1966-07-14

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on health and welfare-Mr. Harley.
[Note: Text of foregoing report appears in
today's Votes and Proceedings.1


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, earlier, in the house, I indicated the government's intention to provide a further program of income support for older persons in Canada. I promised members I would give the house a general outline of this program before we adjourned for the summer. I am pleased to carry out that commitment, but before I do there are a number of comments I would like to make.
First, I believe the action taken earlier by this house in approving the Canada Assistance Plan will be of real assistance to many older people. Also medicare, when it comes into effect, will bring substantial benefits; indeed, it will be of special importance to older people, just as hospital insurance has been.
I would also remind the house that since this government took office the flat rate pension has been increased from $65 a month to $75. Some 100,000 persons have been brought under the old age security program this year through lowering of the eligibility age to 69 and in January of next year, when the eligibility age will be dropped to 68, another 100,000 will receive full benefits. This yearly reduction in the eligibility age will continue until 1970 when all persons 65 and over will be entitled to the flat rate pension.
By this time, 1970, the flat rate pension will be available as a matter of right to some one and a half million persons age 65 and over. Also, of course, a steadily increasing level of retirement benefits will be payable under the Canada Pension Plan, commencing next January. The Canada Pension Plan, we feel,
will largely solve the problem of basic retirement pensions when its provisions come fully into effect and pensions are payable at the full scales provided in it. The plan in itself is a generous one.
There are, however, many older people in Canada who cannot benefit fully, or at all, from the Canada Pension Plan, because they are already past the retirement age or because they will be retiring before the plan becomes fully operational. I do not have to remind the house that the position of this particular group has been of considerable concern to this parliament and to this government.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I would also note the recommendation of the joint committee on the Canada Pension Plan urging further measures on behalf of those people who, because they are or soon will be retired, will not be substantial contributors to or beneficiaries from the Canada Pension Plan.
The increase in the monthly flat rate pension and the lowering of the eligibility age are in line with this recommendation, but clearly this is not all that is needed. I can assure the house that the government, and more particularly my department, has for some time been exploring various additional ways through which adequate assistance can be provided for this group of people. I would recall, for example, a speech which I gave on March 2 in Regina in which this problem was discussed. At that time I noted that a considerable number of older persons would not be able to take advantage of the Canada Pension Plan. I went on to discuss some of the various approaches which were being considered to meet this problem.
It is apparent, then, that a further program of benefits should be considered for persons in this particular age group. We propose to introduce a program that will guarantee a minimum monthly income of $105 to old age security recipients.
The details of such an income guarantee program are now being considered. The total payments which will be required under this program will, of course, decrease over the years, as the Canada and Quebec pension plans come into effect and pay increasing benefits.
July 14, 1966
7652	COMMONS
Old Age Security Income Announced
The program is being provided with these two plans in mind and is specifically designed for those people who are not and will not, because of age, be able to take advantage of the contributory pension plans. This, as I said, is in line with the recommendations of the special joint committee. Because it is an income guarantee program, and because of the increasing benefits that will be available under the Canada and Quebec pension plans, the burden on the federal treasury will be almost entirely a transitional one.
By using the contemporary income guarantee formula rather than the flat rate increase it is felt that income support can be provided at a higher level for a given outlay of funds. Through this income guarantee program the needs of the older citizen can be more adequately met in a way that is financially responsible and least burdensome on the treasury.
I can inform the house that such a program will be presented to parliament for approval in the autumn, after parliament has reconvened.
It is estimated that the annual cost to the treasury of such a program will be in the neighbourhood of $225 million at the beginning. The revenue measures that will be needed to meet the burden which these supplementary benefits will place on our national finances are also being considered.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the long awaited announcement just made by the minister with some trepidation and disappointment. While it is true the minister says this legislation will be coming before us in the fall for approval, we had hoped to deal with it now.
I should like the minister to explain whether this supplementary benefit will be based on a means test, which is not acceptable, because his statement was not clear in this regard. This announcement comes after a great deal of urging by the party on this side of the house to which I belong.


An hon. Member:: And the Liberal backbenchers.


Philip Bernard Rynard: And as someone has said, there has been some urging on the part of a Liberal backbencher. The government has finally seen the light. It is pleasing to note that we in this party have fought constantly for a pension increase and we are happy that we have succeeded at least to the point of having an announcement, even though the actual increase is still to be delayed.
[Mr. MacEachen.)

This program will bring a measure of contentment and happiness to our older citizens, and in a great many cases it will provide many of the necessities they need so badly when the program comes into effect. As the party which brought this question to a vote early in the session, we are pleased at the result to a point, and are most happy at the measure of justice we hope it will bring to our senior citizens. However, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister whether the increase could not be made effective as of now, to help combat the high cost of living.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, any announcement
that indicates that there is to be an improvement in the income of our old age pensioners should be greeted with approval in this House of Commons. However, I must say that the statement the Minister of National Health and Welfare has at long last made to parliament is bitterly disappointing. In the first place, if there is anything in this program that has any value, that offers any help to our senior citizens, it should be put into effect right away.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not good enough to tell the older people of this country that approval will be given in the fall to a measure the effective date of which has not been indicated to us in the statement given by the minister. The crux of this proposal is that there will be made available to our senior citizens an additional amount of money on a different basis from that on which they receive the present $75 a month. The minister uses the phrase "guaranteed annual income". He indicates in his statement that the details are yet to be worked out, but it is clear from such details as he has given us that the plan includes a means test under another name. All the government is proposing is that old age pensioners who do not have $30 a month of other income can qualify for up to $30 a month under this supplementary provision. That is a means test.
The proposed increase will be fine, if you forget the quality of dignity, for those who have nothing else. But there are thousands of older people in this country who, because there has been no means test in respect of the old age pension, have saved a little money and have incomes all told of $105, $110, or $150 a month. These people today are in desperate circumstances. In this legislation there is nothing for them at all. That is why I
July 14, 1966

say that this long awaited announcement, with all the fanfare we have had about it and the pulling of teeth it has taken to get it, is bitterly disappointing.
The minister does not make clear just where Canada Pension Plan benefits fit into this scheme, but I think one can see where they fit. They are to be part of the other income that comes under this means test that the minister calls a guaranteed annual income. The whole concept of the Canada Pension Plan was to provide additional income, and now it is income that is to be taken into account under a glorified means test. The minister makes it clear that this proposal is to be transitional in character. He says the burden on the treasury will diminish as the years go on and the Canada Pension Plan comes into full force. In other words-let us get this clear-this is not an increase in the old age security pension, which is what the people of this country want at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friends across the way can groan, but they will really groan when they get back to their constituencies and meet their people when they have learned that this government has tried to fob them off with a supplementary payment which is on a means test basis.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the parliament of Canada
took one of the greatest steps in its history when it said that retirement income is a matter of right. We did that in 1951 when we removed the means test from the old age pension. To put it back on any portion of what our senior citizens are to receive is a retrograde step, and I hope that between now and the fall when we come back to deal with this legislation the government will repent of this decision and will announce a decision which the people of Canada want. The government will hear about the reaction of the country to this proposal from the hundreds of thousands of people who will not benefit from this measure at all, and I urge the government to reconsider its whole position.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has let the cat out of the bag by giving us the figure representing what he thinks this plan will cost in the first year. The Minister of National Health and Welfare says that at the beginning it will cost $225 million a year. Since I heard that figure I have not had time to do my arithmetic in
7653
Old Age Security Income Announced precise detail, but I have been able to compute that at best this will amount to an average of $15 a month for the people on our old age pension rolls during the first year.
The government says it is offering a total of $105 a month, which represents a supplement of $30 a month; but on an average, according to the terms of this proposal, it only comes to $15 a month or perhaps even less.


