture?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he say whether he or the officials of his department are taking any new steps to bring an end to the dispute at Flin Flon which has continued for so many months?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I had a chat late last week with the hon. member for Churchill, as well as with the Minister of Labour of Manitoba, about the prolonged strike at Flin Flon, and I am now contemplating the establishment of an industrial inquiry commission, if necessary, later in the week. At least, this is one of the areas I am now investigating.

April 26, 1971



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the precedent recently set in the Northwest Territories concerning the appointment of an all-Eskimo jury in the trial of an Eskimo, so far as his authority allows him would the minister recommend a similar practice in cases of trials of people of Indian ancestry?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, a jury is selected according to the provisions of the Criminal Code.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in connection with the unemployment insurance bill which has received second reading. In light of the fact the Minister of Labour of Quebec has indicated that he remains unwilling to accept some of the basic features of federal unemployment insurance, and since it is more than likely the minister held a meeting within the past week to discuss this matter, can he now advise if the objections which the provincial minister has taken in his emphatic stand have been cleared up, or is the standing committee of this House going to meet in a state of frustration, not knowing what that province or any other province wants?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Hamilton West will not mind my suggesting to him that the question he is asking deals with a matter which has been before the House and is now before a committee of the House. I would think that the question the hon. member has asked should better be resolved when the matter is before the committee or eventually when it is again before the House. Perhaps there may be an aspect of the matter which escapes me at the moment, but I would hope that the hon. member would not press the question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and with all due deference, the matter happens to be quite important to me, and I think to all those of us on this side of the House, in view of the fact we have been continually told by the Minister of Labour that if there have been any objections by the provinces, and particularly by the province of Quebec, those objections have been met. It seems to me that the minister must make a statement prior to the time the standing committee meets in order to prevent frustration on the part of hon. members and in order that we may know just what are the problems raised by Quebec in connection with the bill. I think the House is entitled to a statement by the minister on motions prior to the bill being considered by the committee.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply briefly, but I still suggest to hon. members it is a basic rule of procedure that when a bill is before a standing committee of the House, or when a bill is under consideration in the House, no question should be asked about it during the question period. But I appreciate the point made by the hon. member, and the minister might be allowed to reply to it briefly.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied that the bill falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Now that we have adopted the principle of the bill on second reading I presume all members of the House will understand that it is a federal bill, not a provincial bill. I am not certain what philosophical differences may still exist between the Minister of Labour for the province of Quebec and myself, or for that matter with other provinces, but I am satisfied that the bill is structurally sound, does not violate the constitution, and is an important and progressive piece of social legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The reply given by the minister indicates exactly the difficulty which underlies the allowing of questions about a bill which has been before the House and has been given second reading, indicating that there has been approval by the House of the principle of the bill. In my view, it is a reflection on the vote of the House to be asking questions now about the matter which to my recollection were discussed when the bill was before the House for second reading.
I suggest to hon. members it is entirely out of order at this time to be debating matters which have already been considered by the House, particularly when they ought to be discussed either in the committee or on third reading of the bill. It seems to me that the point made by the hon. member now might well be made on third reading.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order and with all due respect, Sir, in light of the fact the minister has just indicated by implication that there are differences of opinion and-I stand to be corrected-that he intends to ignore those differences of opinion inasmuch as this is federal legislation, is he now going to ignore the demands and the objections of the province of Quebec? If so, then I would think it all the more important that a statement should be made by the minister as to what those objections are.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that even if the minister wanted to make a statement now I would suggest to him that he would be out of order in making such a statement. I suggest to the hon. member that if we extend the question period by raising points of order we will not make much progress. The rules are made in such a way that when a member is not satisfied with a ruling made by the Chair on a question asked he has the right to suggest that the question be raised at the time of the adjournment. That is the recourse of the hon. member, not to raise the matter by way of a point of order.

April 26, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



FUTURE USE OF FORMER COQUALEETZA HOSPITAL

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the decision of the department of Indian and Eskimo affairs not to accept the Coqualeetza property in British Columbia for an Indian cultural and educational centre, can the minister say what plans his department now has for the disposal of this property?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that the department is giving serious consideration to possible programs for renewed use of the property within the ambit of our own responsibility and for the benefit of the Indian people.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Can the minister inform us when the decision will be made on the use to which this property is to be put?


John Carr Munro: Soon, I hope.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As more than a year has passed since the Prime Minister undertook to provide a day for debating the royal commission report on security, could he now indicate to the House when that debate might occur?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall discuss this matter with the House leader, Mr. Speaker.



POLLUTION


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that several countries protested to the Canadian government when the Canada Shipping Act was passed, can the Prime Minister state whether this government has protested the action of the British government recently in passing a bill dealing with oil pollution in which they proclaim their right to blow up vessels polluting their shores and even up to our own shores?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the hope that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has held out to veterans, especially those who are being forced to transfer from the non-taxable war veterans allowance to the taxable guaranteed income supplement, that something will be done this year to relieve their tax position, can the Minister of Finance give the assurance that any changes affecting the position of these veterans will apply to the year 1971?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot indicate in advance in the House what the position of the government will be with respect to tax measures.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
In a news bulletin over the weekend, it was reported that the Quebec Minister of Communications requests, for the province, an advisory role in the programming of CBC and CTV-Quebec broadcasts. Can he tell us whether official representations have been made to him by the Minister of Communications in this regard?


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-EFFECT OF STATEMENT BY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the most welcome recent statement in Vancouver by the Leader of the Opposition on the tanker route problem on the west coast, which in effect repudiates the efforts of the Conservative House leader on March 18 to scuttle the efforts of Members of Parliament to examine the question in detail, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has decided to follow suit and, in turn, repudiate the government House leader's misguided support of his Conservative colleague's action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would point out to the hon. member that this question is more in the form of an argument.

April 26, 1971



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs in connection with the Lancaster veterans hospital in New Brunswick. Can the minister give every assurance that there will not be a downgrading of service in this institution and that standards will remain at exactly the same level whether or not the final takeover comes about?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, our paramount consideration is the good care of veterans. We will always try to do our utmost to make sure they get the best possible health care available at the hospital and in the area.



FINANCE


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question arising out of an earlier question to the Minister of Finance regarding the curbing of foreign borrowing. Since the minister is justifiably concerned about the loss of jobs that will accrue to Canada unless we reduce the exchange level of our dollar, is he considering the reduction of interest rates or urging that interest rates be reduced in order to bring down the value of the dollar and encourage employment opportunities in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend takes a look he will find that shortterm interest rates in Canada are lower than in the United States and our interest rates in the long term are very competitive with the United States.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's explanation and I should like to ask him whether he is considering reducing interest rates even further because of the enormous amount of unemployment in Canada?



DISPROPORTIONATE PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL COST OF BORROWING-COMPENSATION THROUGH FEDERAL BUDGET OR TAX CHANGES

Sylvester Perry Ryan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government reciprocated with the provinces on foreign borrowings by assuring the provinces that any budget changes or tax amendments will compensate for the disproportionate costs of provincial and municipal debt financing compared with those of the federal government?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the question is very involved and I think I need to read it. I really could not understand what my hon. friend was getting at.
Yukon Minerals Act


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Would the minister take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker?



INFLATION-PROPOSED INCREASE IN POSTAL RATES- GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Having in mind the minister's oft-repeated urgings that we try to do everything to combat inflation, is the Postmaster General reflecting government policy by indicating a further substantial increase in the basic postal rates?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that the question cannot be asked in this way or in those terms. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-187, respecting minerals in the Yukon Territory, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of Friday's sitting I had elaborated at some length on the bureaucracy being set up by this government with respect to this act. I do not have very much more to say, except that I will continually ask for recognition of the legitimate demands of our native people. I would also impress upon the government, and particularly the minister responsible in this area, that the continual procrastination, bypassing and paternalistic attitude as well as undue complacency regarding our native people is not only an attitude which is morally wrong but one which exhibits a surprising unawareness on the part of government of a very specific situation vis-a-vis our native people. It seems to me that for some time the native people have not been brought into the decision-making process to any significant degree and, accordingly and I would say of necessity, they are left with the impression that they are not needed nor are their thoughts of any importance or consequence with respect to government decisions that may affect their lives.
I shall recap and reiterate, Mr. Speaker, the four main objectives that have been set forth at some great length by the member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson). The lack of judicial appeal, as far as this act is concerned, and the legislation by regulation seem to me and others on this side of the House to lead only to absolute control which will result in stifling the viability of economic prospects for the mining industry of the Yukon.
5224

April 26, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
Another factor of some concern is the extension of appointments to the bureaucracy. I listed them the other day, and they range from the supervising mining recorder, the engineers of mines, to deputy mining recorder and so forth. Last but not least, is the situation regarding the royalties vis-a-vis mining companies. The interest of the native peoples in this regard is of paramount interest and of considerable concern to members of this House.
Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"inasmuch as this House opposes the principle of a bill which provides for the payment of royalties accruing from the sale of mineral rights into the general revenues of the Consolidated Revenue Fund whereby such revenues may be appropriated for purposes to be recommended by His Excellency the Governor General and which bill is not accompanied by a Message from His Excellency recommending that such royalties be subject to a trust or lien in respect of the land claims of the Indian tribes in the Yukon territory, this House resolves that this bill be not now read a second time but that the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development prepare an humble address of this House to His Excellency praying that he be pleased to recommend the appropriation of a proportion of all royalties received from the sale of mineral rights in the Yukon territory in partial settlement of Canada's undertaking that the land claims of the Indian tribes in the Yukon territory would be settled in conformity with equitable principles, as by reference to the Journals of this House for 1867 will more fully appear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In a moment the Chair will look a little more closely at the amendment that has been proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West. As it has been read by the hon. member I have very serious reservations, indeed most serious reservations, about whether it is acceptable from the procedural standpoint. However, I stand to be corrected and would be pleased to listen to arguments in this regard.
When a similar amendment was made last week by an hon. member to my left, the matter was considered and there was a lengthy procedural argument. I thought it was a very interesting argument and I would be delighted to have it renewed at this time.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour will recall that last week you ruled an amendment that was almost on all fours with this one out of order principally because Your Honour felt that the amendment did not oppose the principle of the bill. The amendment that is being put forward at this time, it will be noted, clearly stipulates that the House does oppose the principle of the bill. The remainder of the arguments, which I shall not reiterate, with respect to the procedural correctness of the amendment as presented last week apply with equal force to the acceptability of this amendment.
Your Honour's objection to the acceptability of the amendment moved last week having been met by the clear statement that this amendment does oppose the principle of the bill, I suggest this amendment is now acceptable.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two very brief comments to make on the amendment moved by the hon. member. My first point is that, as is evident to all
members, opposition to the principle of a bill can be registered in the most direct way by voting against the bill. Merely to say in an amendment that the House opposes the principle of the bill is not in any way to construct a principle that is, in itself, antithetical or opposed to the principle of the bill. Therefore I do not believe that the hon. member has saved himself by adding, as the preliminary words of the amendment, the words "inasmuch as this House opposes the principle of a bill". This objective can be attained by a straight vote against the bill.
The second point I would make is that it proposes some unusual procedure by which a standing committee will be asked to propose to His Excellency that he recommend to the House the appropriation of funds. Usually, the royal recommendation is induced by the recommendation of His Excellency's advisers. So, this presents a logical difficulty to my mind.


Erik Nielsen: It has been done before.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In addition, it seems to me that if the hon. member's purpose is to attain certain objectives with respect to the distribution of revenues that are to be collected as a result of the payment of royalties, the place for him to tackle that problem, with whatever ingenuity he can muster within the procedure, is when we deal with the clauses in the standing committee. He will then be in a position to move an amendment, if he can find one that will bring about this particular purpose, though there again I think he will be stopped by the exercise of the royal recommendation which can only be induced by His Excellency's advisers.
I commend the hon. member for his ingenuity in framing the motion. It seems to be so ingenious that it does not fit within any of the normal procedures that we follow in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: May I thank the hon. member for Yukon and the President of the Privy Council for their learned and illuminating comments. The problem with the amendment now proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West is that it is so unusual it is difficult for one to put one's finger exactly on what is wrong with it.
My feeling is that a number of things are wrong with it. The point raised by the President of the Privy Council is interesting; his proposition is that you cannot do indirectly what you can do directly. I have very serious reservations whether, if this motion were proposed in any way other than the way now proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West, it could be accepted. It would clearly go against the financial reservations and prerogatives of the Crown, and in this regard I doubt that it would be acceptable.
That is not really my main objection to the motion. It seems to me that basically the motion is a substantive one. The hon. member suggests that all of the difficulties have been overcome by the initial words of the amendment "inasmuch as this House opposes the principle of the bill which provides for the payment of royalties" and so on. The hon. member suggests that the inclusion of this statement in the amendment automatically makes it

April 26, 1971

an amendment that ought to be accepted as a reasoned amendment.
There are other considerations. This difficulty having been cured, I think there is another difficulty that has not been cured, and it is that this is a substantive proposition. Last week I refused to rule on the question whether the amendment then proposed, which of course was not the same as this one, was within the four corners of the matter before the House, and whether it was relevant. I suggested at the time that I was not sufficiently familiar with all the details of the bill to be able to decide whether the amendment as proposed was relevant to the bill before us.
I would not hesitate to say at the moment that as it stands this proposition goes beyond the terms of the bill before us. It is in itself a substantive motion, and as such I do not think it can be proposed as a reasoned amendment. The Chair suggested last week that it ought to be possible for hon. members to introduce a reasoned amendment that would be acceptable to the Chair. This appeared to be extremely difficult, but because the Chair has ruled two out of order I felt that perhaps I should be as lenient as possible in interpreting the amendment which has been submitted at this time. Taking all these considerations into account, as well as my desire to be helpful and to allow hon. members to move a reasoned amendment which would be acceptable from a procedural standpoint, I do not see how this particular amendment can be accepted for the reasons which I have just stated.


