Mr. MacEachen:

That would be an unwarranted conclusion. But no facts have been put forward to suggest that the system proposed for the country elevators cannot be applied

Canada Labour Code

with equal success to the feed mills in eastern Canada. Why is it presumed that the principles of this bill cannot be applied suitably to the eastern feed mills in the same way as the Annual Vacations Act? There was no request to exempt them on that occasion, and if we were to exempt them completely from the present measure they would be in a completely unregulated field, one which provincial jurisdiction would have no authority to enter.

As the hon. member knows, there are a number of provisions in this bill designed to meet difficulties if any should exist in connection with feed mills under the arrangements proposed. There is the averaging system, the overtime, the provision for securing a deferment and so on. There is yet another point. If the hon. member would look at the section dealing with minimum wages he would find it is possible to defer the application of the $1.25 rate for 18 months-not beyond that time-and only in respect of enterprises of a local character. This is the only exception to the minimum wage proposal, and it can apply to local feed mills. If it can be demonstrated that the introduction of the minimum wage at once would work a hardship on the industry or upon the employees, this course can be followed. But I do not think it is unreasonable to expect all feed mills in every part of Canada 18 months from the application of this bill to pay $1.25 an hour. I think this would be good for the rural people. It would have the effect of raising standards in the rural communities of Canada. I do not agree that it would be bad for the farmers, because one of the problems we have in securing farm labour today is the provision of proper working conditions so as to attract men to employment on farms. This is a step which will give a lead in that direction and I do not think it would be sound to remove the feed mills from its application.

The Chairman:

Is it the desire of the committee that we should now return to clause 8 and delay this general discussion on the application of the bill? Is that agreed?

Mr. Smallwood:

I have one more question.

The Chairman:

Order. In order to permit the house to consider private members' business it is my duty to leave the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions for papers, private bills and public bills.

Private Bills PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano) moved

the second reading of Bill No. S-47, respecting the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):

Before we adopt this motion for second reading I think cognizance should be taken of the fact that during the Christmas recess a housecleaning took place. I have no idea what has become of the bills I had in my desk and my seat-mate does not know where his are, either. I wonder whether we could have an explanation of the merits of this bill and be told what it is all about.

Mr. Davis:

This is a brief and simple bill. It is designed to wind up the operation of the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company. This company is presently owned substantially by the three municipalities on the north shore in Vancouver, the districts of west Vancouver and north Vancouver, and the city of North Vancouver. The company was incorporated many years ago. It built the original second narrows bridge. Since then a much larger bridge has been built at the second narrows and the old property is now used solely for railway purposes; it has been sold to the Canadian National Railways. All that the company now represents is financial assets largely in the form of Canada savings bonds, and it is the desire of the municipalities I have mentioned to wind up the company and recover these assets so that they can be used for other municipal purposes.

Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau) moved

the second reading of Bill No. S-44, to incorporate the Royal College of Dentists of Canada.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?

Mr. Woolliams:

Let us have an explanation.

Mr. Howard:

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we could go through the same process with this bill as well.

Mr. Leduc:

Mr. Speaker, the bill now under consideration is non-controversial. It tends to incorporate the Royal College of Dentists of Canada.

This bill has been drawn up at the request of the Canadian Dental Association at its annual convention held in Vancouver in 1962. At that meeting the following resolution was submitted and unanimously carried.

Agreed. The following resolution was adopted:

Whereas it is apparent that there is an increasing trend towards specialization in dentistry, and

Whereas candidates electing to prepare themselves as specialists are in need of guidance and encouragement, and

Whereas a recent survey has shown a wide variation in provincial bylaws respecting specialists, and

Whereas there is a need for an organization, on a national level, for setting up qualifications for dental specialists and for the examination of those who claim to possess these qualifications, therefore be it

Resolved that at the earliest possible moment, this association seek legislation to incorporate the Royal College of Dentists of Canada according to the pattern proposed in this report.

The object of this bill is to protect the general public against those who claim they are specialists in dentistry and charge the fees of the specialist, without having the necessary qualifications. I admit that in a good many provinces it is impossible for a dentist to call himself a specialist without having the necessary qualifications, but in certain provinces there are no regulations regarding dental associations and the control of those who claim they are specialists in the profession. This bill is, therefore, for the protection of the public and also for the good government of the profession throughout Canada. It is almost exactly the same incorporation as that which applies to medical specialists, physicians and surgeons, under what we call the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.

This bill is a symbol; it is for the protection of the public and to encourage more dentists to specialize in dentistry.

I hope that hon. members have read the bill and will adopt it. It has been adopted already by the Senate, and I do not believe there is any serious objection to the incor-

poration of the Royal College of Dentists of Canada.

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask just one question. I do not intend to make a speech and delay second reading of this bill, but I wonder whether the hon. member would inform the house at this stage-and I know the bill may go to committee-whether he or the people behind the bill, that is, the dentists, have been in communication with the dental associations of the various provinces and obtained their consent. I am not saying they need consent, but in this regard has the feeling of the dental associations of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, for example, been canvassed.

Mr. Leduc:

We have obtained the consent of all the provincial organizations of dentists in the whole of Canada.