An hon. Member:: It is only $11.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some of my friends have had more time to do their arithmetic than I, and they are saying it is only about $11 a month. This means, Mr. Speaker, that because some people will get the full amount, many if not most of our old age pensioners will not get any at all.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, although, as I said in the beginning, one would expect that any announcement which does anything for our old age pensioners should be welcomed, this statement is bitterly disappointing. It is not satisfactory from a financial point of view and, what is even worse, it takes away from our senior citizens something that we gave them in 1951-their dignity, and their entitlement to their old age pension as a right. I deeply regret that a government which calls itself Liberal has announced that it intends to come in with such legislation.
The matter of old age pensions, Mr. Speaker, could be dealt with in a direct, straightforward and honest way, and I call upon the government to reconsider its decision. At the end of March, 1966, there was a surplus of $216,982,834.44 in the old age security fund, even after some of the money in that fund had been transferred to another fund. According to an answer given to a question placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), the Department of Finance estimated that at the end of the fiscal year in which we now find ourselves, the total surplus in that fund will be $455 million.
In other words, even though we are lowering the eligible age and putting more pensioners on the roll, the surplus in this fiscal year will be greater than the surplus in the last fiscal year. This is money which comes from three taxes, 4 per cent on personal income up to a ceiling, a 3 per cent sales tax and a 3 per cent corporation tax, which were earmarked for the old age security fund by a decision of parliament. The old age security fund is on a pay as you go basis. The money
July 14, 1966
7654	COMMONS
Old Age Security Income Announced which is collected from the taxes paid by the people of Canada and which is being put into the old age security fund is for the payment of old age security pensions, and therefore I say it is a violation of the spirit of that act for the government to leave that money in the fund and not give it to the people for whom it has been collected.
There are over a million pensioners in Canada today. Perhaps there will be 1,200,000 by the time the 68 year olds get on the roll in 1967. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this year every pensioner on the roll could be paid the extra $25 a month that we urged they should receive, could be paid this sum retroactively to the beginning of the fiscal year, could receive the full $300 increase out of the old age security fund, and there would still remain in that fund at the end of the year a surplus of more than $100 million.
It is a disgrace, Mr. Speaker, for the government to come in with the statement that has been made today, in view of the money which is lying in the old age security fund. This money was collected for the old age security pension, collected on a pay as you go basis, but the government has refused to use it. I say that this statement today is bitterly disappointing to us in this house, and it will be received with great disappointment throughout the country as a whole because the people realize that not only is there a need for extra money on which to live, but there is a need for-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows the rule with respect to comments made at this time. The rules states that brief comments can be made by members of the parties in opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding me of the rules. I am very familiar with them. I had something to do with the drafting of the rule to which you are referring.
I submit that the minister has made a lengthy, argumentive statement, and that the government itself has delayed this announcement until what could be the last day of the session before we recess. The minister promised this statement on the second reading of the Canada Assistance Plan, and promised it on several other occasions. There will be no other opportunity, unless the session continues, to speak on this matter. I think it is appropriate that one spokesman from each party should be allowed to comment on this statement.


However, I have almost completed what I wanted to say. Today even the pension of $100 for which we have asked is not enough.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends can laugh, just as they did when a pension of $50 was suggested some years ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out, he is familiar with the rule to which I have referred because he has had something to do with having it drafted. However, the rule does not provide for an exception, even in the case of a debate such as this. I should like him to keep that in mind and perhaps bring his remarks to a conclusion soon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I shall now be concluding my remarks. I urge the government to look at its position in the light of the financial needs of the older people of this country and in the light of the right of our senior citizens to their dignity. We gave it to them in 1951. Let us not take it away by a proposal of this kind.


Mr. Gerald Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, following the announcement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), my remarks will be very brief, because I do not find very much to say except to criticize his statement about the increase in the old age pension.
After a great deal of thought and many hesitations, the minister made that statement today, at the very last minute before the adjournment of the present session, and instead of talking about old age security, he preferred to talk about the pension plan. I think therefore, that disappointment will be felt throughout Canada, because Canadians were expecting something else; as far as we are concerned on this side of the house, we would have preferred for our old people more than the crumbs offered by the minister in his statement.
As a matter of fact, the old people are led to believe that they are getting an increase in pension but, if you study carefully the minister's statement, you will find that instead the proposal will take something out of their income.
We saw that the minister succeeded in bypassing an election promise made last fall and we would have been surprised if he had offered us something else at this time.
July 14, 1966	COMMONS
In any event, over the recess we will have the opportunity and time to study more carefully the minister's recommendation and, when the session resumes in the fall, I am convinced that each member will see to it that the minister is made aware of the demands of the Canadian people, particularly those of the old people. I would not like to be in the shoes of the Liberal members who will have to explain the government's decision to their electors.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement we have heard this afternoon is not quite what we have been waiting for. I am reminded of the story which used to be told by the late Solon Low about the farmer who was plowing a field which had a stream alongside it. While the farmer was on the far side of the field his son fell into the stream. As he came round on his tractor and heard the boy screaming he shouted "Hold on while I make another couple of rounds". It seems to me that the old age pensioners of this country are being asked by the government to hold on while the government makes another couple of rounds through the summer.
We have been waiting for some action by the government, expecting that we would receive news of what the papers have been calling over the last few days a generous addition to the incomes of the old age pensioners. But all we have is the promise that the legislation will be presented. Even a member with interests as recent as mine-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Why did your party vote against it?


Howard Earl Johnston: We did not vote against it but afforded the government an opportunity to do something at that time. No one's disappointment is greater than mine at the lack of any specific announcement at this time of any action. One wonders what would happen if the advisers to the Prime Minister were to advise him during the summer to call another fall election, and just how long it would be before the necessary legislation to provide an increase would be implemented.


An hon. Member:: Not much chance of an election.


Howard Earl Johnston: Somebody says that there is not much chance, and after this announcement I would be inclined to agree; but strange things have happened before.
DEBATES	7655
Old Age Security Income Announced
This is a disappointing announcement. I appreciate the concept we hear of the guaranteed annual income, and I am concerned a bit when the members of the New Democratic Party back away from the concept of the guaranteed annual income every time it approaches. We hear a great deal from them about it at other times during the session, but when it actually comes close to being implemented we see a great deal of fright and a rap.d retreat from what it seems to me must come. The only thing I would say is that if the guaranteed annual income is to b e brought in and is to be successful in its initial and terribly important application, then it must be truly generous, and I do not feel that this increase is truly generous at the present time.


Mr. Winch:: You are backing away now.


Howard Earl Johnston: I do not feel it is generous at the present time. I cannot quite understand the remark of the hon. member in the context of what I have just said.
I know this announcement will be a bitter disappointment to the old age pensioners in this country. I feel the thought which would best sum up their opinions is contained in one of the briefest letters I have ever received from an old age pensioner, which came to me about a month ago. All it said was "Will you lend me $200 till the government gets round to raising the old age security pension?" In that letter there was a sardonic note which I think will prove somewhat justified by the announcement we have had this afternoon.
At a time when every trade union in the country is demanding an increase in the wages of the workers, and at a time when the price index is rising constantly, I urge the government to reconsider this action and if it is at all possible under present legislation, or by order in council after we leave this chamber this afternoon, give a flat increase to the present pension of $75 a month, and then bring in a generous guaranteed annual income in the fall and proceed from there.


Mr.   Kindi@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the minister of health and welfare if he would, before this house closes or right now, make a clear-cut statement as to whether the means test is to be restored.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

July 14, 1966
Old Age Security



INDIAN AFFAIRS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
Mr. Klein (Chairman of the standing committee on Indian affairs, human rights and citizenship and immigration) :: That the second report of the standing committee on Indian affairs, human rights and citizenship and immigration, presented to the house on Thursday, June 16, 1966, be concurred in.