Mark Willson Rose: I am not questioning Your Honour's ruling, but I am sorry that the amendment, which demonstrates the concern which I would like to mention in a little greater detail later, was not acceptable to the Chair. As the title suggests, there is too much emphasis in the bill on the exploitation of the mineral resources of the Yukon, and it is not enough concerned with the effects of this exploitation and exploration on the native people who live there. I hope some hon. members will get their heads together and come up with an amendment acceptable to the Chair which will cover this crucial point.
I will now go on to what I had intended to say about this particular bill. As the title suggests, and as I suggested earlier, this is an act respecting minerals in the Yukon territories. I wish to emphasize the word "minerals". This bill deals mainly with and is concerned about a single resource in the Canadian north, minerals. As would be imagined, the bill bristles with mining terms such as claims, mining recorders, surveys, etc. In my view that is exactly what is wrong with it. It chooses to focus on the exploratory aspect of northern development and virtually ignores any other human aspect.
Instead of a comprehensive balanced approach to total resource development and management, Bill C-187 continues a single purpose type of policy. This policy might best be capsualized in terms of "Let's raid the cookie jar; Let's do it now while no one is looking and to hell with
24081-50J
Yukon Minerals Act
the ecological consequences." Who was responsible for this panic to poke holes in the tundra all over northern Canada? What is the great rush, when at this moment we scarcely know the extent of the resources there? We know little about the legacy of what might prove to be a precipitous and irresponsible move. Are we so greedy that we ignore vertically everything learned from our mistakes in more temperate climates? We have mercury laden lakes and rivers and the depletion of fish off both coasts. Have we not learned from these experiences that caution is needed when dealing with northern development, where the ecology is much more sensitive and much less capable of regeneration than that of the temperate zones?
We have violated our renewable resources to such an extent that they may take years to rehabilitate. I speak of such resources as fisheries and forestry. Having raped our renewable resources, we should exercise a tremendously greater caution when dealing with nonrenewable resources and an ecology that is probably less capable of regeneration than that of the more temperate zones.
I wish to return to my earlier concern for a balanced, multiple use of public lands or what might be described as a more rational approach to northern development. Bill C-187 expresses relatively little concern for the native people. It does not express a great deal more concern for the sensitive plant and animal communities of that very important part of Canada. At the risk of fatiguing hon. members, I wish to quote extensively from an editorial entitled "Our Vulnerable North" which appeared in the Saturday, April 10 edition of the Globe and Mail. The editorial quotes a Department of Northern Affairs official, Dr. Naysmith, who put forward his case. He did not argue against northern development. He is speaking of oil and gas exploration and pipelines. I quote:
Most wisely, he presents his case of the imagination of Canadians through the impact which development could have on a particular group,-
-the Old Crow Indians who have sustained themselves in a certain area from time out of mind, without impairing its ecological balance. There are about 150 of them. Caribou is their main source of food and clothing; they take about 500 a year. They also fish and trap for furs. On the basis of a hunting and trapping economy the annual return to the Old Crow Indians averages out at around $70,000.
What would development yield them? Discussions with geophysical exploration companies-
I will paraphrase here. The editorial indicates that in a five year period the total would be approximately $120,000. The editorial continues:
The pipeline companies estimated that the maintenance of a pipeline could employ approximately five Old Crow Indians at an annual wage of $7,000, which over 20 years would mean $700,000.
The total industrial gains to the Old Crow Indians, from both sources, would therefore in 20 years amount to $820,000,-
This is the important point:
-whereas by following their own mode of life they would earn the equivalent of $1,400,000, and it would be spread through the whole community and not just handed to a few.
Development without the proper protections could, according to Mr. Naysmith, reduce the value of the land in terms of a

April 26, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
hunting and trapping economy to zero. ''On the other hand," he writes, "rigid regulatory control of land-use operations could maintain the value of the habitat at the full $1,400,000."
The article is rather lengthy, so I will not continue with it but it indicates the kind of cost-benefit concern we have to highlight. This is exactly what the amendment proposed a few moments ago was attempting to get at. The Naysmith editorial dealt only with oil and gas exploration, but we know there are other groups of companies involved in other kinds of exploration-minerals, for examples. We know also that there are native people in northern Canada, other than the Old Crow Indians, used in my example who are affected.
The statement in the editorial is indicative of what can happen to one group of people. It is but an example. We can read more into it than that if we remember that nearly 50 per cent of the people living in northern Canada are native people.
If one did not learn from reading the bill, a tip-off as to who is really calling the shots on northern development could be obtained from a press release from the minister's office datelined Whitehorse, February 27, 1971. I quote from page 1 of the press release:
Proposed Land-Use Regulations-
By the way, we have not seen these land-use regulations.


Erik Nielsen: We have.


Mark Willson Rose: I have not seen these land-use regulations.


Erik Nielsen: Which version?


Mark Willson Rose: I had intended to make that point later. Will these land use regulations be made public by press release or will they be tabled in the House of Commons?


Erik Nielsen: The press release version, I expect.


Mark Willson Rose: There will probably be many versions before we are through. It should not be forgotten that the success of this bill depends to a great extent on the nature of these land use regulations. If the regulations are amorphous or ambiguous, the situation is all the more frightening. Anyway, before I was assisted by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I was about to quote from the minister's press release. The hon. gentleman says that regulations for the Yukon have caused concern in the territory. He does not tell us where this concern originated. He added that these regulations were still subject to discussion between government representatives, the mining industry and some of the other interested people. I hope "some of the other interested people" are natives. That is what the minister said on February 27. The communique went on to state:
The minister gave this assurance following representations made last week by the mining industry which feels that the regulations in their present form would inhibit development of the Yukon.


An hon. Member:: Isn't that awful?


Mark Willson Rose: That is interesting, because there is likely to be a polarity of opinion, a dichotomy of view as between those who owe allegiance to shareholders and those who are concerned about the ecology of the north and the wellbeing of the native people. We would like to know on whose side the minister is. The communique continues:
The minister said he wanted to assure the people of the Yukon and the Yukon Chamber of Mines that there would be adequate provision for appeal-
So, these people will be able to appeal. Will there be adequate provision for appeal by the native people when their traplines are desecrated and their herds made extinct? That is what we should like to know. This is the most important issue before us now. It is obvious the mining companies have "got to" the minister, those who want to go to the north, make a profit, and get out as fast as possible. Are only they to be given adequate opportunity for appeal?
-where discretionary powers were exercised in a quasi-judicial manner; the need for other discretionary powers would be carefully reviewed and regulations pursuant to the act would be introduced only after thorough discussion and after adequate notice had been given to the mining industry and the general public of the Yukon.
That press release was sent out in February, and it is relatively old. In any event, it is not particularly reassuring. I think we should understand perfectly clearly who it is the minister wants to reassure. Is it the Indians? Is it the Eskimo who have lived for centuries in the north? Is it the tourist camp operators who look upon the north, its flora and wildlife as worth preserving? Or is the minister thinking of those who consider the north only as a storehouse, as a resource package to be exploited? I submit that those the minister wants to reassure are the mining and exploration companies and their satellites, the businessmen, the subcontractors, the whites who want to go into the north, make a killing and get out as fast as possible. An examination of the cemeteries of the north would reveal that most whites go south to die.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is no longer so. You have not been there for a long time, if ever. That is evident.


Mark Willson Rose: I have not been there since the minister has been to Texas.
These are the people the minister wants to reassure. They are a powerful and well-financed lobby and I think they will do their best to destroy even the puny environmental regulations for which provision is made in the bill. This is what frightens us. If we can mount as powerful and persuasive a lobby from this side of the House, so much the better.
A few weeks ago the CBC aired an excellent documentary on the north. It was called "A White Paper on the North" and in my opinion it should be required viewing in every school and college in Canada. I say this because unless we wake up very soon, the north will be dominated by the explorers and the exploiters whose depredations-and this is the view of many well-informed people -will destroy a part of Canada which is so sensitive as to be incapable of ecological regeneration within a reasonable time.
April 26, 1971

People who know most about this subject belong to a special branch of science called boreal biology. They tell us that special techniques and attitudes are necessary in the north. I am sure the Department of Northern Development has specialists in this field on its staff. What I am not so sure about is whether anyone listens to their advice. They might help write the press releases, handle the public relations, but are they listened to when the decisions are made? Why is the ecology of the north so sensitive? A brief review might be worth while. First, the low energy budget of northern ecosystems; for example, scars made by tracked vehicles are virtually permanent. Second, the factor of permafrost; once the insulation has been removed, the subsurface softens, contributing to the permanency of the scarring. Dr. Pruitt, who is an outstanding boreal biologist, has commented on this subject and I believe his observations are worthy of notice. He was called upon to assist the department in connection with these studies, but I am uncertain whether or not his recommendations were accepted.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Some, yes.


Mark Willson Rose: I am not sure that all the recommendations were accepted, particularly those which would ensure that the dangers about which we are talking would be avoided.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member saw over the weekend that there are two sides to a question.


Mr. Benjamin:: Yes, but the mining companies' side always comes up.


Mark Willson Rose: Dr. Pruitt does not want development in the north to be stopped. He wants assurance that the north will remain as unspoiled as possible, consistent with reasonable development. He wants reasonable care to be taken. Writing in the CSRS newsletter, he says:
The regulations due to be presented are ecologically unsound and philosophically naive... They will not stop the single resource concept, the one-resource concern of the federal government.
He goes on to make some suggestions. In his view, the proposed regulations would limit the multiple use of all resources. He specified some of the restrictions which should be imposed. For instance, tracked vehicles should not exceed a ground pressure of 70 pounds per square inch.
He also recommends the burning of all trash, or the burying of all trash, including oil barrels, of the unburnable type. He suggests that all exploration information be pooled in order that the results may be available to everyone without repeating exploration which would result in the digging of holes all over the Arctic. Regulations should require that all camps be equipped with incinerators for the burning of garbage. Dr. Pruitt would prohibit vehicle travel in streams, except by canoes or airboats. Camp operations would be prohibited in caribou fawning or rutting areas during certain times of the year and camps should be fenced. He refers to many other
Yukon Minerals Act
things and in general is very critical about the proposed regulations. He also suggests more and larger land management zones. The point should be made also that land management zones represent a very small fraction of the total land area of the north.
Dr. Pruitt concludes his CSRS newsletter article by saying:
Thus we see that the problem resolves itself into three parts:
(a)	the absolute necessity of having regulations and stipulations that ensure the survival of the entire ecosystem; in other words, regulations based on the hard facts of boreal ecology, not on economic expediency.
(b)	The necessity of covering all the NWT and YT with regulations designed for each ecological zone; and
(c)	the necessity of a performance bond to be posted for each operator or permitee.
A pretty strong case therefore has been made about the possible dangers of ecological damage. It should be emphasized too, that we are not against development, but rather development without proper regard for the possible consequences.
Now, let me refer to something a little more specific in relation to this bill. There are probably two main areas of contention. One area concerns commonlaw rights, rights of entry, restrictions on claim staking, protection and compensation for holders of surface rights who have been infringed upon by the mining industry, most of which are historically occupied by native people. The main point is the degree to which the mining industry has control over the public lands. Where can one not explore? You cannot explore in townsites, but how many townsites are there in the Yukon? You cannot explore in national parks in the Yukon. Where are the national parks in the Yukon?


Erik Nielsen: Ask the minister.


Mark Willson Rose: You cannot explore in cemeteries, but everywhere else you can explore. These are not very restrictive exploration limits.
The second point of contention deals with regulations for the proper use of land once a claim has been entered. I think it is fair to say that the Territorial Land Act of 1952 did not cover well enough the area of protection and control of exploitation and development. The amendments in this bill refer to land use regulations which are still in draft form. I have not received any real assurance to the contrary. This is vital because a great deal of the environmental provisions for land use written into Bill C-187 are contingent upon land use regulations.
The bill of course represents an improvement over what we have had up until now, the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, but there is a great deal more which must be done. Land use regulations, in my opinion, will be formed in two parts. There will be general land use regulations concerning the whole, of the territorial lands and there will be rules for special zones to be set aside known as land management zones. As I understand it, the second part of the regulations in respect of land management zones will be more specific and effective. However, the point is that virtually none of the Yukon mineral

April 26, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
areas will be part of the land management zones. I think this indicates something unhealthy about the legislation.
When we were discussing the government reorganizational bill we learned to our horror that the minister of environment was not going to be responsible for the environment or pollution in the Northwest Territories. This responsibility will reside mainly with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). When we in this party spoke about that part of the reorganizational bill which deals with the environment, we insisted that the minister of environment should have his authority extended to cover the land part of Canada, if not the sea. Under this bill, decisions concerning the environment will be largely in the hands of mining appointees and engineers. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) made this point when he talked about the bureaucracy associated with these decisions. These mining appointees will probably not have sufficient guidelines spelled out and will operate largely on the basis of personal opinion.
Presumably the first part of these land use regulations, which none of us has seen, will be designed by mining engineers. Are mining engineers really capable of making judgments involving boreal ecological matters? If we leave the protection of our public lands in the hands of these mining engineers, it is essential that they clearly state their intentions. It must be clearly stated what the authority of these engineers is, the regulations they must follow and the extent to which they can go. We must remember that a mining engineer is also responsible for the construction of roads and airstrips. It is not only an exploration site which is subject to destruction, but also the access area to those sites. There is nothing to prevent exploration companies from building roads all over the north.


Erik Nielsen: Or prospectors going in with hobnail boots.


Mark Willson Rose: That is right, destroying the tundra. That is a possibility and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) makes light of this. He should not be facetious about something so essential to the future of human life on this planet. People who are sensitive about ecological matters are often considered to be softheaded and sentimental.
We realize there must be a considerable amount of initiative, exploration and development in order to provide any kind of full employment or an economic base in Canada. We do not argue that point. The argument being made here is that we must do this with the least disruption possible. We must remember that about 60 per cent of the mines in the Yukon are owned by United States citizens and that about 60 per cent of production is exported. Why are we doing this? We must make up our minds.


An hon. Member:: How much longer?


Mark Willson Rose: I have not very much time left. Let me say I do not believe a mining engineer should have jurisdiction beyond areas included in mining claims. We require specialists in ecology. There is a profound risk that public lands in Canada, owned by all the people, might be
exploited by being subject to single purpose uses. The people of Canada are subsidizing much of the activity in the north.


Erik Nielsen: And in the provinces.