Milton L. Klein: Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's resolution which was adopted yesterday by unanimous consent, concerning the subject matter of this motion, I wonder whether it is now necessary to move concurrence.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



OLD AGE SECURITY


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave, pursuant to standing order 26, to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter on urgent public importance, namely the total inadequacy of the policy just announced by the government which will deprive the senior citizens of Canada of the justice to which they are entitled, and the vital necessity of an alternative which would give an immediate increase of $25 a month to all citizens at age 65.
I plead urgency in the matter because of the critical rise in the cost of living and the position which I have consistently taken in the house this session.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly address the Chair on the question of urgency of debate?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to belabour the house. I made it quite clear that the position I have taken in this regard ever since the beginning of this session is based on urgency and need. As I said before I think it is sufficient for me to say that the critical rise in the cost of living makes my motion urgent and important.
[Mr. Speaker.)
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the motion moved by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce makes out a basic case for urgency, in that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has today made his announcement about the government's program to take care of the elderly citizens of Canada.
Throughout the time the house was discussing the Canada Assistance Plan we were assured that some measure would be introduced to take care of the elderly people who are not covered by either the Canada Pension Plan or the Canada Assistance Plan. Only today have we been given some particulars regarding the government's proposal to fill this gap in our social security program. We shall have no other chance to discuss this matter until the house reconvenes some time in October.
It seems to me, therefore, that it is of the utmost urgency that parliament have an opportunity now, first, to express its opinion with regard to this proposal before us and, second, to give the minister an opportunity to tell parliament and the country the specific details of his program. Many old age pensioners, also many hon. members of the house, are still uncertain as to whether they are going to be covered; as to what the effective date will be; as to what will be the conditions employed in determining income; whether income will include alleged rent where a person owns his own home; whether assumed interest on assessed value of property will be taken into account, and whether some of the other factors which made the previous means test so unpopular will remain.
Therefore because parliament will have no opportunity, should it adjourn today, until next fall to discuss this matter, I think parliament ought to have this opportunity now of discussing the measure which the minister has forecast, so the members of this house might be given an opportunity to express their opinions and so the government might have a chance to give us some further information which is sorely needed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can tell hon. members that I am prepared to make a decision now. I do not think much purpose would be served by engaging in debate on this question at the moment.
I would ask hon. members to allow the Chair at this point to express its views on the motion which has been presented by the hon.
July 14, 1966

member for Grey-Bruce. Basically, in spite of the fact that the hon. member refers to a policy announcement which has been made by the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare, the motion is based on a general question having to do with old age security and old age pensions.
It seems to me, and I have reached this conclusion having sat in this chair for some weeks now, that this matter has been debated on many occasions, and has been considered from all its aspects during the last few weeks and the last month. I do not think anything could be gained by having further debate on the matter at this time.
Despite the fact that a policy announcement has been made by the minister, the matter before me is the question of urgency of debate. I do not think anything would be gained at this time by having a debate now on the basis of the motion presented by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. May I ask the minister whether he is prepared now to give parliament the facts about the cancellation of a Canadian contract by the United States which was announced by Defence Secretary McNamara on Monday, and which is now described as a contract for rocket components?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, inquiries have been made of the Pentagon both as to what was actually said and what was meant with respect to this matter.
Mr. McNamara, by way of background, was discussing a proposed financial retrenchment program in respect of United States armed force procurement. He was indicating that some of the future plans for procurement of the department were going to be modified, and by way of citing an example he made reference to a contract for bombs to be cancelled, from Canada.
We have since learned that Mr. McNamara had reference in these circumstances, to an intention on the part of the United States Department of Defence not to extend or renew a particular contract for the production of explosives in Canada beyond the
Inquiries of the Ministry duration of the existing contract. There is nothing in this to suggest a cancellation of contracts. It is just that a contract for this particular commodity, with a Canadian firm manufacturing explosive material, will not be again entered into.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell the house what, in the cancellation or non-renewal of these contracts, it will mean in terms of employment and dollars and cents under our defence contract agreements with the United States?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think
anybody knows what future contracts, which are not going to be proceeded with, might have been. This question is strictly hypothetical. We do know the value of the existing contract. We do know when it will be completed. In respect of the future, a further contract for the particular type of explosive in question will not be entered into. This, as the hon. gentleman can understand, is in the perfectly ordinary and natural course of doing business.


Michael Starr: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement the minister has made, which seems to have some definite aspects to it, is the government now prepared to offer some resistance to the cancellation of these programs?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I must take exception to the use of the word "cancellation". As I indicated to the house the other day, there is between Canada and the United States a production sharing agreement, on the basis of which each country will work to a rough balance of procurement north and south and south and north respectively. At the present time the balance has run slightly in favour of Canada. As a consequence the United States has every right, under our agreement, not to further increase the imbalance in Canada's favour. If the United States, in moving toward a more precise balance, decides not to proceed with the procurement of a particular item for which it has no need, I suggest that Canada and the Canadian government are in no position to protest.


Michael Starr: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister this. If in the curtailment of United States contracts in Canada the objective is to bring about a balance; and if that happens, as I am sure it will, that as the result of this announcement Canada will be on the short end

July 14, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry of this defence production agreement, will not the government launch a protest or do something with respect to the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Pearson:: That is hypothetical.


Michael Starr: It is not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question
is along the same lines as the previous one.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Yesterday the minister told the house that the Quaker Oats Company of Canada Limited had assured him that they had received no directive from their parent company with respect to the milling of flour for Cuba. I wonder if the minister's attention has been drawn to the fact that Mr. J. G. Wharry, president of the Quaker Oats Company of Canada Limited, said that his company will voluntarily act in such a way as not to conflict with the U.S. trading with the enemy act, lest this should bring the parent company into any conflict with the laws of the United States.
In view of that statement I would ask the minister what action he proposes to take, since the statement of the company's president appears to run contrary to item No. 3 of the guide lines which the minister announced in this house on March 31, as shown at page 3714 of Hansard.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this report. I spoke to the president and told him how I regarded the situation. He assured me quite categorically, as I said yesterday, that he had received no instruction or directive of any kind from his U.S. parent. He was acting in what he thought was the best interests of his company. As a matter of corporate decision they felt they did not need to participate in this business. Canadian owned companies thereby benefit because they will have an opportunity of milling more flour.
I also asked him if he was familiar with the government's program of guiding princi-

pies. He of course said he was because he had received the letter and replied to it, subscribing to the principles contained therein. We also discussed whether or not Canadian interests will suffer as a result of any action he is taking. They will not, as can be inferred from what I have said.
I then told him that in the event Canadian industry did suffer in any way my attitude would be quite different and I would be obliged to take another point of view. The president said he would be glad to conform to any wishes the Canadian government had to express in this regard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether he considers it in keeping with Canada's dignity as a sovereign nation that an American subsidiary should consider it is bound by the laws of the United States and can ignore the guide lines set down by a Canadian minister, because if this principle were adhered to by an increasing number of subsidiaries-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is clearly argumentative.


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: As a
supplementary question, in view of what the minister said a moment ago in response to the original question put by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, in view of the fact that Russian officials are expected in this country next month to arrange for the milling of close to half a billion pounds of Canadian flour destined for Cuba, and in view of the fact that American owned mills in this country are not expected to bid on the job, is the minister assuring the house that our Canadian owned mills will be capable of filling this contract?


Robert Henry Winters: I understand that is the case, Mr. Speaker, and in any event they have the opportunity of doing so. The Canadian industry will not suffer in this regard.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: As a further supplementary, can the minister allay the logical suspicion that Canada could sell more wheat flour to Cuba if the American owned mills in this country could be counted on to bid on these jobs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is also argumentative.
July 14. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	7659
Inquiries of the Ministry
[Translation]	Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question as
HOUSE OF COMMONS	asked is not acceptable.
INQUIRY AS TO HOLDING BY-ELECTIONS On the orders of the day:


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does he intend to announce shortly that by-elections will be called to fill the vacancies in the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before long, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he prepared to tell us when the promised inquiry into security will get under way and who will head the inquiry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that it would have been under way by now, but it has taken longer than we expected, or hoped, to work out the details of all the terms of reference. That has now been completed and we are in the process of inviting commissioners to take on this very important task which will extend over many months.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I ask this question now because it is obviously impossible to put a question on the order paper and get an answer before October, and irrevocable steps may be taken by the government in the next three months. In view of the stand which the government has taken that it has no alternative but to increase St. Lawrence seaway tolls, is the minister not aware that there is nothing in the St. Lawrence seaway act which requires the Canadian seaway authority, unlike the statutory requirement for its United States counterpart, to amortize its debt over a specific period of time?


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The urgency of my question is based on the great concern expressed by Canadian farmers in respect of this matter. Is it a fact that the minister has agreed to accept the St. Lawrence seaway authority recommendation that tolls be increased on the seaway?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think I told the house the other day, but perhaps it is useful to repeat it, that the government has accepted no position in this matter because we are very anxious to have negotiations continue with the United States and we think it would be much better to have a joint understanding than to have each country act separately.


George Harris Hees: As a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, is it not correct that Welland canal tolls form no part of the St. Lawrence seaway agreement with the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this question is acceptable either.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, without seeking controversy I would simply like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare this question. Does the announcement he made this afternoon, relating to pensions and a guaranteed annual income for our older people, involve a means test?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask one more supplementary question. Without making a play on words, the minister said it does not involve a means test, but does it involve a needs test?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the minister a supplementary question with regard to the announcement he made this afternoon. Does he
July 14, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry realize-he will correct me if I am wrong- that the measure he has announced will place a penalty on all the earlier recipients under the Canada Pension Plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is argumentative.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, as a further supplementary I wish to ask the
minister whether the measure he announced today to assist our older citizens reflects the recommendation of the Croll committee to provide them with a guaranteed minimum income based on income tax returns?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question cannot
be accepted for the same reason as others were rejected.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question could the minister tell the house what he anticipates will be the effective date for the implementation of the program he announced on motions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the effective date will be disclosed in the legislation.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the senior citizens of our country who will be eligible for the increase he mentioned earlier today be subjected to a test as to their income or resources before they will receive any additional money?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the details of any particular method of applying the guaranteed income will be disclosed in the legislation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question. I am right in concluding that there will be an investigation of their resources and income before they become eligible for it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is argumentative.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since, in the light of studies it has undertaken, the Quebec government will be unable to implement a medicare program before

January 1, 1970, would the minister or the government agree to postpone the national medical care program until January 1, 1968?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we propose to proceed with the medical care program in accordance with the bill which is now available to hon. members.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he has had any opportunity to consider the appeal I made to the government last night to give consideration to proceeding with second reading before the house adjourns for the summer recess?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I read my hon. friend's statement on this subject, but we propose to follow the plan that has been outlined and proceed with second reading of the legislation shortly after our return.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a further supplementary-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -has the Prime Minister made any commitment to the official opposition not to proceed, as would seem to be indicated by the statement made by the hon. member for Ontario as recorded at page 7606-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Simcoe East.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order based on the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the implication contained in it. The meetings of the party house leaders were never conducted on the basis of an agreement with one party. I would point out that we have tried to expedite the business of the house. The government has made its own decisions and we have tried to conform with those decisions by passing the legislation which the government wanted.
There should be no implication whatsoever made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me we are now renewing a discussion which took place yesterday when the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam put certain statements on the record. The hon. member has asked a question along the same lines today. The hon.
July 14, 1966

member lor Ontario has risen on a point of order, and I suggest to hon. members that there is no point whatever in renewing the discussion which we had yesterday on this matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not renewing the matter at all. I was referring a few moments ago to an interjection the hon. member for Ontario made as found on page 7606 of Hansard. At that time the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was speaking.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that there is no point of order. There is a discussion between two hon. members as to who said what and I suggest this is not a point of order which should be brought up at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the hon. member for Ontario is taking exception to something I said and it seems to me I am entitled to clarify that point.


Mr. Crouse:: He did not. He raised a point of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The point I sought to have clarified was an interjection when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was speaking and said:
The acting house leader has now placed something else in front of us-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member suggesting the question of privilege he is trying to raise now arises out of today's proceedings?


Michael Starr: On a point of order again, I did not raise a question of privilege. I rose on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: This is my understanding. I understand the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is now rising on a question of privilege. I suggest that as soon as possible he should state what the question of privilege is.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order.



MEDICARE-BASIS OF FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the conflicting statements on the proposed medicare bill, will the minister tell us whether the federal government will pay 50 per cent of the actual cost of medicare in each province?
Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National
Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no. The federal government will pay 50 per cent of the per capita cost of medicare programs in participating provinces.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister state whether or not the provinces will be given the right to opt out of the medicare legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe this question was discussed in the course of the debate which took place in the house.



QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION OF THERMONUCLEAR PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choqueite (Lobliniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to a minister well endowed with spiritual energy, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
My question is urgent, Mr. Speaker, because of the increasing concern with regard to the steel complex which was supposed to be set up at Becancour. Could the minister tell us whether the fate of that thermonuclear plant, which is to be set up in Becancour by the federa1 government, is connected with that of steel?
7662	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Auguste Choquette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the house whether he had today, or whether he is supposed to have in the near future, consultations with the new Quebec government concerning the thermonuclear plant.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, to the first question, Mr. Speaker, and to the second question also, I hope.


Auguste Choquette: My last question, Mr. Speaker, is whether the thermonuclear plant is to be set up at Becancour?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The matter is being considered by the cabinet, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the Air Transport Board be holding hearings this summer on the subject of regional air policy? If so, when will these hearings commence and where will they be held?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as I think the hon. gentleman surmises, there are to be hearings on the application of TransAir Limited to give up certain of their prairie runs. Those hearings are bound to have an effect, I would imagine, upon regional air policy but there is no plan for hearings on a regional air policy as such.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the present temporary arrangements for regional air service continue in effect until such time as a firm policy is established?


John Whitney Pickersgill: They will continue in effect until such time as the Air Transport Board has reached its conclusion with regard to these particular hearings.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the minister this summer, after a brief homecoming holiday in Newfoundland, get busy on transport legislation to be dealt with when we resume in the fall; because in
[Mr. Choquette.)
DEBATES	July 14, 1966
spite of the two ministers' play on words no transport legislation of any significance has been brought before the house so far this
session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been busy on this for the last six months. He expects to be busy on it through the recess and is very hopeful he will have legislation acceptable to all parties in the house, which will be passed in one day's debate.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker,
lest anyone thinks the shortage of wool in Canada has been caused by the government's efforts to pull the wool over the eyes of the people, I should like to point out to the Prime Minister that Canada's sheep population is now at the lowest ebb since records have been kept. I should like to ask the Prime Minister what he proposes to do to encourage the sheep industry.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, while hon. members have been woolgathering we have been acting.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. All joking aside, will he give the Minister of Agriculture instructions to consider the sheep industry in an attempt to see whether something can be done in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad
to discuss the matter with the minister as soon as he returns.



NOVA SCOTIA-INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys or the Minister of National Defence or possibly the Prime Minister. The government can never make up its mind, so I do not know who is responsible for answering. The question is with reference to the cabinet committee which I understand has been set up concerning the problem of the Nova Scotia coal
July 14, 1966
mining industry. May I ask whoever is going to answer the question how soon the cabinet committee may be in a position to provide a report? I ask this question because today may be the last opportunity we will have to provide an answer to the coal miners of Nova Scotia in respect of how soon they may receive the assistance promised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and later confirmed by the Prime Minister and other ministers in the house.
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is not customary to talk about matters discussed in the cabinet or a cabinet committee in the house.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the house whether the government intends to introduce legislation when parliament resumes in October to try to control the very serious rise which is taking place in the cost of living?