Mark Willson Rose: The north is not generating this activity for the benefit of the rest of the people.
Let me conclude by summarizing some of the things I have stated. I do not speak for other members of my party in this regard, but I personally object to the single resources concept, and that is what this bill is. I object to the fact that the Yukon Territory does not come within the authority of the minister of environment. We are concerned because there is lack of appreciation for aboriginal rights. We are concerned because the land use regulations are still to be published in final form. We are concerned because the land management zones are entirely above the 65th parallel where litte exploratory work is being done. We are concerned that the mining engineer will have jurisdiction over all the land. What competence has he? We would hope to have the multiple use concept recognized if the regulations were passed immediately in the light of what we know about boreal ecology. I should like to see all the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory covered by the legislation. I should also like to see a performance bond for each operator.
In conclusion, I wish to make a cyclical reference to my introductory concern about the native people, the Indians, Eskimos and the Metis who make up 45 per cent of the population, but only 4 per cent of whom are employed in the Yukon. I would hope we would do everything possible to see that the rights of the native people are assured and that there is compensation for those people who live in the historical lands which have been violated. I would also hope we would exercise every possible concern for orderly development in respect of the vital and sensitive ecology.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments in respect of this bill. I assure members of the House that I do not do so on the basis of having all the answers about the north or that I have become an expert on the subject. A few days ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) admitted quite bluntly that during the negotiations for the sale of Home Oil, he was constantly skating on thin ice because of the absence of a government policy on the whole question of foreign investment in Canada. I suggest the same sort of thing applies to the present bill. It is another example of the government moving or trying to move in this delicate area without first having adopted, or perhaps even considered, any integrated policy in respect of foreign investment or even northern development. It is another example of the piecemeal type of operation we have so often criticized in the past. Not only is there no integrated investment or development policy, because these are aspects of the same thing, but neither is there a policy in
IMr. Rose.]
April 26, 1971

respect of native rights, sis previous speakers have indicated. Yet this bill attempts, in a vague way, to deal with both, and with matters of ecology, which is another field in which general policy is still non-existent.
Surely, this is no way to proceed with regard to a serious matter. It is no way to write a bill on a serious subject. In granting a wide range of discretionary powers to officialdom while at the same time doing away with the right of appeal to the courts from their decisions, in many instances the government seems again to be abdicating its responsibility in this matter. I say that, while the government may be content to do that, I do not believe Parliament will look very kindly upon that kind of abdication. The simple but sad fact is that in the realm of mineral exploitation, as in so many areas with this government, we are constantly faced by uncertainty and confusion. Policies, whether for the short-term or long run, are noticeable only for their vagueness and any knowledge is notable only by its absence.
I know a little whereof I speak because I have just returned from another part of the north, places where the closely related issues of mining and development are of vital importance not only to business and governments but above all to the people who live there. Both in the State of Alaska and in the province of British Columbia, I found great evidence of uncertainty and ignorance. The people there certainly were very uncertain concerning the intentions of the Canadian government, and it was quite obvious that the government of Canada was quite ignorant about what will be happening in Alaska that will affect the future development of our own north as well as the coast of British Columbia.
There is no question but that what is going on in Alaska today is important with regard to the future development of the Yukon, our own North, and the type of issue that is raised by this bill. In Alaska, of course, the pipeline project has not received final approval and we are not, in respect of this bill, talking about the movement of oil. We are considering, however, the question of development of the Yukon. Even the mineral development may very well involve questions such as pipelines and their feasibility. Here we have next door to us in Alaska a large project in respect of which feasibility studies are well under way, where the route has been surveyed and where experiments have been under way concerning different aspects of the project, such as how pipe may be laid in permafrost and other problems related to permafrost.
In the face of all this, and the fact that Canada itself may very well be involved in a pipeline before long, this government apparently has chosen, if not to ignore the activities in Alaska, at least to not place an observer on the spot which would have been very easy to do. The government has chosen not to follow the problems arising from the whole problem, the solutions made or required, and the difficulties which are foreseen. The government of Canada has made arrangements for the exchange of information with regard to the north with the USSR, and I fully approve of that. But here right next door to us a feasibility study is being carried on which, in many
Yukon Minerals Act
respects, is of first importance to our own country, but so far as I can find out the government of Canada is not closely following this development. Observers have not been there. This, after all, would have called for some spirit of initiative and some practical imagination on the part of the government but here, as in so many other places, neither has been forthcoming.
This is not the time for me to speak about the oil situation or the movement of oil, except to say that the evidence of ignorance on the part of the government of Canada and its callousness in respect of what may be happening is almost overwhelming. Here, in terms of the oil business-I am interested in this because the same industry is involved to some extent in both areas-we have conflicting statements concerning what the government of Canada would like to see happen. We have the government of Canada going around in circles and behaving like a windmill. I only hope the government of Canada and its officials know more about the development of minerals in the north, and the environmental problems associated with this, than it knows about the problems involved in the movement of oil and the effect which the plans people are making will have upon our own country. I only hope that somehow or other this government and the department concerned are more knowledgeable with regard to the subject of this bill than they are with regard to the general subject of minerals, but I am afraid I really cannot have such confidence.
We do not know in this country whether the many possible developments are practical in economic terms or desirable in terms of the physical environment of the areas, and we do not know how we should proceed. We are certainly not using our opportunities to find out. In other words, we seem to have the worst of both worlds so far as the government is concerned. The government has been sitting by, doing little on its own. I recognize that there have been experiments, that some research has been going on in Inuvik and perhaps some other places. We certainly have not been trying to find out what has been going on just outside our borders or what effect this may have on us. Even though others have been vigorously conducting their studies and spending millions of dollars in the process, we have not even taken the trouble to look at what they have been doing and how they have been doing it.
The same thing applies to another vital aspect of northern development, and others have referred to it. I am referring here to the question of native rights, the rights of Indian and Eskimo peoples whose land and lives have already been so severely affected by the coming of our civilization to their part of the world,-if we want to speak of it as civilization-and to whom we have a responsibility. Even if someone wanted to ignore the human aspect of the native rights and consider only the legal problems, it is surely clear that one of the problems that the development of Alaska, for example, has run into is precisely the issue of the rights of the native people. It is very clear to the Alaskans that a settlement of the native rights question is essential before any real

April 26, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
development can go forward. There has been at least a searching for a solution and, I think, one could say an honest approach toward a solution.
In our northwest we seem to be far behind and we can expect to pay the price for what once again is a lack of initiative and imagination on the part of this government. Even if one wanted to ignore the human aspects of the problem, there are many ways in which the question of native rights can be involved in the mineral and other development of the Yukon and of our north. I say that this absence of policy and this government confusion goes far beyond the north and the northwest. It extends right down the coast of British Columbia, and it goes along with what seems to be an uncaring ignorance of the prospects of environmental damage that are associated with such matters as the tanker route from Alaska to the U.S. west coast ports. This is not the time to develop this theme. I mention it simply as an indication of the ignorance of this government and what seems to be its indifference to matters of such importance in an area similar to the area considered by this bill.


Erik Nielsen: Shameful neglect.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The further north one goes the greater is the danger to the coast of British Columbia and the greater the need for Canadian intervention in the whole question of oil transportation. I say that this government-in that area at least, and I am afraid of this- seems content to bask in its own ignorance and to pretend that a problem does not exist if you simply ignore it. In northern development, just as in the related problem of the environment of the west coast, this government has been guilty of dereliction of duty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), and I do so with great reluctance, but it does seem to me that a great deal of his speech has been devoted to the development of oil transportation and the exploration for oil. May I point out with respect that I have some difficulty in relating that directly to the bill and I would ask the Leader of the Opposition with respect to relate his remarks to the bill.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I respect your views, Mr. Speaker. I thought I was being careful to make clear the relevance of the point I was making to this bill, that is that questions of transportation, for example, and questions relating to native rights having been clearly ignored, obviously these other areas are equally relevant in connection with the bill that we are considering.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was relating in particular the question of pipelines to this bill because it would not stretch one's imagination to consider the possibility of pipelines being used to transport solid fuels and minerals generally, in addition to oil or gas. But I want to emphasize in particular the recognition of native rights, which must be relevant to this bill whatever view one takes of it. The government has achieved nothing but continuing and growing tension. If we as a Parliament are to show our

concern about the technical and human problems involved we have only one choice, that is to adopt the position advocated by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and to force the government to adopt some acceptable long term policies before going ahead with this slipshod and dangerous legislation.


Mr. Sian Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of features of Bill C-187, the Yukon Minerals Act, which disturb me greatly, and chief amongst them is the excessive amount of discretionary powers which will be vested in appointed officials of the public service in the administration of this act. The dangers of these powers, quite aside from them being discretionary, lie in the fact that appeals to independent judicial bodies from decisions made under them do not exist.
Over 40 years ago the Right Hon. Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of England, wrote an incisive and still timely work called "The New Despotism". One of the chapters in his book is entitled "Administrative Lawlessness", from which I would like to quote the following passage:
Will anybody at this time of day deny that it is essential to the proper administration of justice that the decision should be based on evidence, and that the evidence should be heard in the presence of both parties, who are given the opportunity of cross examination? Evidence not tested by cross examination is nearly always misleading and practically valueless. The public official, as had been observed, may, and often does, decide without any evidence at all, and he may act on ex parte statements, made by one party without anything to support them, which are never brought to the knowledge of the other party, so that he has no opportunity to contravert them. Is it too much to say that such proceedings are a mere travesty of justice?
Earlier on in his work, Lord Hewart observed that:
To employ the terms "administrative law" and "administrative justice" to such a system, or negation of system, is really grotesque. The exercise of arbitrary power is neither law nor justice, administrative or at all. The very conception of law is a conception of something involving the application of known rules and principles, and a regular course of procedure.
Subclause (1) of clause 37 of Bill C-187 provides for the supervising mining recorder to cancel the recording of, or to refuse to record, any mineral claim where he is satisfied that the person claiming the rights involved therein is not entitled to them. While an appeal from his decision is permitted, it is restricted to being heard by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), whose decision thereon then becomes final. When we remember that the minister will be entirely dependent on the advice of his officials in arriving at the decisions made on such appeals, it becomes obvious that, in effect, what is taking place is really a meaningless appeal procedure whereby one public servant, or several, pass judgment on the appropriateness of the decision of one of their colleagues. Under these circumstances, can any one wonder why miners are apprehensive about the type of justice which they are likely to receive under the provisions of this bill? Public servants, passing judgment on other public servants, particularly when they are all in the same department, in my view represent nothing more than the workings of a mutual admiration society.
April 26, 1971

As a further specific example of excessive discretionary powers proposed in the bill, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to clause 79(2), a particularly important clause because it deals with annual royalties payable to the Crown by mine owners. This subclause allows the minister-and of course this authority will be delegated-to decide whether two or more mines are operated by the same mine operator, or whether they are under the same general management and control. There is no appeal provided from this most arbitrary decision, the consequences of which could be enormous for the people who may be affected by it.
Paragraph (a) of clause 83 empowers the minister to reduce the value of depreciation on machinery, equipment or buildings at a mine where such depreciation has been claimed at a rate of 15 per cent per annum. Again, no appeal lies from this arbitrary decision. The discretionary powers embodied in the bill only add uncertainty to the Yukon mining industry, an industry which if nothing else is uncertain and risky by its very nature. Hon. members also ought to note that the proposed legislation further threatens the industry by establishing a most substantially increased scale of royalties which will not be alleviated by tax abatement provisions because, as I pointed out in my remarks on April 22, the Yukon Territory is not a province.
The measures proposed in this bill are particularly resented by the people of the Yukon Territory because, at a time when mining development is just beginning to move at a very encouraging rate, new proposals are introduced which place mineral operations in the Yukon Territory at a very significant taxation disadvantage compared with the same type of operation in British Columbia and Quebec. This cannot but discourage mineral exploration and development in the Yukon Territory, with appropriate consequences for the people who live there.
In a recent report in the Globe and Mail, to be specific on March 26, 1971, Mr. Jack Austin, the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, is reported as having told a group of mining executives in Toronto that:
Old antagonisms between government and the mining industry are breaking down.
If the present bill, as proposed, becomes law I can assure Mr. Austin and his minister, as well as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that they will be in for very substantial disillusionment. How can a piece of legislation such as the present bill, which would treat so unfairly the principal industry in an area faced with enormous natural problems in developing industrially, be received with anything else but hostility by the people who must operate under it or who otherwise will be affected by it?
In response to Mr. Austin's questionable optimism, I think it is worth citing a small portion from an editorial entitled "This is Where It's At" which appeared in the December, 1970, edition of the Western Miner. The final paragraph in that editorial reads:
As Mr. P. M. Reynold, President of Bethlehem Copper Corporation, so aptly observed at a recent meeting with Finance
Yukon Minerals Act
Minister Benson-"We are just not able to communicate with you and your advisers. We are not on the same wave length." The industry has made every possible effort to communicate, but apparently to no avail. Surely, with such undeniable evidence of the employment creating capability of the mining industry, government must reconsider its proposals to destroy this capability through unrealistic tax policies.
If we were dealing with a government which had a normal measure of humility, it might be possible to have some of the more extreme and punitive aspects of this legislation changed. Frankly, having observed the arrogance and self-righteousness of the government, particularly when it comes to listening to points of view alternative to its, I must despair of hoping that it will heed the representations which have been made against the proposed act by such bodies as the Vancouver Board of Trade.
In its letter of February 23, 1971, the Vancouver Board of Trade wrote to the minister as follows:
It is calculated that the proposed Yukon royalty will be more than three times as much as the present royalty over the first five years of an operating mine and more than twice as much over the first ten years.
This increase in disparity with mining taxes in the provinces coupled with the higher cost of mining and exploration in the Yukon will minimize the future growth in the territory.
On the matter of ministerial discretion, the Board of Trade observed, and again I quote:
There are sufficient uncertainties in mining without compounding the problem. Ministerial discretion, which in practice may mean a civil servant without mining or business experience, is an unacceptable method of applying a tax. It should be used as a last resort and not to cover vagueness and ambiguity in drafting. Examples of unnecessary use of ministerial discretion can be found throughout the bill but in particular we point out section 79(2), 80(c) and 83(a) and 84. The abrogation of parliamentary rights and the resultant possible abuse becomes critical when a taxpayer has no right of appeal to a court.
The Yukon Chamber of Mines in its submission to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development on this bill made the following criticism of its royalties provisions:
The Finance Minister's white paper on tax reform indicates a major tax increase for mining companies. A study of an existing copper mining company of an average size revealed that over a ten year period its tax burden would have been increased by more than 35 per cent had the white paper been in effect during that time. In a ten year period the total tax burden for a mining company operating in British Columbia under the white paper would have been 60 per cent greater than the burden it would have had to bear in the United States and 63 per cent more than it would have had to sustain in Australia. Mining investment capital is very specialized in that it tends to stay with the industry and not move to other industries. Should mining in Canada become less attractive as a result of the white paper it is very probable that Canadian mining capital would not be deployed to some other activity in Canada but rather would leave the country in search of other more attractive (mining) ventures.
It seems to me that once again the government is working at cross purposes in this bill. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) is responsible for a department which is spending many millions of dollars yearly in an effort to stimulate economic expansion in areas where such activity is not taking place at a sufficient rate and in a degree to provide stable