Lester Bowles Pearson: A great deal of our legislation is already having that effect, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister consider that the unprecedented rise of 1 per cent in the last three months shows control by the
government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not in order.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question relating to the one I asked yesterday which I should now like to direct to the Minister of Labour. In view of the critical situation in respect of the longshoremen's walkout at the port of Hamilton, has the minister anything further to add to the report he made to the house yesterday?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to say that the situation does not appear to be as critical now as it was at this time yesterday. Yesterday I referred to the fact that one of my officials had been asked to intervene in the dispute and that a meeting was to take place in Montreal yesterday between representatives of the longshoremen of the eastern ports. I understand that such a meeting took place last night which was attended by, among others, the international president.
Prior to that meeting there was some discussion about arbitrating the issues that gave rise to the Hamilton and Toronto dispute. I am assured that it was agreed that following an exchange of correspondence in an attempt to work out this situation earlier today the Hamilton workers are to return to work. The Toronto workers have continued on the job. Instead of arbitrating the issue the parties have agreed to await the results of the industrial inquiry commission set up to look into the St. Lawrence ports situation. It is my hope that the Hamilton workers will be back to work later today or tomorrow.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance whether an up to date forecast has been made as to the date of the publication of the report of the Carter royal commission on taxation? If it is made available during the recess of parliament, will it be released at that time so hon. members may have an opportunity of studying it before we resume?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I expect that the Carter commission will present its report during the parliamentary recess. As I said in the house in answer to a similar inquiry some time ago, there are difficulties regarding the French version of the report. Special measures are being taken to reduce any delay that might be occasioned by the preparation of the French version. I hope it will be possible to have the report published in both versions during the recess, but it will not be early in the recess. We will be fortunate if it is published before we are back sitting in this house.



July 14. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR HIGHER INITIAL PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who reports for the Canadian Wheat Board. In the last two or thee days has he received any direct communication from the National Farmers Union or any other farm organization requesting an increase in the initial wheat payment, and can he say whether any action is to be taken by the wheat board toward this end?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that I have received representations about the initial price of wheat for the coming crop year from the farmers union and other organizations. Some of those representations were in favour of increasing the price while others were in favour of leaving it as it is. I expect an announcement will be made on Monday.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister of energy resources advise the house whether the government has uner consideration the construction of a pollution research centre at pier 29 in Hamilton bay?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to suggest that the hon. member place this question on the order paper. Perhaps he can speak to the minister.



DEBATE ON PROTOCOL TO CARIBBEAN CONFERENCE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A few days ago I asked the Acting Prime Minister whether it would be possible to arrange for the house or a committee to consider the protocol signed by Canada and the West Indies. I should like to know now whether any decision has been made in this regard, particularly in view of the vexation transportation aspects?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be a very good idea to have a committee of the house examine the protocol. There should be no difficulty in submitting it to the committee on external affairs which could meet for that purpose.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce which is related to the question I asked yesterday in erspect of this problem. Has the minister any information as to the immediate effects these trade plans may have on the ports of Halifax and Saint John so that the fears in respect of what could happen this summer may be dispelled?
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The principal ports concerned with the waiver of the direct shipment regulation would be Halifax and Saint John. Imports from commonwealth Caribbean countries through these ports account, in the case of Halifax, for only one-third of 1 per cent of total cargo from all countries, and in the case of Saint John for only 3.8 per cent of the total. Most of these cargoes are sugar, molasses and salt which are carried in bulk and are unlikely to be affected significantly by the termination of the direct shipment requirement. The other principal cargo imported into Canada from the Caribbean is alumina and bauxite which, as hon. members know, is carried in bulk direct to the smelters.
Any harm that might possibly be done to the ports of Halifax and Saint John I believe will be insignificant when viewed in the light of the broad context of the benefits that are bound to flow from the agreement reached at the conference last week.


Thomas Miller Bell: I thank the
minister for that reply. I hope the house has noted that rum was not included in the list of imports referred to as commodities entering the maritimes.


Robert Henry Winters: Rum is one of the commodities we concentrated on considerably during the conference.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister stops chuckling about rum I should like to ask him to advise the house,
and particularly the members from the maritimes, whether he will keep a very close eye
July 14, 1966

on the reaction of other countries which might also approach Canada for similar terms and preferences?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, what has been done in this connection cannot be regarded as a precedent. We will keep our eyes on other such developments that might tend to take place.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport'. Did the minister inform the Toronto Telegram that the government has plans for a $100 million expansion program for the Toronto airport?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Speaker, I said exactly the opposite. I was absolutely startled when I read the article which seemed to suggest, although it did not say so exactly, that I said something of that kind. I did say that we were beginning to make long range plans for the superjet and supersonic age, that these would take a great deal of time and that there were no plans at the present time for any construction at the airport at Toronto. I hope there will not be another silly story rumoured around about this government embarking on another such $100 million project, which obviously resulted from the imagination of some newspaperman.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. If the government does not have any immediate plans for the expansion of Toronto airport, why are the people there who are commentating and answering questions during conducted tours of the airport talking about the grand plans for its expansion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will get the officials there to change the gramophone record if that is the one they are now using.



REQUEST FOR STUDY OF STATUS BY ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Two
Inquiries of the Ministry weeks ago I asked him whether or not he would give consideration to the request of 32 national organizations representing nearly 500,000 Canadian women for the establishment of a royal commission to study the status of women in Canada. He replied, with very great enthusiasm, that there was nothing he would rather look into. Now that he has had an opportunity of looking into the matter I should like very much to know whether he intends to give consideration to this matter by the appointment of such a commission.
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I have looked into it and as a result of my investigations have decided to be very cautious.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But seriously, Mr. Speaker, this matter is before the government. The Secretary of State has been pushing it hard, and when the Secretary of State pushes hard something almost inevitably happens-something.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. Is the Minister of National Defence considering further immediate changes in the high command of our defence forces in view of the public acknowledgement of the new chief of staff that the minister's policy of integration has been a complete failure?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I will have to ask the minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is not the statement of the chief of staff that his first job is "to sell integration and explain why it had to come" a clear indication of the deplorable state of morale in our armed forces and the failure of the policy of the minister and associate minister?



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Keith Hymmen (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I note that
July 14, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry quite a few questions have already been directed to him today. With the recent passage of the legislation implementing the Canada Assistance Plan and its important provisions, can the minister advise the house whether he has specific information from one or more of the provinces as to how soon improved welfare assistance might be made available under their jurisdiction?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have no specific information with respect to the implementation of the programs under the Canada Assistance Plan in the provinces except the program initiated in the province of Prince Edward Island, which expected to use the Canada Assistance Plan.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has any action been taken by his department with a view to establishing a prairie national park in any area now being used for the grazing of cattle?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, our officials have been working very closely with the officials of the parks branch of the province of Saskatchewan in respect of three different areas. I would not be in a position to tell the house today which is the more desirable area, but I will tell the hon. gentleman that the matter of the reduction of agricultural land has been brought to our attention by the province of Saskatchewan.