April 26, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
employment tor the local work force. The provisions of this bill will work to the detriment of the efforts of his department in giving incentive grants to industries located in the north because its provisions will work in such a way as to discourage and penalize development in the principal industry in the Yukon Territory. Those of us who have watched the progress of mineral development at such an optimistic rate in the Yukon Territory have hoped that from it would spring logically related, and badly needed secondary industries to provide a whole new base for future development in that part of our country.
There is no doubt, however, that short-sighted, negative, arbitrary and restrictive measures, such as those contained in this proposed act, will destroy any such hope for the development of secondary industries when the primary industry on which they would be based will be so adversely affected by this unwarranted piece of legislation. Is it any wonder that it has been so soundly criticized by those people who know best the needs of the Yukon Territory and whose views I have already cited in small measure earlier in this speech? This proposed act is merely further evidence that the government intends to continue its policy of designing laws geared to making life simple for the bureaucrats. The fact that this measure is neither sought by the people whom it affects, nor of benefit to them, is not, of course, and as usual, regarded by this government as being sufficient reason for altering it.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I prepared this speech about a month and a half ago, so if the situation regarding the bill has changed in the meantime I hope I can still be understood. I should like to suggest that the minerals or anything else in the north should be developed for the benefit of the people of all Canada. Perhaps we should start with the people of the north and then include all Canada, but I do not think these resources should be developed only for the people of southern Canada, as I am afraid has been the case quite frequently in the past.
I think there should be some definite move on the part of the government, in connection with this bill or any other, to help the people of the north on a permanent basis. I cannot think of anything that would be more effective than moving those people connected with the administration of mining or power or anything else to the communities concerned. Surely, if they lived in the area they would have a better understanding of the problems and their decisions would benefit the people much more than decisions made in Ottawa.
The complaints I receive from people in the north tend to be along the line that we do not understand their problems and make decisions about things without sufficient knowledge. I would like, therefore, to suggest that the government base its decision-making personnel closer to the areas with which they are concerned. We should make definite efforts to conserve the non-renewable resources of the north for future use. It will be too bad if we do not make the most effective use of the resources
available. First, we should take an inventory of the mineral resources of the north. We have done this to some degree already in the Carr report, which resulted from a study of the obvious things in the north but I am sure there is still much to be done.
I should like to make the following points: There has been no study of Canada's mineral resources either in the north or in the rest of Canada, or of our future national needs for various minerals similar to the study of the National Energy Board on oil, gas and coal in which the future demand and supply reserves were estimated based on probable reserves, projected future production, and future needs based on certain estimates of what our economic growth, industrial development and trading patterns should be. As far as mineral resources are concerned, the Canadian government is pursuing a "head in the sand" type of policy in which it is assumed that we have plentiful reserves and our economic growth and balance of payments position depend upon the ever-increasing development and sale of our natural resources by whomever can be enticed into exploiting them.
I would suggest that it is important that we make an inventory of what we have, and then decide on our future needs. Exploiting our resources to make money is not good enough. In conjunction with the mining development in the north, we should begin to build secondary industries. Smelters, refineries and reduction plants would provide a base for heavy industry, and freight costs on many items in and out would be reduced if we had a total package rather than one primary industry. The development of a total economy, rather than just mining, is desirable. It should not just be a matter of mine quickly, get out and leave the north. Mining will form the basis of northern economy but development of support services may bring something which will be renewable and long lasting. I would suggest also the development of farming. Thinking in terms of the Yukon, there may be a form of farming, different from that in Ontario or western Canada, but which would be suitable to that particular area.
I have asked the minister a number of times if he has investigated what the Russians have done. I have suggested that he take the committee to see how they have developed the north. As I understand it, the Canadian government has not done too much. I am sure the committee would gain much from such a visit and could make worth-while recommendations as a result. I saw a film provided by the minister called "Below Zero". It was most enjoyable but I noticed a serious omission. There was nothing in it about the country which has more northern territory and more winter than all others put together, that is Russia. Surely, this area should be investigated. I do not suggest that we should do everything the way the Russians do or that they have necessarily done the right thing, but surely we could learn something from them.
I read Farley Mowat's book on Siberia recently and while I do not suggest that he is an authority on this or any other north, he did point out some measures that I do not think we have followed in Canada. He spoke of using the permafrost to build dams, for instance, and this

April 26, 1971

idea interested me very much. He described some testing in regard to pipelines, and mentioned mining for diamonds and gold and drilling for oil. He described support services such as agriculture in the north, speaking particularly of reindeer herds which supply meat for people in the mining camps. Surely, it would be worth while for the committee to make a trip to northern Siberia in order to study what has been done there. I do not think the minister or members of the committee have been able to persuade the government to let them go. Should they be able to do so, I am sure there would be no lack of volunteers from this side of the House to accompany them. In so far as this bill is concerned, I think we should certainly make a trip to the north to hear what the people there think about it.
With regard to ownership in the north, I should like to make the brief comment that, in developing mines in the north beyond the financial capacity of Canadian private enterprise, rather than introduce foreign capital we should adopt the Panarctic approach. Further, if we want to construct smelters or refineries and things of that kind, we should turn to the Canada Development Corporation for financing. After all, why ship out of the country minerals in unprocessed form if we can process them at home? I suggest here is a logical place for the Canada Development Corporation to assist in Canadian development. Finally, we should show particular concern for the natives of the north. We should educate them so that they can contribute to northern development and find employment in the mining of Yukon minerals.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I must point out to the House that if the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) now takes the floor, that will bring the debate to an end. Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too much time since there will be occasion to debate the bill at committee stage after it has been referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
May I thank all hon. members who have participated in the debate, which I think has been a good one. Some hon. members wanted to raise other problems that have arisen in the past, such as the problems facing our native peoples. I am sorry we cannot have a full discussion of those problems, but I would say that I think all hon. members, certainly those on this side of the House, will agree that never before has the federal government entered into a dialogue with the native population of Canada. We have tried to seek their advice concerning the many measures we are proposing, especially in the field of employment in the north. We started a campaign two years ago to try to persuade developers in the north to give priority to the employment of the native popula-
Yukon Minerals Act
tion. This was evident from the guidelines we issued last August which stated that, if pipelines are constructed in the north, not only at the construction stage but at the operation stage the native people should be fully and permanently employed.
We very strongly believe that if we give our native people the skills required they will make very good employees and be very reliable. There is one benefit we will all gain from their working in the north, and that is that they will have no wish to come south. They are happy to live in the north because that is their country. The government and I realize this, and it is why we are not shy about speaking of what we have done and are planning to do for our native people.
Now is not the time to discuss this because this bill deals with mineral development in the Yukon. It is not a perfect bill, of course, and I said in my speech that we would make some changes at the committee stage. People in the north are concerned about the level of royalties, and I did say that we would make some adjustments there. I think all hon. members will agree that we must make sure that the royalties we receive from the mines in the north are not higher in amount than those received in British Columbia. But I repeat: We are going to make sure that revenue from royalties from mines in the Yukon received by the government will be lower than revenues received by the provincial administration of B.C. In this regard, I am going to present an amendment that will reflect the wishes of the House.
As far as the Canadian participation clause is concerned, I do not apologize for forcing industry in the north to accept investment from Canadians. This is the only industry in the Yukon under federal administration to which a clause of this sort does not apply. Pending a general review of policy on Canadian participation; we are going to put this proposal forward. I do not think development of the Yukon will suffer. At the same time, I think it is right that Canadians be allowed to participate in northern development if they so wish.


Erik Nielsen: They can do so now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If a United States company develops a mine in the Yukon at the present time, it can refuse Canadian participation. We are trying to get such concerns to list their stocks on the Canadian market. In that event, any Canadian could buy shares in that company.
I was glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) make a speech. The only thing that annoyed me a little was that he visited Alaska before he visited Canada. He should have visited the Canadian north before making that speech.


Erik Nielsen: He has been to the north.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He went during the last campaign; he went to the Northwest Territories. I think he should have visited the Canadian north first, and I am glad he is planning to do that. I am only sorry he did not do it before.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The impression is being left by the minister that

April 26, 1971
Division
the Leader of the Opposition has not visited the north. That is inaccurate. He has been to the Yukon and to the Northwest Territories. The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, was the first Canadian Prime Minister to visit the north twice in succession.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Since we are close to five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I will not raise any more issues. One of the accusations made by the Leader of the Opposition was that we are not following the Alaskan experience. I was in Alaska before he was and officials of my department visit Alaska regularly. They are making sure that we are kept informed on everything taking place there. I can assure hon. members that we pretty well know the situation in Alaska, and know much more about the situation in the north than do the members of the opposition. We will have ample opportunity to discuss the bill in committee after second reading. I am willing to examine all suggestions made by hon. members in committee, and I am sure this bill is going to be a great improvement on the former legislation governing the administration of the resources in the north.


Erik Nielsen: Rubbish.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Erik Nielsen: We want a recorded division, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

April 26, 1971



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. 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 Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie).-Proposed trans-Alaska pipeline system- expression of Canadian opposition-participation by British Columbia in meeting with United States officials; the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin)-Public Service- Department of National Health and Welfare-officers in Toronto reportedly receiving higher salaries than those in Quebec City; and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-National Parks-Ship Harbour-prevention of land speculation.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, since it is one of our private members' motions which would be affected by the shortened hour, may I take the initiative and suggest we call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement to the suggestion of the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster that I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: that Bill C-288, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, a little later in the session I will be bringing in, I hope, changes to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act which have been awaited for some considerable time by members of the House who are interested in the problems of labour, and by organized labour itself. I think, however, we tend to forget that in Canada only about 40 per cent of the work force may be considered to be organized, that is, represented by trade unions at the bargaining table, and about 50 per cent in the federal field due primarily to the fact that public servants in general are entitled to collective bargaining.
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
When we do bring forward the bill on the IRDI Act later in the session I think we will have indicated, despite the criticism that all too frequently is raised in respect of collective bargaining these days, that we do believe this Canadian system bears perhaps strengthening but certainly warrants preserving. I think it goes without saying that in a civilized system the responsibility of government does not end with providing the legal framework within which organized labour and management bargain to establish their norms. I believe it is the responsibility of the government to protect the unorganized in this country who, as I mentioned, represent the greater percentage of the work force. I refer to people who are not covered by collective agreements and depend, therefore, on the federal government and provincial governments to varying degrees to provide the standards or minimums which govern their very existence in the work force.
I think we should remind ourselves that minimum labour standards are designed to ensure that all workers, whether organized or not, who are employed by small businesses or large corporations are entitled to specific conditions of employment which conform to socially acceptable norms. These are designed to establish a legal barrier below which these conditions cannot be driven by the unfettered play of market forces.
At a time when those who plan the future shape of our system of social security are searching for comprehensive solutions to the problems of poverty, including those faced by the working poor, this barrier represented by minimum standards is being increasingly recognized as an important instrument of social policy. It is so recognized by the government of Canada and will be used accordingly.
Again let me remind the House, although I believe most members know this, that the first Labour (Standards) Code was brought into existence in the federal field in 1965. I do not think anyone would mind if I were to pay tribute to the present government House leader, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), who piloted through the House the first Labour (Standards) Code in 1965. I believe those of us who are preoccupied with portfolios which address themselves primarily to people will recognize that this original piece of legislation has made a valuable contribution to Canadian development, and I hope these amendments will make it an even more valuable piece of legislation.
As members may recall, the 1965 code covered certain basic standards governing hours of work, overtime pay, vacations with pay and general holidays. The minimum wage at the time was $1.25. The standard hours of work were set at eight per day and 40 per week with a maximum of 48 per week. The minimum rate for overtime beyond standard hours was set at time and one half, the minimum paid vacation at two weeks and the minimum number of paid general holidays at eight per year.
In the present bill we are introducing amendments that relate to all the standards which I have just enumerated. These amendments are based on the experience over the last five years and they are intended, for the most part,

April 26, 1971
Canada Labour (.Standards) Code to overcome many administrative problems and to avoid unnecessary interference with the practices established by collective bargaining. This is the result of the experience of five or six years during which the standards have been in force.
In addition to this, we intend, as hon. members who are familiar with the bill know, to introduce many new features to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code which are new at least in the federal field. My hope is that among other things these amendments will make it possible to deal more effectively with the type of difficulty that has made it necessary, in so far as the existing hours of work provisions are concerned, to issue special orders covering certain portions of the transportation industry and to keep railroads under deferment.
I think most hon. members appreciate the difficulty which we had in introducing the standards under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code in the field of transportation, the problem of adapting the code to the railway industry, the tracking industry, the airline industry and the shipping industry. Consequently, for six years a rigidity has been built into the existing legislation which has made it rather difficult, in the part of the code dealing with hours of work, to introduce the code with any consistency.
It is my intention to see that the increased flexibility which is proposed in this bill will permit me not only to make the bill more applicable and more functional in these areas but also to allow it to be used with good sense and in consultation with labour and management. In this way we will be able to ensure that the spirit of the code is applied both to employers and to employees in the transportation industry. With one obvious exception, and that is the minimum wage, there will be no basic change in the standards now set forth in the code. Measured against the norms established by international conventions, provincial laws and the provisions of collective agreements, these standards still appear to be appropriate as minimum standards.
With regard to minimum wages, hon. members may recall that some time before last July, if I am not mistaken, we amended the minimum wage provisions, or that portion of the Labour (Standards) Code that applied to minimum wages, to increase the minimum wage from $1.25 to $1.65 per hour. At the same time I promised the committee that I would recommend the increase of the minimum to $1.75 when I brought in the bill and that I would try to find ways and means of facilitating future adjustments to the minimum wage.
I think hon. members will recall that the minimum wage prior to last July had not been changed for five years, which meant that people who worked for minimum wages found not only their dollar eroding but that it was almost ludicrous and certainly a disincentive to work for the minimum wage of $1.25 per hour-$50 per week-which in many provinces is below the amount paid through welfare payments. What I propose to do in the bill is to make it possible to increase the minimum wage, preferably every year by Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Labour.
I think this will get us over the problem with which we were faced between 1965 and 1970 when certain events made it impossible to get around to raising the minimum wage by bringing legislation before the House. I believe there were one or two elections, just to mention one unexpected event which can impede the orderly increase of minimum wages. I believe that the ability to adjust minimum wages by Governor in Council will be a useful addition to the bill; and of course, once again this added power will be used judiciously.
As Minister of Labour I would provide for a continuing process of review in which representatives of employers and trade unions will be invited periodically to participate so that the minimum wage can be periodically revised and maintained at an economically relevant and socially desirable level. This was one of the subject matters that we discussed in the past week with Ministers of Labour from across Canada. The impact that federal minimum wages could or do have on the provinces and on their own particular norms is felt as the Ministers of Labour of the provinces realize the need to keep alive and in existence a labour incentive industry rather than a capital incentive industry.
In setting the federal rate we must at all times recognize the distortion that any change might have on the provinces. I might remind the House that the minimum applies only to employees of the age of 17 years and over, but since 1965 we have set a special rate by regulation for people in the work force under 17 and last July we raised that rate from $1 to $1.40 per hour. If the general minimum is increased as now proposed, I intend to recommend to my colleagues a similar increase to employees under 17 which would bring the minimum wage up to $1.50 per hour.
I think the government has made it clear that it recognizes the need to examine all aspects of law and policy which affect the rights of women in Canadian society. To this end it has launched a careful review of the many recommendations contained in the recent report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. I am pleased that the Department of Labour will be heavily involved in the review which will proceed in a climate that the work of our women's bureau has helped to create. I am also pleased that as Minister of Labour I can now come forward with legislative proposals that are consistent with the general thrust of the royal commission's recommendations. I refer, of course, to the provisions in the bill relating to equal pay for equal work, and maternity leave. Given the large and continuing increase in the number of women including married women who participate in the work force, it seems to me that these two basic provisions are essential.
The amendments to the act would replace the existing provisions of the Female Employees Equal Pay Act of 1956 by strengthened provisions in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. The proposed change of statutory locale is in itself important because in my opinion problems of inequity affecting women should wherever possible be dealt with, not in special legislation for women but in general legislation applicable to Canadians whether male or female. In this connection members of