Richard Russell Southam: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister announced the policy of a second national park a year ago last April 22, when will the minister be in a position to advise the house that the location of a second national park in Saskatchewan has been decided upon?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the responsibility rests with the province of delivering this property to the federal government free of encumbrance, so we are partners in the creation of a national park. However, it would be our hope that some time in 1966 we could make an announcement in respect of a second national park in Saskatchewan.
[Mr. Hymmen.l



NOVA SCOTIA-INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance and is supplementary to one I have already posed. May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he can advise us how soon the coal miners of Nova Scotia may expect some action on the long delayed promise of financial assistance? Does he also realize that the coal miners of Nova Scotia do not appreciate the callous and facetious manner in which he is handling this problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is out of order on many grounds, and the period for questions has now expired. Orders of the day.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before you call the orders of the day, could we ask that consideration be given to adjusting the clocks in the chamber so that members will know when the question period has ended? This may also be advantageous later in the day.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, July 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nicholson for the second reading of Bill No. C-215, respecting certain conditions of employment of dock workers at the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec.
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was before the house earlier in the week I made a full statement, perhaps too lengthy in the opinion of some people at least, which I trust showed very clearly that in spite of hard bargaining, conciliation and mediation efforts over a period of several months settlement without some action by parliament appeared to be impossible.
I think I might say that on the whole the meetings that took place on Saturday, June 11, and in the early morning of June 12 were constructive and very worth while. With a view to avoiding supplementary statements by some of my colleagues, I wish to summarize the happenings on those two days. On the morning of Saturday, June 11, Judge Lippe and my deputy minister confirmed
July 14, 1966

what the former had said to me the previous day, namely, that the counterproposal of the Shipping Federation of Canada, made a day or two earlier, to the minimum demands of the unions made back on May 26 had been turned down by the unions.
The mediator said to me on the Saturday morning that in his opinion and that of my deputy minister, who had been with him during the last two days of the discussions and mediation proceedings, there was no chance of the parties reaching agreement without some definite assurance to the Shipping Federation, the employer, that they might expect, or might hope at least, for increased productivity, not in 1966, but in 1967, in return for the substantial increases and the assurances of job security that the unions were insisting upon and that he felt that parliamentary action at an early date might be necessary.
I might say that on the previous day the mediator, Judge Lippe, had suggested to me that, to bring the strike to a close consideration should be given to having the three or four remaining crucial issues referred to an industrial inquiry commission, and that the government give consideration to introducing legislation with a view to making binding the findings of such a commission on those three or four matters. Shortly after my discussion with the mediator I conferred with the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and had a meeting with the legal adviser of the Shipping Federation. This was a very brief meeting. I outlined to him briefly Judge Lippe's proposal.
Later the same morning my three colleagues, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau), Judge Lippe, my deputy minister and I met in my office with Mr. Cutler, the legal adviser of the longshoremen's union, and with a few of his clients and Mr. Jodoin, President of the Canadian Labour Congress. At that meeting I first reminded the union representatives-and this had been a cause of complaint on their part and probably a justifiable one-that they now had had for a day or two the counterproposal of the Shipping Federation for which they had been pressing. I then went on to say that since that counterproposal had been turned down there now appeared to be what was described by one of them as an impasse and which I called a deadlock. I said that the government was strongly of the
Labour Conditions
opinion that an early solution must be found.
I then confirmed to the group in my office that I intended, as Minister of Labour, to establish an industrial inquiry commission to look into the working conditions in the three ports and into certain other matters.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I may say that this matter had been under consideration for some weeks, again at the suggestion of the mediator. I then suggested that the possibilities for increased productivity, related job security and other related matters might be referred to the commission for immediate study, and that the other phases of the proposed inquiry into industrial unrest and difficulties on the St. Lawrence, mainly parking facilities on the dock, safety and other matters, might be deferred until later in the year, possibly as a second phase of the study by the commission.
I further suggested that a way out of the deadlock might be found in legislation making the findings of the commission on increased productivity and related matters binding, and that in the same way job security for longshoremen, which was a matter of special concern to the international vicepresident, Mr. Tremblay, might be dealt with by the same commission. I stressed the fact that the strike had been on for over a month and that an early solution must be found even if that solution lay in referring the matter to parliament.
As I have already informed the house, and I want to make this clear particularly in view of an editorial that appeared in the Montreal Star today, Mr. Jodoin, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, stated he was opposed to compulsory arbitration. We knew that and we appreciate the reasons for labour organizations being opposed to compulsory arbitration, although there might be circumstances when legislation making certain findings binding would be necessary. I might say that Mr. Cutler, the legal adviser of the longshoremen's association, also stated that his clients were opposed to any legislation that would make the findings of the commission binding.
I then put a question to Mr. Cutler in the presence of my colleagues, the deputy minister, Judge Lippe and others. I asked him what would happen if the government were to decide to make the findings of the commission binding in regard to the three or four remaining points-there were 50 or more in the early stages. I mentioned to him that there seemed to be a block to reaching an

July 14. 1966
Labour Conditions
agreement and I wondered what would be their position. Mr. Cutler then said clearly and unequivocally that while his clients were opposed to binding legislation, we could rest assured that they were Canadians and would eo-operate if the government set up a commission. He then said he would advise them on any legislation that might be passed and that they would obey it. There was no question about that. I was not surprised to get that assurance from a fellow member of the bar. I thought it a reasonable statement on his part.


Robert Jardine McCleave: But he did not agree.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: True, he did not agree. He told me they were not in favour of legislation which makes anything binding, that it is not in keeping with the principles of democratic labour organizations, or words to that effect. I understood his position. We invited ideas for any solutions and when they were not forthcoming I reiterated that legislation might be the answer.
At about that time the Minister of Transport had been studying a memorandum which contained the counterproposals of the Shipping Federation to which I have referred. He proposed to the International Longshoremen and to their solicitor in the presence of the president of the Canadian Labour Congress that to bring an end to the dispute and to get the men back to work, the strike having lasted for over a month by this time, the government was in fact prepared to introduce legislation, which would ensure that the conclusions of the commission on these three or four crucial points would be made binding-and this proviso was very clear-provided the International Lonshore-men's Association and the Shipping Federation could reach an agreement on wages and the other points, of which there were altogether about 12 in the memorandum. I may say that at that particular meeting there were no representatives of the Shipping Federation present. Those present were myself, my three cabinet colleagues, the mediator, the union representatives and their lawyer. Only five or six of the union representatives were present; the others were waiting outside.
After we had discussed this matter for the better part of an hour we adjourned to a room in the west block where simultaneous translating facilities are available so that those of the members who were in attendance who did not understand English would have the benefit of full discussion. During that meeting, which lasted nearly an hour, my

cabinet colleagues and I said we intended to meet that afternoon with the representatives of the Shipping Federation and that we would try to find out how far the Shipping Federation would go to improve the terms of payment contained in the counterproposal to which I referred, and which the Minister of Transport had in his hands, if they got a definite assurance from us that the findings of the commission of the crucial issues might be binding. I am not saying the word "crucial" was used, but I refer to the three or four outstanding points.
At that same meeting the president of the C.L.C. stated that he was leaving because of a prior engagement and would not be present at the meetings held later that day. He again stated that the congress, as a matter of principle, was definitely opposed to binding legislation in disputes between labour and management. I am not sure he used the words "in principle" but that was the gist of what he said.
My cabinet colleagues and Judge Lippe and I left that meeting, having conveyed to all the people present in English and through simultaneous translation, that we were going to put this proposal before the Shipping Federation together with the suggestion that, if the parties could agree on all the outstanding points except the three or four I mentioned, we were prepared to recommend that parliament make these findings binding.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
After lunch my three colleagues and Judge Lippe and I, met with the representatives of the Shipping Federation and their lawyer. We had a very full discussion. In fact, the discussion took so long that I thought that perhaps our persuasive powers had lost some of their effectiveness. In the meantime the longshoremen left the building after waiting two or three hours. They returned later. Nevertheless, even though the I.L.A. members had left, we continued our efforts and in the very late afternoon the Shipping Federation said that they were prepared to agree to a substantial wage increase and other benefits mentioned in the memorandum, subject to some details which had to be worked out as to whether it was 20 cents on return to work and 20 cents retroactive or some other terms. These were matters of detail.
There was discussion also about what the terms would be in 1967 and how they could be tied in with the findings of a commission of inquiry, if it were set up. However, in principle, they agreed to take their chances
July 14, 1966