April 26, 1971

the House will note that the language used in the proposed new equal pay part of the code will prohibit pay differentials based on sex, whether directed against men or against women.
The proposed new standard should be much more effective, for two reasons. To begin with, the prohibitive practice is more broadly defined, referring not to "identical or substantially identical work" but to "the same or similar work on jobs requiring the same or similar skill, effort and responsibility". Equally important, application of the law will no longer be dependent upon the receipt of complaints of individuals. The proposed new provisions will be subject to the general inspection and enforcement procedures of the code.
I think this is a very important change because under the existing legislation which has been around since 1956 the onus of responsibility for initiating a complaint or investigation rests with the person who feels she is aggrieved. Many women insecure in the work force dare not initiate such a complaint and therefore the act has not had nearly the impact that it should. Now that it is to be placed within the ambit of the Labour (Standards) Code, the responsibility will be broadened. Not only will the department act on complaints by women in the work force, but a complaint or an alleged violation of the act will be brought forward by the inspectors who will inspect the records of employers with respect to hours of work-something which they have been doing for some years. This added responsibility placed on the shoulders of the inspectors should do much to eliminate the discrimination which has gone on for far too long in the federal field.
The amendments relating to maternity leave would prohibit dismissal or lay-off solely because of pregnancy, and establish a right to maternity leave. An employee with at least one year of service would be entitled to maximum leave covering a period 11 weeks before and six weeks after delivery, together with any period between the estimated and actual dates of delivery. I hope that pleases some members of the New Democratic Party because I am not too sure that this type of legislation was pleasing to all members of that party at their convention last week.
I should note that the period of 11 weeks before and six weeks afterward is consistent with the provisions in the bill to revise the Unemployment Insurance Act under which an employee whose earnings are interrupted by pregnancy, after a two-week waiting period will be entitled to benefits for a maximum period of 15 weeks. The combined effect of these provisions will be that in most cases an employee who must take time off for the purposes of childbirth will be entitled both to job security and a reasonable level of income maintenance. I think hon. members will agree that this provision represents an important forward step.
There is another area that the Labour (Standards) Code deals with this time that was not in it in 1965. This concerns the increasing problem of people who are leaving the work force, of the senior worker who is forced
Canada Labour (Standards) Code out of his job through automation and who realizes that less and less he can depend entirely on seniority for security of tenure. I think we all agree that in this technological age this is one of the big problems faced by any worker-the problem of adjusting from one job to another, the shock of losing work and in some cases the shock for a person who finds that his or her skill is redundant. That person needs all the help that Parliament can extend, and this principle is quite consistent with the basic philosophy of all political parties.
In the bill there is provision in the case of large scale terminations for notice to the government and to any trade union representing the workers affected, the required period of notice varying from eight to 16 weeks depending on the size of the group terminated. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that there is time for employers and trade unions to work closely with the Department of Manpower and Immigration so that the placement, training and relocation services provided by that department can be brought fully into play. It is unfortunate that all too frequently large groups of people, particularly in the unorganized sector of the work force, are laid off with little or no advance notice, making it increasingly difficult for the Department of Manpower and Immigration to be effective and to guide them into other work if they have a particular skill and work is available.
In the case of people eligible for unemployment insurance, again this advance notice is of importance if there is to be no undue hardship suffered by the worker in applying for unemployment insurance. It is my hope and belief that the great majority of employers will be both willing and anxious to comply with the group notice requirements of the law. In the event that they do not, we will provide fines in the bill ranging up to $100,000. I would hope this would be sufficient deterrent to those employers who, by any stretch of the imagination, would want to ignore the provisions of the law which insist that there be sufficient notice for group termination of work.
The second standard in this general area would provide the individual whose employment is being terminated with entitlement to a minimum notice of two weeks or an equivalent amount of play in lieu of notice. The third standard that is new in the legislation, that we did not have before and which I think is equally important, is that for the first time we have introduced this feature for what you might call the unorganized sector, the feature of a legal right to a minimum amount of severance pay. I think that severance pay, grouped with the provision for advance notice of termination, is of tremendous significance in this particular field.
An employee with five years or more of service whose employment is being terminated, except by way of dismissal for just cause or retirement on an immediate pension, would be entitled to two days' pay for each year of service, up to a maximum of 40 days' pay. Assuming a five-day week, this would mean a minimum severance payment ranging from two weeks' pay for an employee with five years of service to eight weeks' pay for an employee with 20 or more years of service.

April 26, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
There is another amendment that would prohibit dismissal of an employee solely because he was the subject of garnishment proceedings. This may not seem significant but, ironically, many people are dismissed because they happen to be the subject of garnishment proceedings. I think it is unfortunate that so many employers, rather than be bothered with the paperwork associated with court orders simply prefer to dismiss an employee. I have never been able to understand the social sense of an employer who would do this, but from our statistics we know that it is a fairly common practice. When an employee is in financial difficulties he should not be subject to loss of employment and earnings simply because his employer must undertake the paperwork required to comply with a court order for garnishment of wages. Therefore, if Parliament approves this bill we would prohibit this practice and see it is brought to an end in industries within federal jurisdiction.
There are two other areas concerning the bill which I would like to mention. One is that under its provisions the new standards relating to equal pay for equal work, maternity leave, group terminations of employment and dismissal for garnishment would apply to managerial and professional employees as well as to all other employees. The original act, if I am not mistaken, set standards for a particular, identifiable group of employees spelled out in the act. What we are doing here is making these provisions relating to equal pay for equal work, maternity leave, group terminations of employment and dismissal for garnishment apply to managerial and professional employees just the same as to all other classes of workers. This is an important departure and in my view is fully justified in view of the social significance of the standards in question.
Hon. members who have read the bill will also have noted that for most of the amendments the proposed effective date is July 1, 1971. Because of the possibility that related regulations will require a somewhat longer period in which to prepare and discuss them with interested parties, it is proposed that the provisions relating to notice of termination of employment and severance pay should come into effect on a date to be fixed by proclamation, which will be the earliest possible date after July 1.
Again I remind hon. members that the Canada Labour (Standards) Code does not apply to the public service as a matter of law. However, as the result of a commitment made to Parliament in 1965 by the then Minister of Labour, the standards established by the code are applied to the public service as a matter of government policy. I am pleased to now reiterate that commitment with respect to the standards embodied in the proposed amend-mends.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, although in preparing the bill we have given careful consideration to the provisions of relevant conventions and recommendations of the International Labour Organization, the contents of related laws in the provinces, the provisions of collective agreements, the views expressed from time to time by labour and management and the experience of the department in administering the code, I am hoping the

bill will receive careful scrutiny by the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration and that the committee will agree to receive representations from the major organizations of employers and trade unions. I assure the House that constructive criticism and comment will be both welcome and carefully considered as the bill proceeds through the parliamentary process.
In my opinion and in the opinion of the government this is important legislation designed to benefit working men and women and deserves to be examined with care before taking its place on the statute books. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move that Bill C-228, an act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, be read a second time.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this is extremely important legislation. It is important because it affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. As I understand it, it is involved with federal jurisdiction in the areas of railroad and water transportation and all services instrumental in pipeline, telephone, radio and television, grain elevators, grain milling, banking, etc.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And the staff in your law office.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I think it is important in this area
because it seems to me, as the minister has explained, that the vast bulk of our labouring force is within the unorganized field. Those who are affected by collective bargaining have an opportunity and, usually, the wherewithal with which to protect themselves, so it is within those areas that we have to be concerned about good leadership. I think the minister has indicated that through federal and provincial prerogative they can give some leadership to those who are not adequately protected.
What we are trying to do here, Mr. Speaker, is establish a social policy ranging from the study of the minimum wage to questions of discrimination and the establishment of safety codes. I know the minister believes this latter point is extremely important and I understand that legislation will be brought forward in keeping with its importance. I agree with what the minister has said, that this legislation effects a minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, maximum hours of work, maternity leave, giving notice of separation, and severance pay. All these are very important, timely and necessary. Of course, we reserve the right to question some of the matters raised by the legislation.
There are two important areas in which I believe the government's response is inadequate in light of crying social conditions. One is the provision for the adjustment of the minimum wage and the other is the bringing in of equal pay for equal work. I was impressed with what the minister said in attempting to bring before the House the position he takes regarding the provision for adjustment of the minimum wage. However, I was a little disappointed inasmuch as I was led to understand last fall, when the minister introduced legislation increasing the mini-
April 26, 1971

mum wage from $1.25 to $1.65, that he would attempt to bring in an adjustment procedure or standard. This has not occurred.
The minister indicated that he has met with his colleagues at the provincial level. I understand that they are to meet periodically to discuss the matter and if they feel the climate warrants it or the political atmosphere makes it desirable-this is what concerns me-the minister will move to increase the minimum wage. I shall discuss that matter shortly. When we are talking about guidelines in this area, I think it is important to realize that the minister's decision can be affected by political atmosphere, particularly when we see how this government moves-I say this with a great deal of respect-and when we realize their complacency or policy with respect to creating unemployment. It may mean that the minister cannot take the opportunity to raise the minimum wage.
I believe the hours of work provide for a 48-hour week, with exceptions in certain circumstances. We are desirous of having this bill go to committee because in this area we run into the whole problem of transportation. The minister is well aware of that problem. I understand that permits will continue to be granted with respect to exceptions to the 48-hour week in those industries or commercial endeavours which need an extension. 1 think it is advisable that guidelines be established and I am sure we will deal with this question in committee. The guidelines that are proposed should take into consideration the situation where a restricted work week of 48 hours will be detrimental to employers or employees and where the nature of the work would make the regulation unreasonable. We will have to discuss this point at some length.
I have discussed the minimum wage, but I was short of time when the minister increased it to $1.65 last year. He was not very happy because I think it had been stated by several people on his behalf that he was interested in making it at least $1.75 an hour. On a previous occasion I said that while there may be no absolute virtue in leaving the procedure for adjustment within the amending process of Parliament, the government had not proposed an alternative that really improved the existing procedure. If the minimum wage has as its objective a floor consistent with current needs, this objective should be pursued by means of an automatic adjusting factor which would keep it in line with the cost of living. That is what we proposed on this side and we thought the minister would be bringing it in. Perhaps there is an explanation so I shall not dwell on the matter except to state that such an adjustment would naturally bypass amendment in Parliament, and with the proposed amendment Parliament would be bypassed without the rationale of automatic adjustment. The amendment proposed does not even provide a broad guideline or formula upon which a cabinet decision would be based. I suggest that there is an unacceptable arbitrariness on the part of the cabinet when the minimum wage is to be changed.
The matter of equal pay for equal work I believe primarily stems from the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and reflects the general attitude regarding the importance of women in the work force.
Canada Labour (Standards) Code Some time ago I made a speech and I should like to put on record some thoughts I had then regarding statistics. At that time I said:
Back In 1950, women formed only 22 per cent of the Canadian labour force. That proportion has grown this year to 32 per cent. By 1980, according to projections of the Economic Council of Canada, you will form better than 35 per cent of the labour force-3,681,000 as compared with 7,017,000 males.
The significant fact is that the annual growth in the female component of the labour force since the mid-sixties has been consistently above the projections of the council. By 1980 you could form closer to 50 per cent than 35 per cent of the labour force.
The growth of the number of women workers has matched the sustained growth of the whole labour force.
This is extremely important. When we talk about equal pay for equal work, the consistency of our thinking becomes extremely realistic and acceptable. The Economic Council has stated-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Are you in favour of it?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I notice that the member on my left is continually objecting. I know he has some oratorical brilliance and 1 hope he will give us the benefit of his thinking, rather than reading a local newspaper, and do something constructive for a change.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As I was saying, the Economic Council has stated that rising female labour force participation rates are expected to make the female component of the future labour force growth particularly large, with females accounting for over 1 million and males slightly under two million in the over-all growth to 1980.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Read on.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, I am reading because I wrote it myself in the first instance. If you had been listening, my friend, instead of reading that paper you would have heard me say that I made a speech about the problems of women. By 1980, women will form a larger percentage of the national labour force than they did even in the man-short years of the second World War. It is obvious that this larger and more widespread employment of women will mean that they will wield an evermore direct influence upon national affairs and have an ever-increasing voice in Canada's destiny. Their interest, too, will grow more direct and less passive as they leave the restricted scope of the housewife for the wider field of industry and commerce, public life and public affairs.
The coming decade will inevitably be a decade of expansion and development for Canada-or so we hope. Up to the early sixties, Canadian women formed a smaller proportion of the national labour force than was the case in the six other leading western industrial states. But the Economic Council believes that during the seventies Canada will approach the levels of female participation prevailing in other leading industrial countries. This indicates pretty clearly that during the seventies Canadian women will achieve all they could wish in regard to participation in the nation's work force.

April 26. 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
But what about the quality of the positions they will hold? What about progress up the ladder within the labour force? This is an old battleground. This is where a good deal of the masculine talk about the equality of women is shown to be merely lip-service to an abstract ideal rather than practical adherence to accepted custom.
In an address to the Beth Tzedec Sisterhood in Toronto last December, Miss Sylva M. Gelber, director of the women's bureau of the Canada Department of Labour-a woman for whom I have a great deal of respect-emphasized the inequalities and discrimination that face women who would enter the professions or business. I want to put on record the fact that I think Canadians are becoming more aware of the important role that women can play. In this regard I should like to refer to a poll conducted by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion, published in the Ottawa Citizen for March 20 under the headline "Women getting support for rights, says poll". The following questions were asked:
Would you tell me it you approve or disapprove of these suggestions:
That women who work should receive equal pay with men for the same kind of work?
That, by law, women should be given leave of absence by their employers totalling 18 weeks for pregnancy and confinement?
Then follows a table showing public opinion. With regard to equal pay for women, 80 per cent of the people of Canada approved and only 11 per cent disapproved. The undecideds were 2 per cent.
In regard to the statements made by Miss Gelber, I might add that Mr. John Carson, chairman of the Public Service Commission, has called down the blame on his own head for discrimination against women in the federal bureaucracy, and I respect him for doing so. I hope the minister is aware that you cannot talk of motherhood and pay only lip-service to it. I think the minister must give the fair employment practices act sufficient teeth to do its job.
I should also like to quote some of the points made in a report in the Spectator for March 19 last:
Mr. Carson said the report last December of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women left the commissioners "desperately ashamed of ourselves"...
As for problems involving women workers, he said the commission is seeking to bring more women into its executive training program. The federal government employs 81,000 women, mostly in secretarial and clerical roles.
When the bill goes before the standing committee I hope the minister will make definitive statements regarding his recommendations to Mr. Carson, and the federal government's approach to this very vital and sensitive area. We all hear of the activities of Women's Lib and we have had the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Unless the federal government shows leadership in bringing women into the work force in a way which means they are accepted for the contributions they make, instead of on the basis of just being women, we are going through an exercise in frustration at the present time.
However outstanding the merit of the progressive amendment regarding equal pay for equal work, I

respectfully state that the effect of this amendment is quickly nullified by the qualifying provision that follows, and I should like the minister to reflect on this. I refer to the proposed new section 14AC2) which reads:
Payment to male and female employees of different wages does not constitute a violation of subsection (1) if the difference is based on any factor or factors other than sex that justify such a difference.
It seems to me that this provision derogates from the initial intention of the equal pay for equal work legislation. This is precisely the kind of situation the commissioners had in mind when they recommended an improvement in the language describing an equal pay for equal work situation. While attempting to improve their credibility by making a linguistic leap of faith, the government has ensured, by this qualifier, that the real situation will remain the same as it was. I suggest this aspect must be carefully watched if we are to retain our credibility.
With regard to maternity leave, which we heard about in the white paper on unemployment insurance, I was under the impression that under the Unemployment Insurance Act the period was 15 weeks. There is now a two-week difference; the period under this legislation is 17 weeks.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There is a two-week waiting period.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister explains that there is a two-week waiting period. This matter has been dealt with at length in terms of the unemployment insurance reforms, so there is no sense in my elaborating on it here. This question will be further explored when the standing committee deals with the white paper on unemployment insurance.
I think the subject of group termination of employment is of significant interest. I believe this provision relates to employees in groups of 50 and up and the amount of advance notice given depends on the number of employees laid off. Advance notice is highly important in facilitating retraining programs and replacement opportunities. It is to be hoped that the Manpower Department will make efficient use of the advance information which will be required once this act becomes law. It would be commendable if the Department of Labour were to assist the trade unions by making research facilities available to them in order that the information about lay-offs can be utilized by them.
As I indicated earlier, when the minimum wage was increased to $1.65 last fall, the Progressive Conservative party accepted the premise of the legislation. We also accept this legislation; there is no question about that. I have endeavoured to raise one or two points that will be conducive to constructive criticism at the committee stage. Further,, we shall bring in amendments where we feel they are necessary, particularly with regard to the provisions respecting women.
What concerns us about the minimum wage is that when the federal government gives leadership in this
April 26, 1971

area, because of the lack of economic growth on the same basis as the federal government the provinces can run into trouble. If the federal government is paying $1.75 an hour and the province of Ontario $1.50, we are telling the province of Ontario to try and lift itself up. This can create a problem at a time when they really cannot afford it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Oh, yes, they can.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As I have read the press notices of late, there was some question about marrying the minimum wage on a regional scale. Apparently this has now been discounted. As I understand it, the representative labour ministers are not happy but they are prepared to go along with the minister's suggestion in terms of the minimum wage.
I was pleased to read the section regarding garnishees. This can be a matter of frustration. Those of us who are lawyers understand that this provision will alleviate and perhaps even prevent a lot of frustration which occurs as a result of inadequacies in handling money, overspending, obtaining too much credit and being faced with a garnishee. I am speaking in general: I have never had to face one myself. This has led to the breadwinner being laid off because the company did not want to bother with the additional bookkeeping involved. Rather than face this situation and show compassion to their employee, they would simply lay him off. The minister has stated that no person can be laid off as a result of a garnishee order having been made against him.
In conclusion, we are in general agreement with what the minister has proposed, subject to reservations. This is not for the purpose of holding up this bill, but if we deem it necessary we shall submit appropriate amendments. As I said the other day, these will not be to make the bill better for the government or for the opposition but to make it better for those who will be affected by it, the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) said that he was pleased to be able to bring in this bill. I am sure he was. I like him so much that I wish he would give himself about five times as much pleasure by bringing in a bill about five times as good as this one. This is another of those cases where there is nothing in it we can attack. There is nothing in it that is wrong. Nobody could vote against it. However, you can tell by the low-key debate we have had thus far tonight that there is no particular excitement about it. It is one of those cases of making a few improvements here and there on the basis of which the government will be able to say when the next election comes, "Look at what we did for the workers of Canada".


Mr. Perrauli:: That is the last thing on our mind; you know that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As long as that remark by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Canada Labour (Standards) Code
Perrault) is put on the record showing the smile with which he made it, I do not mind. Perhaps before I get into the serious part-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Is this the humorous part?


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I wish to say a word or two about the claim that the minister made for one of his colleagues. Far be it from me to deny any man his pride of paternity, but I suggest that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is not the only cabinet minister or Member of Parliament who should be given credit for being the father of labour standards legislation. After all, the Hon. Michael Starr brought in a couple of bills with regard to annual vacations with pay and statutory holidays with pay.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Look what happened to him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Hon.
Milton Gregg brought in a bill dealing with equal pay for equal work.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He is not here either.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If we look back over the years we will find other pieces of legislation dealing with this kind of thing.


Mr. Horner:: Didn't Mackenzie King do this sort of thing?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, and before Mr. Starr and Mr. Gregg came to this place, this member for Winnipeg North Centre was bringing in these bills year after year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before I came here-and I now refer to an era that began 50 years ago-the previous member for Winnipeg North Centre, the late J. S. Woodsworth, was proposing this kind of thing. Let us give credit to the President of the Privy Council for being the minister in whose name the Canada Labour (Standards) Code was first placed on the order paper as a unified bill, but let us keep our history straight. A lot of people have been involved in this kind of legislation.
We must also remember that once this legislation is on the books, it will not apply to all the workers of Canada. It will only apply to those who are in industries that come under federal labour jurisdiction. This represents about 10 per cent of the work force. Perhaps it is a little higher if the public servants who are brought in by regulation are included, but it is still a very small section of the labour force of this country. For this to be universal, it would require constant agitation in all the provincial legislatures in order to get those bodies to bring in comparable legislation. It is quite true that it is in this place that a lead can be given. I hope the improvements that are before us tonight in this legislation will be noted by the legislatures of all the provinces and that they will make similar improvements.

April 26, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
I might also add as another preliminary remark that what bothers me about this kind of legislation is the number of loopholes that are always to be found in it- the exceptions it contains. For a number of years, we have had the Canada Labour (Standards) Code on the books. That provides for a maximum of 40 hours of work per week at which time overtime is supposed to begin. There have been a succession of permits from Ministers of Labour that have excepted some employers from that part of the Labour (Standards) Code. I notice that there are some of these things in the bill now before us, Bill C-228.
In the interesting section about the termination of employment where more than 50 people are turfed out at once, while some things must be done-I will deal with them in a few minutes-the requirement to do this can be waived by the minister if in his opinion it would be injurious to a particular industry or to the public. I do not know why we have to mess up good pieces of legislation with all these exceptions.
It is always a matter of concern how long it takes to get the regulations passed that are necessary to put this kind of legislation fully into effect. As the minister knows, because he has had to answer questions of mine about it here and in other places, he has the companion piece of legislation known as the Canada Labour (Safety) Code. The minister will recall, because he was then just a lowly Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, that in December 1966 the then Minister of Labour urged us to get that bill through. He said it was important to get the law on the statute books to enable the regulations to be made. After all, people were being hurt, people were losing their lives because safety provisions had not been established.
We co-operated with the then Minister of Labour and with the then parliamentary secretary, the present Minister of Labour, in getting that bill through. That was in December, 1966. Now, in April, 1971, the minister still cannot point to a complete set of regulations under that bill. Mind you, he did express confidence a few days ago, when I questioned him about the matter, that these regulations would be completed before the end of 1971.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Well now!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is quite an accomplishment, I suppose, to be able to announce that within five years these regulations may be complete. Of course, it is a complicated process. There is the Constitution to be considered. There is the question of the cooperation of the provinces, and the regulations must be thought out carefully so that no injury is done to a person as a result of sloppy drafting. But the point is that the effectiveness of good legislation can be offset by delay in working out regulations. I hope this will not be the case with the legislation before us tonight.
The minister was quite right to point out that several kinds of legislation are needed in this field. We noted with interest his reference to the Industrial Relations and

Disputes Investigation Act, amendments to which he intends to bring in later. This is, of course, a piece of legislation which has a long history. It is a very important piece of legislation in that it lays down, in the main, the rules or the guidelines under which collective bargaining takes place. It is in the area governed by collective bargaining that the workers fare best. The minister is perfectly right in saying that it is not enough for us to provide good rules for collective bargaining because, after all, they deal with only 40 per cent at most of the workers of this country; we have to protect the unorganized, the other 60 per cent. There is, in my opinion, an unanswerable case for standards of the kind which are embodied in this bill and which ought to be matched by legislation on the statute books of every province.
I move on to some other features of this bill about which the minister and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) have been speaking. One which has been mentioned is the proposal to increase the minimum wage from $1.65 to $1.75 an hour. I wonder whether the Minister of Labour in his own way managed to arrange for this bill to be debated tonight on the same day the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced that there would be an increase of $8,000 a year for ourselves. A minimum wage of $1.75 an hour for a 40-hour week would amount to $70, and for 50 weeks in a year, allowing for a couple of weeks' holiday, it would amount to $3,500 a year. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it was announced today that the increase to be granted to Members of Parliament, retroactive to last October, would be more than twice that amount, more than twice the total a worker would get under the new minimum wage.
It is so standard for us in this party to say that government proposals do not go far enough that there is a tendency by the government to pay no attention. In fact, their retort will be: Whatever we do, you will say it is not enough. Well, I have been saying it for a long time, and no doubt I shall be saying it for a long time yet. The reaction of the president of the Canadian Labour Congress to this figure of $1.75 an hour was that it ought right now to be $2.50 an hour. Perhaps I would be willing to compromise and settle for the figure in the bill I introduced last October. Mind you, the cost of living has gone up so much since then that I shall have to revise that bill. But I suggested $2.00 an hour. A vote was taken last fall in the committee on a proposition to that effect, and we came awfully close-I think there was a vote of nine to eight. We did not do quite as well back here in the House.
However, I suggest the House should take seriously the protest we are making from this quarter of the chamber even though the government might say: This is the kind of thing you do over and over again, and you have done it for years and years. It is still valid. It is not good enough to come before the House of Commons in April, 1971, and propose an increase in the minimum wage of only 10 cents an hour.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Liberals. Always behind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The interjection is well to the point. I am waiting in case there are
April 26, 1971

more. I hope that in committee we can get this changed. It is a common situation around this place that whenever money is mentioned members on the government side sit back and enjoy the protection of the fact that because money is involved the opposition cannot move an amendment; that there cannot be a vote on the question. I have news for them. I want to make it perfectly clear that there will be a vote on this issue in the standing committee and, if we do not win it there, in the House at the report stage.
I say this because it has been established on many occasions that this proposal for a minimum wage is one which affects private employers who employ people who come under federal labour jurisdiction. It is, therefore, not something which involves the expenditure of money from the federal treasury and members of the House of Commons, even private members, have a right to move amendments. This will be done. We have no intention of going through the report stage content to settle for $1.75, when the president of the CLC says the figure ought to be $2.50. Certainly it ought not to be less than $2 an hour.
The Minister of Labour has departed from an undertaking he gave last fall. I do not regard this as a breach of faith; it is a case of changing his mind, but I think it is a mistake. He told us in the committee last fall that he would write into the legislation now before us a precise formula for upgrading the minimum wage. Now, instead, he has provided that beyond this $1.75 further changes are to be made by Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour. I suppose he is asking us to accept this on the grounds that he is sympathetic to labour. He is sympathetic all the way up to $1.75 an hour!
He is asking us to believe that it is better to rely on getting an Order in Council to raise the minimum wage level than it is to take the time to get a piece of legislation through Parliament. He will appear before the committee. He is good at appearing and at answering questions, but I think he will have to make a much better case than he did tonight-though he did not even try to make one tonight-as to why he did not put into this bill a precise formula so we would know that when the cost of living index goes up and as the wage index goes up, out of these two in some combination there will be an automatic increase in the level of the minimum wage. These two things ought to be done: first, the present $1.75 should be at least $2 right now, if not more, and there should be in this bill an automatic formula for pushing the minimum wage up from here on.
I move to one of the other major sections of this amending bill, the part having to do with equal wages for equal work as between men and women. I welcome the idea-and the minister said this in his speech-of dealing with equality as between men and women, not by having special legislation for women which is what we had under the old Female Employees Equal Pay Act, for the very title of that act was a form of discrimination, but equality between the sexes must be covered by gen-
Canada Labour (Standards) Code eral legislation. Perhaps this is a technical or procedural matter, but it is a very important technical or procedural one to have in general labour standards legislation if there is to be equal pay for equal work.


An hon. Member:: It is symbolic.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But as my parliamentary assistant in the back row is pointing out, this is highly symbolic.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: He is a member of the Waffle group.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no. The
minister has made some remarks about this, but under the old legislation the only way anything could be done about a case of unequal pay was if the affected employee made a complaint. Now the government is providing for a certain amount of inspection to make sure that inequality of this kind is not practised. I urge that as long as there are kinds of employment where practically all the employees are women and other kinds of employment where practically all the employees are men, there is not equality and something is wrong.
When we get into the committee on this bill one amendment I intend to move at the appropriate stage will urge that in any establishment 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 of the hiring, training and promoting practices in that industry to see whether something can be done to provide a more equitable distribution of the job classifications between male and female employees. I do not think you can solve this problem by edict or law that says there must be 50 per cent men and 50 per cent women in every one of these classifications. I think there was something in the debate last week at our convention regarding that general proposition.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Who voted against women? Your heckler did; I saw him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't worry about my heckler. He is one of my valuable parliamentary assistants. He does not get the $4,000 extra pay.