with what an industrial inquiry commission might find in the field of increased productivity. If the commission found that the gang structure should be limited to 16 or 17 or 15 or should be increased to 19, which the Shipping Federation would not concede, they would accept these findings and would take their chances on them. They then agreed in return for that to give 40 cents per hour for 1966 and an additional 40 cents that was requested for 1967. There were some other items in the middle about which there did not seem to be any difficulty, as I have mentioned.
I might say that when the Shipping Federation agreed that they would meet the demands on wages within reason subject to the negotiation of certain details, my colleagues and I, with the knowledge and approval of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) because the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) who was Acting Prime Minister and I had both talked to him earlier in the morning, gave such an assurance. I might say that after a full month of a crippling strike, crippling not only to the people of Canada but to the workers and others directly involved, we felt as a government, or working as a committee of the government speaking for the government, that we had no alternative but to accept our responsibility as a government and to recommend legislation to parliament if the parties, as I have said, could agree to the wages and these other times. The Minister of Transport and I both made that quite clear to both sides.
After the Shipping Federation had agreed to this proposal, subject to negotiation of these details, my colleagues and I along with Judge Lippe met during the evening with the union representatives and their lawyer to discuss the proposal that had come out of our lengthy afternoon meeting with the Shipping Federation and our earlier morning meeting with the longshoremen. As I have mentioned, Mr. Jodoin was not there during the afternoon or evening meetings.
I want to say to this house in unequivocal terms that in my view, and in the opinion of those of my colleagues who were present during the final stages of these negotiations, there is not the slightest doubt but that the Shipping Federation would not have agreed to a settlement along lines, which some of the union members later referred to as fabulous, had we not made to them a clear and positive commitment of the nature to which I have referred.
Labour Conditions
I want to assure this house also that Mr. Cutler, the legal adviser, and the I.L.A. negotiators were aware of every step of the negotiations from approximately 11.30 in the morning of Saturday, June 11, and that if the parties could agree on wages and these other issues, we were prepared to recommend to parliament legislative action which would make the commission's findings binding with regard to gang structure, sling loads consistent with safety, job security of longshoremen in good standing and related matters. Our whole course of action-when I say "our" I refer to my three cabinet colleagues, the Minister of Transport, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and myself-on Saturday morning and early Sunday was predicated on the fact that the Shipping Federation and the Longshoremen's Association knew the course we had in mind, and that the later discussions that took place on wages and what the division would be between an allowance for job security and an allowance for straight wages were predicated on that knowledge. I might say again, in view of some of the newspaper articles that have appeared, that though the union representatives did not join in the request for a commission, nor did they formally agree to having the representations implemented by legislation, to say the least they appeared to be realistic. They wanted to see the matter settled and they wanted to see it settled as quickly as possible.
They led us to believe that, if agreement could be reached on the points mentioned by the Minister of Transport, they would cooperate with the commission and that they would obey any law that parliament might pass making these findings binding. I might say that even though the negotiations were broken off and we were tired and disappointed, I was still hopeful a settlement would be reached. It did not seem to me that there were too many differences. I was confirmed in that opinion when on Monday morning, June 13, while my three colleagues and I were in the Prime Minister's office, a telephone call came through to the Prime Minister. It was from Mr. Jodoin. The Prime Minister turned to us and said that Mr. Jodoin had said he was speaking on behalf of the I.L.A. and asked the Prime Minister if we would receive a representative group from the Longshoremen's Association. The Prime Minister, again relaying his conversation with Mr. Jodoin, told us what Mr. Jodoin had said to him-I

July 14, 1966
Labour Conditions
made a note of the words-that the parties were so close to an agreement the day before he thought a meeting with the Prime Minister present might bring an end to the dispute and result in an early return to work.
The Prime Minister suggested that if they were close to an agreement they might meet in the office of the Minister of Labour with me and the cabinet colleagues who I have mentioned. He gave an assurance the minister would try to get the representatives of the Shipping Federation to come to Ottawa for concurrent or subsequent discussions. As a result of that telephone call meetings did take place during the late afternoon and early evening of the 13th with representatives of the I.L.A. and representatives of the Shipping Federation. During the late evening of the 13th, from shortly before ten o'clock, and continuing into the early morning of the 14th, further meetings were held in the Prime Minister's office. I might say that the Prime Minister first met with representatives of the Shipping Federation but the I.L.A. representatives were in a room not far away. Then the Prime Minister, along with the rest of us, met with representatives of the I.L.A. Still later he met again with each of these groups separately, with the rest of us present.
Finally, the representatives of both parties met with us in the Prime Minister's office. By this time, nearly two o'clock in the morning, a settlement was reached. The settlement was announced to the press. Mr. Speaker, I think an incident occurred which is of very great importance. An aide-memoire had been prepared by my colleagues and myself for the Prime Minister's use. This aide-memoire is most important because it confirms definitely the fact that the findings of the commission on these limited issues were to be made binding by legislation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I should like to read into the record the memorandum which the Prime Minister read, first to the representatives of the Shipping Federation:
At the meeting of the cabinet committee this afternoon with the bargaining committee of the
I.LA. there remained three points outstanding, as follows.
1.	Saturday call in.
2.	The application of retroactivity on overtime.
3.	Four hour recall.
I understand that the first item has been disposed of and I will not raise the matter at this point for consideration.
I propose to ask the I.L.A. to drop its demand for the application of retroactivity on overtime. I am now asking the representatives of the Shipping

Federation to accept the following proposal with respect to the four hour recall:
1.	That the four hour recall be instituted when, the men return to work.
2.	That this item-
The recall item.
-be submitted to the commission for examination, and that the recommendation of the commission with respect to this item be binding in precisely the same way as the recommendation with respect to gang size. The four hour recall would then be dealt with and included within the contract in the manner specified by the commission.
After that proposal had been placed by the Prime Minister before the Shipping Federation representatives they adjourned to caucus. Then the Prime Minister with the same persons present, the cabinet colleagues to whom I have referred and Judge Lippe, invited the representatives of the Shipping Federation into his office and he read them this statement, except that it was in the converse.


Mr. Lewis:: I presume the minister means the I.L.A. representatives.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I beg your pardon, yes, the I.L.A. I will skip the introductory part. Again the Prime Minister said:
I understand that the first item has been disposed of and I will not raise the matter at this point for consideration.
When speaking to the I.L.A. representatives he used these words:
I now ask you-
The I.L.A.
-to drop your demand for the application of retroactivity on overtime.
These are the notes that I made when this statement was being read with the representatives present. The Prime Minister continued:
I have asked the representatives of the Shipping Federation to accept the following proposal with respect to the four hour recall:
1.	That the four hour recall be instituted when the men return to work.
2.	That this item be submitted to the commission for examination, and that the recommendation of the commission with respect to this item be binding in precisely the same way as the recommendation with respect to gang size. The four hour recall would then be dealt with and included within the contract in the manner specified by the commission.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister a question at this point? Am I right in thinking that at this meeting the president of the Canadian. Labour Congress was present?
July 14. 1966

Labour Conditions


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: At this meeting, Mr. Speaker, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress was present. I might say that he took relatively little part in the conversation at that time, although at one stage, again in fairness to him, he did say: "You know, Mr. Prime Minister, we are opposed to legislation which makes any findings of a commission binding", or words to that effect.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, agreement was reached on the strength of the assurance that we gave to the Shipping Federation. We gave it with prior knowledge on the part of the I.L.A. that we were going to discuss this. For approximately three or four hours, perhaps longer, late Saturday night, the 11th, and on the early morning of the 12th, we did not discuss in detail wages and some other items in the eight or nine other areas upon which basically agreement had been reached. But we did discuss whether the 40 cents payable in 1957, that is, the second part of it, would be payable when the commission report came in and whether it would be payable on April 1, May 1, or June 1. These points were discussed at some length.
Before we left the Prime Minister's office and after we had all been photographed, I might say that I saw many of the longshoremen officials shaking hands with some of the officials of the Shipping Federation, with whom they were hardly on speaking terms a month before when I first met them. It was a very jovial, happy occasion. Photographs were taken in which they, Mr. Jodoin and the rest of us participated. When we left the Prime Minister's office it was agreed that the lawyers for the two parties and certain other representatives, not all of them but enough to be truly representative, would meet in my office later the same morning to prepare minutes of settlement.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, as you already know, that the terms of settlement were filed in this chamber, along with certain other documents, by my parliamentary secretary on the 8th instant.