An hon. Member:: I thought you were going to give him your share.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have parliamentary assistants all over the House; my namesake over here, the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour over there, and several others.


An hon. Member:: Is he a member of the Waffle group?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The point I am trying to make-and my friends are just as serious about this as I am-is that if we are to do anything about achieving equality between the sexes in the work world, we have to work at it. We have to hold investigations to find out why certain patterns prevail. A fair amount has been done about this already. I refer to the investigation into the subject of sex in the Public Service. That was an

April 26, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
interesting study in this area. The work of Miss Sylva Gelber is extremely important.
I remember the days when we did not have any section of the Department of Labour devoted to the work of women, and some of us were advocating this away back in the early days. This has paid oil and it has been very useful having somebody heading up that kind of work. The minister must not just rest with the idea of getting this legislation passed; he must work on the idea of equality between the sexes in the work force of Canada.
Related to the whole matter of equality between the sexes is the question of maternity leave as provided in this bill. This is another of those famous steps in the right direction. But let it be pointed out again that this bill applies only to those who come under federal labour jurisdiction. This provision is looked at sometimes as a companion piece to the pregnancy insurance coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The difference there is that it covers women in the entire work force of Canada, and the maternity leave under this bill only covers women in industries which come under federal labour jurisdiction.
Let it also be pointed out that while this legislation provides for leave of up to 17 weeks, there is no pay connected with it. This is leave without pay. I am sure the minister will say that we are covering that by the benefits of the unemployment insurance provision. I can see that, and it is good. I do not quite know why the total number of weeks that is being allotted has to be a number of weeks before childbirth and a number of weeks after. Is the minister an expert in this area and is that what he is suggesting? There may be some expectant mothers who would work almost up to the time of childbirth and have a longer period afterward for nursing the baby at home, or what have you; but 1 think fixing the period before and after childbirth in the arbitrary way it is done in this bill is quite unnecessary.


An hon. Member:: That is the only way-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary assistant who is helping me now is not quite as helpful as the other one. That is the reason I pay the other one twice as much.


An hon. Member:: What about equal pay for equal work?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Everyone knows what twice nothing is.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What if they have a miscarriage? Would they still get the 17 weeks?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is not on my staff yet.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Will they give them another chance?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am prepared to go along with the humour, but let us not forget that this is a serious business. Another provision of this maternity leave that puzzles me is the requirement that it is made available only in the case of a woman

employee who has been in the services of an employer for one year. I do not see any point in that provision.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The employer won't hire them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says that an employer won't hire them. Surely an employer can tell whether a woman is pregnant at the time he is hiring her.


An hon. Member:: It depends on how long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Quite seriously, it seems to me that this is a different question altogether, whether the woman is hired at all. But if a woman is an employee and has a job, why should she not get the maternity leave if she has been employed only 51 weeks rather than 52? I think we can improve this provision when we get it before the standing committee.
Let me move on to that part of the bill which deals with termination of employment. These are new sections to be put into the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, and we welcome them. As the minister knows, this is another case of the government looking over private members' bills, seeing that there are good ideas in them and deciding to put them into legislation. The minister has picked up ideas from members on this side of the House quite often.
I notice that the provision regarding mass termination of employment really does not go much further than giving notice. You still lose your job. Granted, it is of some use for the Department of Labour, the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the trade unions to know it is happening. But is that enough? What about the whole question of pay? Perhaps the provisions in respect of two weeks' pay for individuals laid off, or severance pay for those with five years' service still apply in the case of mass lay-offs, but as I look at the bill this does not seem to be very clear.
Then I wonder why the minister has chosen the figure of 50. Why only if 50 or more are being laid off is this procedure to be complied with? It seems to me the figure should be much lower. I would make it as low as ten. If ten or more people are being laid off, this provision should be complied with. This area in the bill seems to have three main parts. There is the case of what happens if 50 or more people are laid off, and I said I believed it should be down to ten. Then there is the part which deals with individual employees being laid off who get two weeks' notice or pay in lieu of notice if they have been working for the same employer for three months. That is good and it has pretty well been taken out of bills presented from this side of the House. Then there is the other provision about severance pay which also is good. This, however, is allowed only in the case of employees who have been five years with the same employer.
We are in an age of great shifting around as a result of changes due to automation, computers and all the rest of it, and as time goes on this trend will probably be even more striking and the number of people who work for
April 26, 1971

employers for periods of less than five years will grow. I suggest the period should be much less than it is. The whole area in this bill having to do with termination of employment and severance pay is new. It is good. It was not put in when the President of the Privy Council brought in the legislation five or six years ago. Precisely because it is new I think it should be dressed up a bit and I hope we can deal with it appropriately in the standing committee.
In the statement he made this evening the minister said that the Canada Labour (Standards) Code covers a number of other things such as vacations with pay and general holidays, as well as one or two others. Then he said that although we are not changing the standards that are already in the legislation having to do with vacation pay and general holidays, some of the regulations are being changed. This is correct. I have looked over the bill and I see there are a number of instances in which definitions are being changed to make certain that employees get the two weeks' vacation a year provided in the legislation, general holidays, and so on. The minister is nodding to indicate that I am interpreting it correctly. But so far that is all the minister is doing in the bill with regard to vacations with pay and general holidays. Let me give him notice of amendments. We have brought in amendments before, and we can do it again. On occasion our amendments have even been accepted.
On the question of vacations with pay, when the hon. Michael Starr first brought in his bill it provided for one week's vacation after one year of service, and two weeks' vacation after two years or more of service. That did not seem to us to be good enough and we persuaded the Liberals when they returned to office to improve it so that it would be two weeks after the first year of service. It is slightly improved now. It is now two weeks for a year of service, so they do not get caught with the use of the word "after". There are some jurisdictions in this country where for longer service there is a longer vacation.
I have a bill on the order paper which I believe is a minimal proposal. It asks for vacation with pay of three weeks after three years' service. It is so little I am almost ashamed to be asking for it. An employee would have to work three years with the same employer before he would receive three weeks' vacation. At least, it is better than two weeks, and I say that no Labour (Standards) Code is worthy of the name if it does not have at least that minimum in it. I have a private member's bill which would provide for that. I do not know whether it will be reached this session, but if so it will be talked out, because that is the usual fate of such bills. I am grateful to the minister for bringing in this bill amending the Labour (Standards) Code, because in it he touches on the question of vacations with pay and I think this will give us an opportunity to move an amendment in the committee.
The same thing applies to the question of general holidays. The bill the President of the Privy Council brought in five or six years ago had a proposal in respect of seven general holidays. In the committee of the whole we were able to get an amendment through which
Canada Labour (Standards) Code provided an eighth holiday, Remembrance Day. The public service has more than eight general holidays in the course of a year, and there are some other areas of employment where this is also the case. It seems to me the time has come to increase the number to at least nine. I hope this is one of the improvements we will make to the legislation when the bill reaches the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
I see, Sir, that I have not used up all my time, but that is no reason to stay on my feet another five minutes. I am sure my valuable assistants in the back rows are itching to get to their feet, and also members in other parts of the House, so I shall resume my seat. If I have not been able to make the rafters ring about this legislation, I hope at least, with the assistance I have had from all sides of the House, I have been able to make my point.
I make the point as strongly as I can that we should not be satisfied just because we have a bill which makes a few improvements. It does that, and I give the minister all the credit he has already asked us to give him for doing it. But I say, why stop there? We do not amend the Labour (Standards) Code very often. Times now move a lot faster than they did when this type of legislation was first introduced. In view of the fast way in which times are moving, I hope we will make all the improvements in this bill which I have suggested when we get to the committee, and a few more so that when we come back and the minister rises to move third reading he will be able to say-I shall draft his little speech for him now- "It gave me a great deal of pleasure to introduce this bill for second reading, and it gives me infinitely more pleasure to move its third reading because the job the members in the committee have done has made it very much better."


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Labour (Standards) Code is the legislation establishing the minimum standards governing the basic conditions of employment in industries under federal jurisdiction. There are approximately 530,000 employees in the industries governed by the Code, whose standards also apply to the federal public service as a governmental policy.
The initial legislation of 1965 established the minimum standards governing salary rates, working hours, overtime pay, leave with pay and statutory holidays.
Under the current provisions of the Code, the bill proposes for the first time the creation of standards concerning maternity leave, notice of employment termination, severance pay and garnishment. It provides for major changes in existing standards with respect to the minimum wage and equal pay for equal work. It contains a number of other changes.
These amendments would increase the minimum wage, in the field within the ambit of federal authority, from $1.65 to $1.75 per hour, effective July 1, 1971. They would also permit the governor in council, upon recommendation by the Minister of Labour (M. Mackasey), to increase

April 26, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
the minimum wage in the future. The normal duration of work is eight hours a day and 40 hours a week, with a maximum of 48 hours a week. The minimum rate applicable to work performed over and above normal working hours is half as much again as the normal rate.
Minimum annual leave is set at two weeks per year, and the minimum number of legal holidays with pay is eight per year.
Representatives of the Department of Labour would have to watch very closely the terms of the application of the act and regulations. One only has to look at the list of the employers who have asked that the application of the Labour Code to their organization be delayed, to understand what I am referring to.
Close to five years after the passing of the act in Parliament, there still are workers who are required to work a weekly number of hours which go far beyond the provisions of the Code and there are still too many employers who are reluctant to effect salary adjustments.
I could quote various instances with regard to employees of the CNR, especially those extra gangs doing seasonal work on branch-line construction or road repairs. Indeed, the number of hours worked does not always comply with the requirements of the Code.
The industries to which the Code applies are, I think, the railroads, truck transportation, pipeline construction, water transportation and other key services relating to water transportation of an interprovincial or international character; air transportation, interprovincial or international telephone, telegraph and cable systems, radio, television and banks.
Establishing a minimum wage level and standard hours of work does not result from collective bargaining involving employees of a given industry or service. It is however quite normal to link to such a minimum wage factors which cannot be ingored, such as cost of living, income of the worker and his ability to provide his dependents with a decent style of living, should he assume the responsibilities of a family.
Quite clearly, the rate of $1.75 per hour is inadequate. However, the adjustments of wage rates provided in Bill C-228 can serve as an example to provinces where the minimum wage is lower than $1.75 per hour. The minimum hourly wage set up in the various provinces in Canada varies between 85 cents and $1.50, except where there have been adjustments. The highest level in force is in British Columbia and the lowest in Newfoundland, namely $1.10 for men and 85 cents for women, which is ridiculous in 1971.
I am very happy to see that Bill C-228 provides for periodical reviews of minimum wage taking into account, I trust, economic fluctuations such as the cost of living, the devaluation of money or other factors that reduce the worker's purchasing power.
It would no doubt be profitable to the legislators to examine their conscience which would allow them to realize that the workers' claims are often inspired by example given them in various places.
As they note that fairly substantial salary raises are obtained in high places without any slow bargaining nor
detrimental strikes, which people try to justify by put-ing forward the constant increase in the cost of living, workers are inevitably led to wonder why there is so much tendency to niggardliness when it comes to ensure them a salary which will allow them and their families a decent living.
When the employees of the Canadian National, particularly those who have no adequate salaries and working conditions, note that a group of public servants travel in special cars built at a cost of half a million dollars or more, they are incensed. These cars which are extremely comfortable and furnished most luxuriously are used regularly by one group of officials on their travels, whether short or long, where they are joined by friends who take part in the treat, and this at the expense of the Canadian people who will pay in the end for these festivities taking place in picnic cars where the variety of bottles would make Bacchus himself jealous. These are luxury trips, at the expense of the taxpayers.
Should such special car service be discontinued, nearly four to five million dollars would be saved each year.
When workers realize that the railway president is earning $75,000 a year and that on retirement he is going to receive a $26,000 pension, they are certainly justified in demanding normal working conditions-at least those who look after track maintenance-and more suitable accommodations after an exhausting day of work. Bunks are no longer adequate in an era of research within the field of comfort.
I give that example to show that too often privileged people seem to forget the worries of workers who are often compelled to put up with working conditions which could be greatly improved. I could give a great many more examples of that kind. Obviously, a large number of grievances are sometimes quite difficult to solve.
Some responsible people have carried out investigations in different services and their reports show that not only have they determined the causes of certain problems but they have also offered suggestions that should be of help to the legislators when legislative measures establishing the rights of both employers and employees are to be amended or adopted. Some hon. members have had experience with the problems of workers and so their views should be taken under consideration without partisanship and at the right moment in order to correct the intolerable situation reflected in a series of strikes which, in most cases, are prejudicial to the workers, and which always have an unfavourable effect because they spread economic disorder.
This trend toward centralization often makes one forget about the efficiency of human communications which are required for appreciating employee's grievances. An ever-alert consultation mechanism must necessarily be created and maintained, especially when changes must be introduced in working conditions. Sacrificing the morale and well-being of employees to an ideal of efficiency or service is not normal.

April 26, 1971

Some important factors must be taken into account when working conditions have to be established. One must not lose sight of the fact that the employee is a human being and not a machine, that he seeks security and stability. He generally wants his working place to be well organized and managed and it is only right that he be treated in all fairness. The employee also wants to be informed about the state of his company's business, which makes him sure that he can expect a fair income.
Those are basic realities about the human being, that an active labour relations service must try to understand and correct, if required. In order to do so, we shall have to come to grips with a difficult problem because this is a purely abstract matter which covers the attitude of people, their motivations, interests, fears, personal problems and what is most flexible, the human being. However, if everyone tries to understand his role, it is highly possible that all those concerned will reach agreement as they would all like to.
Following industrialization, workers have pratically become proletarians and they were forced to sacrifice to big undertak.ngs their legitimate desire to be their own masters, as yesterday's economy allowed them to be.
Therefore it seems that modern industry should provide workers with some compensation for the sacrifices they endure and for the alienation of their freedom.
Workers have less security than they had before. Technology, automation and competition between producers constantly threaten them with unemployment, its miseries and privations. The worker therefore feels dispossessed, and becomes bitter, specially when he realizes that big industry subordinates the fate of the worker to efficiency, that is to the return on its capital.
The word "dialogue" is very much in fashion in our modern society. It means that people with differing opinions have the opportunity of exchanging views with others. Still, the real problem lies with persuading each one of the parties to listen to the ideas of the other, then to revise and question his own. Perhaps we should adopt as a slogan to speak less and listen more! When everyone speaks at once and no one listens, there is no communication, only noise.
In this chamber the rules state that only one member may have the floor at a time. However, this does not always establish a communication of ideas. In a corporation, we see that if the boss does not listen to the workers, the workers will not listen to the boss. If university administrators do not listen to the students, the students will not listen to the administrators.
And if the government does not listen to the representatives of industry, industry will not listen to the government's representatives. Often it happens that the government and labour do not speak the same language, especially when talking about the government's wage policy and the workers.
These are terms that many people use with different connotations. I recently came upon an editorial written by Mr. Jean-Paul Desbiens in the March 31, 1971 issue of
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
La Presse; this article is quite appropriate to the circumstances. It says:
The need for rationalization leads on the one hand to centralization and, on the other, to longer and longer collective agreements. Contrarily to living beings, collective agreements never discharge any waste. Moreover, negotiators-whichever side of the table they may sit on-tend to develop the habit of endlessly polishing old clauses while inventing new ones. All parties argue about where a comma should be placed and run the risk of forgetting the basic aim of collective agrements, namely to humanize labour relations.
In fact, relations become more and more entangled in formality and pettifogging. Instead of mapping a safety zone for everybody, collective agreements become a mine field.
Nobody realizes how beneficial it would be to administer a good purgative to the old collective agreements. After all, collective agreements are not unlike pharmacies: about three quarters of the pills could well go down the drain without the citizens being affected in their health.
It is unfortunate to note sometimes that people who should be interested in maintaining good relations are not as anxious to fulfill their responsibilities as they are to claim their rights. Many problems would automatically be solved if people were more concerned about putting into practice that good old law of compensation which says that well-done work should be rewarded. With the new production methods used in this age of automation, a good number of workers are prone to demand high pay for little work, with the result that in the different administrative services, there are function-holders who are not "functioning". Some could be compared to the big books in a library, the higher ones being often the ones that are used less.
I cannot help quoting the conclusions of a humourous observer, published in a newspaper, where he gave the best way of testing the reactions of an inanimate civil servant. The article was published on September 7, 1969 under the title "Dead or Asleep" and I quote:
As many service directors in the Public Service find it hard to know whether some public servants are dead or merely asleep, they issued the following memorandum: "Any public servant found seated after his death shall be summarily struck off strength in accordance with Rule 3043, paragraph P, section 8. On account of the great sensitiveness of our employees and of the great resemblance between death and their usual position, the inquiry must be made quietly so as not to wake up the employee, should he be merely asleep. If, after the inquiry, there is any doubt about the employee's condition, hand him a cheque. Should there be no reaction, it means he is dead. In some cases, the stretching hand instinct is so great that a post mortem spasm could occur. Be careful not to be misled.
To those who are under the impression that all problems, such as salary adjustments, unemployment insurance benefits and others can be solved through a computer, allow me to quote in conclusion the point of view of a contemporary observer:
A modem computer is an electronic wonder that makes extremely complicated mathematical operations in one ten-thousandth of a second and sends its results ten days too late.
I wish also to add that I support the passing of Bill C-228, as it is a step toward improvement and 1 have good reasons to believe that its study in committee will contribute to the clarification of its content.
5248

April 26, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lamblon):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and to give my unqualified support to second reading of Bill C-228. This bill is an indication of the government's concern for the workingman. I am pleased to note that not only are we improving the present legislation but are branching out into a new field, namely, legislation providing for severance pay. I am sorry that time will not permit me to touch upon every area covered by the bill. Circumstances limit me to commenting on only one or two areas. However, from looking over the bill one cannot help conceding that it is legislation with which parliament should be concerned and should be happy to support.
.50 p.m.)
As a former lawyer, I welcome the proposed amendment which would prohibit an employer dismissing, suspending or laying-off an employee solely on the ground that garnishment procedures have been or may be taken in regard to the employee's wages. It was inconceivable to me that an employer, because he was put to some additional bookkeeping, would see fit to terminate a man's employment because his wages had been garnisheed. In many cases the garnishee was not warranted nor, in fact, was it allowed by the court. Quite often the threat only that a garnishee proceeding might be taken would force debtors into a position of entering into unconscionable transactions in order to protect their jobs. I am pleased the government has seen fit to remove this form of legal blackmail which has been too readily available to creditors.
Mr. Speaker, I now want to say something about the proposed federal standard dealing with severance pay. It is my understanding that there is no existing federal or provincial legislation in respect of severance pay. It would be my guess-I do not have the statistics-that a large percentage of employees working under major collective agreements in Canada are covered by severance pay plans of some kind. It would also be my prediction that the proportion is almost certain to increase because of the interest in job security that is manifesting itself.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The uncertain times of today!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Homer) wishes to speak, I shall be happy to yield the floor. He is interrupting everybody tonight, but I feel honoured that he has listened. I shall continue as I have only five minutes left, but I should like the hon. member to sit down or go outside the House.
Probably the most common type of plan provides for payment to employees with one year's service of severance pay equal to one week's pay for each year of service up to a maximum period. To me this is one more indication of the benefit or responsible collective bargaining and is the kind of thing union leaders should be looking for when negotiating on behalf of their members. The government has recognized its responsibility to workers coming within federal jurisdiction who do not-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Can you read the parliamentary secretary's note?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The parliamentary secretary's note says, "Don't let Horner bother you. He has been talking like that all night."


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did not know I was so effective.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The legislation we are discussing today is the kind that we should be dealing with in this House. I welcome both the initiative of the government, and the initiative of a Crown corporation which found itself faced with having to lay off employees and saw that they obtained other employment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to say a few words on Bill C-228, but as it is approximately ten o'clock may I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may call it ten o'clock if there is unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, without question one of the most important issues facing Canada today concerns the manner in which another country is moving oil from one part of its domain, namely, Alaska, to the great markets of the southern portion of the United States. This question concerns the protection of the ecological heritage of this country, it impinges on considerations of our political sovereignty and it has significance in consideration of our own natural resources and our commercial politics and postures generally.
It is regrettable that in dealing with so vital a matter of concern to our own and succeeding generations the government of Canada displays a lack of purpose, a lack of consistency, a lack of vigour and at times, one fears, a lack of concern. We are advised that on May 3 a meeting is to be held with United States authorities on the matter. But what will the Canadian representative say at that meeting? What view or views will be presented or represented? When I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on April 21 if there was a cabinet-wide position on the TAPS route, he replied immediately, "No, Mr. Speaker, the subject has not been the object of policy by the government." So if the government has no policy-and this I readily believe-what will be the role of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) at this major meeting?
From various ministers we have had a wide spectrum of views. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has declared that he wants the TAPS route rejected. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) ponders aloud as to the right of Canada even to question the American gov-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
emment on the movement of oil down our west coast, considering tanker movements on our own east coast. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), and that ebullient, effervescent gentleman the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) go awooing American big business, suggesting that the Mackenzie Valley route is the best of all possible solutions. But the Minister of Communications, (Mr. Kierans), not one of the silent, strong members of the cabinet as is the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) at the moment, declares that a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley would be a disaster. Out of all this array of variance, uncertainty and contradiction, how can anyone believe that there could be coherence or consistency on this vital question among the group ox people now in charge of this nation's affairs?
I suggested to the Prime Minister the other day that since the British Columbia government and legislature had a clear point of view on this matter-unlike the government of Canada-steps should be taken to have the British Columbia government represented at the May 3 meeting. Then at least the people of British Columbia and the rest of the country would have some assurance that someone at least knew what they supported and knew what they opposed.
The danger of ecolocatastrophe on our west coast should be sufficiently frightening to stir the government into united action and strong representation to the United States authorities. I hope that after all the weeks and months of vacillation, contradiction, uncertainty and pusillanimous utterances, such a policy and such a voice will be forthcoming in time.
Mr. Barney Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the question posed by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) who has expressed concern about this rather important problem. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has expressed the government's very serious concern about the risk of pollution if the Alaska route is adopted. It was for this reason that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) requested consultation with United States officials, and as the hon. member has stated this will take place in Washington on May 3.
We have been in touch with the government of British Columbia on this question and it has been established that British Columbia officials will be participating in the Canadian delegation. This will also include officials from the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry.
The consultations are on the problem of pollution and will deal with such matters as conditions relating to navigation, volume of oil which should be moved, drift in case of accident, effect on marine life, legislation and financial considerations. The Canadian interest is to prevent any damage to the natural environment more than with the problem of how we should clean up oil spills once they occur. We are seeking facts. There is a legitimate worry about the danger which a massive movement of oil would present to the natural environment. It is important that full information be assessed before action is taken which could prove detrimental to both countries.

April 26, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The hon. member suggests that there is no policy. There is no policy by the "seat of the pants". This government does not make policy in that way. Its concerns are deep and long-range. The hoped-for establishment of a ministry of the environment is a true indication of the government's concern in this area, together with the designation of one of the most able ministers ever to serve this country as minister of that department. So I think lack of coherence, consistency or concern, to use the hon. member's own words, does not exist. This is a time for thoughtful consideration, for consultation and for positive action stemming from well thought-out policies; and I think the hon. member will find that this will be the case.



PUBLIC SERVICE-DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-ALLEGED PREFERENTIAL SALARY   TREATMENT FOR TORONTO EMPLOYEES COMPARED WITH QUEBEC

Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday April 21, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) the following question as recorded on page 5118 of Hansard:
Is the hon. minister aware of serious complaints lodged by federal civil servants employed in the family allowance branch in Quebec City, to the eifect that because of the department's practice of classifying employees doing the same kind of work, the officers on duty in the Toronto office receive $1,000 more annually than those in Quebec City?
I asked this question because in the Quebec region, we are always astonished at the difference between salaries paid by this department to its Toronto officers and those paid to the Quebec officers who belong to the same category.
This has already caused some protests on the part of the Quebec officers who know their rights are not respected.
At that time, prior to the integration into this department of certain employees of the Department of Supply and Services, the Quebec officer working in the "transfer" unit was classified CR 2 with a salary of $4,900 whereas an officer with the same position in Toronto was classified CR 3 with an additional $1,000 per year.
The Quebec officers lived through a moment of hope when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated his election program in 1968, namely the establishment of a just society.
Perhaps the Prime Minister found pleasure in detailing his program. However, I think time has come to point out that the situation is still deplorable for the Quebec officers who are disgusted and tired of paying for other people.
Does the minister know that this kind of operation enabled the Quebec City office to record an administration surplus of $107,000 for the year 1969-70 and that this amount was transferred to Toronto, enabling the local office to grant salaries as those I have already mentioned?
Did the department give instructions to that effect or was there an understanding involving both offices exclusively? Why does the reclassification revision office tolerate such an injustice? How can the revision officers allow themselves to act in a way that leads us to question their ability and their intentions?
Does the minister know that two people went to the Quebec City office to inquire after the employees had informed of their grievances the former union leader the hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Marchand)?
Can the minister explain why the report that was to follow the inquiry was never made available to the interested parties?
Does the minister recognize the principle of equality: equal work, equal pay?
Can the minister tell us whether he intends to take into consideration the greater merit of the Quebec City office employees, who are bilingual and can therefore discharge their duties more quickly than their Toronto counterparts who must wait for the return of their correspondence which is translated through a special service?
I doubt that the minister is in possession of all the necessary information that would enable him to reply satisfactorily, since I am convinced that many things have been hidden from him until now. Therefore, I beg leave to suggest to the minister not to try and wash his hands of this business as Pilate once did.
This is too serious a question for me to expect a final answer today. In my view, this matter should be studied in depth. May I take the liberty of advising the minister on the choice of the investigators. He might prove to us his wish to really solve this problem in conducting a personal investigation which, all in all, should only require a few days, provided he contacts the people affected by this monkey business.
The best report could be prepared with co-operation of the victims of this hanky-panky, that is employees of all levels in the Quebec City office, who are in a position to provide him with all the details on this unfortunate situation.
If the Department of National Health and Welfare recognizes that family allowances and old age pensions should be paid at the same rate for both Quebec and Ontario residents, I submit that the minister should also recognize the need for paying the same salaries to his employees who operate under a classification which I feel should be the same throughout Canada.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the question of the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin). I must commend him for the excellent electoral speech that he has just made. He referred to a just society, and I should like him also to be just to society.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been informed that 49 employees of the family allowance branch for the province of Quebec, located in Quebec City, filed grievances to complain about the difference in levels of classification that exists between employees in Quebec City and Toronto.

April 26, 1971

Mr. Speaker, these grievances were examined through the usual procedure and French-speaking classification officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare inquired, together with officers of the Department of National Defence.
The organization and classification of employees in Quebec and Toronto working for the family allowance branch in Quebec City are the same and, accordingly, the grievances presented were rejected.



NATIONAL PARKS-SHIP HARBOUR-PREVENTION OF LAND SPECULATION

Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Darimoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to thank the minister for having stayed this evening. The issue I wish to bring forward arises from two brief questions I put to him, as reported in Hansard on April 21 on page 5122, having to do with reports and suggestions which are reaching my office in considerable numbers expressing concern and alarm over what appears to be land speculation in connection with a proposed park at Ship Harbour.
My purpose in being here tonight is to illicit certain information from the minister, not necessarily to emphasize the aspect I have just mentioned. I am sure that if there is anything of that nature going on, the minister and the federal authority will take steps accordingly, even though at this stage it would not be a matter of particular concern to them directly but one of indirect concern.
I should like to ask the hon. gentleman one or two simple questions. The answers to them, or the reaction to them, would go a long way toward bringing to an end the concern which arises when people are not kept advised of a situation. The first question is this: Why has there not been any form of communication with the public in the area concerned, in a public way, for more than a year? About a year ago the citizens of the area became sufficiently concerned to cause a public meeting to be held. Certain public officials attended that meeting and as a result a good deal of misunderstanding was cleared up. A year has now gone by and no attempt has been made to repeat this process.
My second question arises from the general vagueness which seems to surround the question of a third national park in Nova Scotia. There has been a clear indication in correspondence and from the provincial authorities that there will indeed be a third park in the province and that planning is in progress, but as yet there has been no public announcement by the minister to the effect that the federal authority has decided to go ahead. I think the minister should first call a meeting and, second, inform us whether it is intended to provide a park. He should have the common sense to tell the people in the area concerned what the boundaries are to be. This is the only
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion way in which it is possible to establish a park with minimum disruption to the people directly concerned and with minimum benefit to those who might use information, possibly coming from provincial offices, for their own advantage. This could put them in the position where they would go around the countryside buying up land they knew, or had reason to believe, the provincial government might buy for the purpose of developing a park. Some indication from the minister about these three very brief points would be very welcome.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 
Thomas Miller Bell: Don't forget New Brunswick.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Tuesday, April 27, 1971