David Lewis: Would the minister forgive me if I ask another question at this point? Do I understand him to suggest that the first draft of the terms of settlement was prepared by the lawyers for the two parties and that a draft was not prepared by his department which was presented to them?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am glad that question has been asked. When the parties reassembled, knowing that time was an important factor
my deputy minister had taken it upon himself, he having been present throughout the whole proceedings, to draft what he thought might be minutes helpful to both sides, because he had no particular axe to grind one way or the other. This draft was then submitted to both sides. I was there for part of the discussion but not for all of it. Several changes were made in the draft which was prepared by my deputy minister, Dr. Hay-thorne.
One significant change which I remember very clearly was this. If you look at Hansard for July 8, page 7436, the 12 points on which agreement had been reached are enumerated there. Then appears this paragraph:
The agreements terminating on December 31, 1965, shall be amended by incorporating therein the terms of settlement set out above-
Those are the old agreements which expired last year.
-and these amended agreements-
The agreements amended by the terms of settlement to which I have referred.
-shall remain in effect until December 31, 1967, unless amended by negotiations-
Then I actually said: "What about the binding legislation? There is no reference to that and that has clearly been understood." Therefore, the words "or otherwise" which appear in the seventh last line on that page were inserted to cover that situation; there is not the slightest question about that. Mr. Cutler himself discussed the words with me, as did Mr. Pathy representing the I.L.A. Judge Lippe and my deputy minister were there and they took part in discussing whether better words might be used.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They were delightfully uninformative.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will tell you why, just to be clear on this for my hon. friend. The Longshoremen's Association had taken the position that they did not want to commit themselves to something that had binding legislation in it. But it was definitely understood that the words "or otherwise" covered that situation, and that was the purpose of putting them in. Whether it was done by agreement or by legislation, that covered it. The only other way you can change a binding agreement, except by agreement, is by legislation; there is not the slightest question about that. I am sure that if Mr. Cutler, Mr. Pathy or the others were questioned about this they would confirm that that was the situation.

July 14, 1966
Labour Conditions
When I announced the settlement in the house on the afternoon of that day, I said that an industrial commission would be established and that I would have more to say on that subject after the commission was established. It has since been suggested in this house by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that I should have advised the house at that time that the government intended to introduce legislation along the lines of the present bill. I had a statement to this effect prepared. Originally such a statement was included in the notes that I subsequently used in the house.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
As a matter of courtesy and fair dealing I showed it to the legal adviser for the Longshoremen's Association. He said: "I hope, Mr. Minister, that you will not have to refer to binding legislation when speaking in the house because, acting for the longshoremen, my clients should have an opportunity to explain the settlement to their members and they might get a mistaken idea if you make reference to the legislation aspect in the house." I amended the notes accordingly, and I believe that the paper that went to the Hansard office will show that. That seemed to be a reasonable request from Mr. Cutler, and I complied with it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the minister leaves that point, may I ask him whether the same considerations applied when the minister was making the announcement of the commission itself?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think that all I did at that time was to table the document, knowing that I expected to introduce the bill within a day or two. I just tabled the document and, as I recall, made no statement.
It is the considered view of the government that the passage of this legislation at this time is both advisable and necessary in order to fulfil the undertaking which we, with the knowledge though perhaps not with the actual consent of the unions, gave to the federation.
The new pay rates provided for in this agreement, namely, the extra 40 cents an hour and the retroactive features, are now in effect. I can assure members of the house, if they need any further assurance, that there would have been no settlement without such an undertaking and there would have been no return to work. We were prepared to leave the matter in the hands of parliament,
(Mr. Nicholson.]
with a strong recommendation to be made in the light of the history I have recited.
The government believes that its commitment should be fulfilled at this time and not later. It should be done now when the matter is fresh in the minds of those who participated in the final discussions. It should not be done some months from now.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to a letter which I received from Mr. Cutler, whom I met frequently in the course of these negotiations. I found Mr. Cutler co-operative. He wrote me a letter dated June 20 which is of some significance because it includes the legal opinion he had given to his clients, which opinion was addressed to Mr. Tremblay, vice president of the International Longshoremen's Association.
When I received that letter I wrote the letter to Mr. Cutler appearing on page 7438 of Hansard. I shall read that:
Dear Mr. Cutler:
I received your letter of June 20 and appreciate your action in forwarding a copy of your letter of June 16 to Mr. Gerard Tremblay, Vice President of the Atlantic coast district of the International Longshoremen's Association.
In order to clear up any possible misunderstanding with respect to the settlement reached on June 14 between the International Longshoremen's Association locals in Montreal, Trois-Rivi&res and Quebec and The Shipping Federation of Canada, there are a few observations which I would like to make on your letter to Mr. Tremblay.
During our discussions on June 13 and 14 and previously on June 11 and 12, both Mr. Pickersgill, who was the Acting Prime Minister in Mr. Pearson's absence over the week end, and I stated that, provided the parties reached agreement on all of the other items in dispute, the government was prepared to establish an industrial inquiry commission to carry out an independent and objective study of problems in connection with improvements in productivity, job security and related matters, and to take steps to have the conclusions reached as a result of this independent industiral inquiry commission implemented by legislative enactment.
You will recall that the same commitment was made by the Prime Minister during the meetings held in his office on the night of June 13.
This commitment was directly associated throughout our discussions with the wage settlement for both 1966 and 1967 which, as you know, was only accepted by The Shipping Federation of Canada on the strength of this commitment.
I do not think I need read the rest of the letter.
After that letter was written I received a message from Mr. Cutler suggesting that the terms of reference of the industrial inquiry commission which I had filed in the house were not clear enough, that provision had not been made for job security for some people who may have worked less than enough time
July 14, 1966

Labour Conditions
to give them certain sick benefits that are referred to under the collective agreement. Mr. Cutler, I think properly, complained to me and to my department that the terms were ambiguous and should be cleared up.
I said: "If there is any ambiguity about them, they will be cleared up, because I told you positively that the terms would include job security for all bona fide union longshoremen, whether they have worked 300 hours or 1,000 hours." I recall that I used the expression to him that people with arthritic backs might come to work for three or four hours a day or for three shifts a week. I said that we were prepared to leave problems such as these to the industrial inquiry commissioner to decide, and that if there was any doubt about the terms of the commission we would clarify them. When I spoke to Mr. Cutler on the telephone he said that he had received the letter and that there was no misunderstanding with regard to its contents.
On June 30 the Prime Minister and I received telegrams, copies of which appear on pages 7439 and 7440 of Hansard. I do not need to refer to those telegrams in detail because they can be found in that part of Hansard to which reference has already been made. In this connection I wish to direct hon. members' attention to pages 7440 and 7441 of Hansard. I repeated exactly the same thing in those telegrams.
The Prime Minister sent a telegram shortly after I did saying he was familiar with the contents of my telegram and referring to this memorandum that I have read out today. I shall read the Prime Minister's words, and I quote from page 7442 of Hansard:
Referring your telegram to me of today's date in which you refer to your wire to Minister of Labour I have seen his telegram in reply. My own knowledge of the facts fully confirms this reply.
This refers to the statement that finally the matter would be made binding by legislation which was read to the longshoremen or their lawyers in Mr. Jodoin's presence late on the night of June 13 and the early morning of June 14.
The bill now before the house, Mr. Speaker, is short. It speaks for itself. On behalf of the government and in light of the facts as I have related them, I would ask for its early passage.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) in his concluding remarks said that the commitment should be fulfilled. The obvious question arising in one's mind is, to whom? I shall have something to say about that later.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I must confess I felt somewhat sorry for the Minister of Labour because he has had to relive the events he has spoken of. He had to tread that tortuous path of events again not only on Monday last but also today for almost two hours. I also felt sorry for him as he wound his way through the gamut of discussions, meetings, luncheons and dinners. The disappointing part is that he eventually came to a point of inconclusion because in presenting this bill he admits that all the matters in dispute between the shipping companies and the I.L.A. were not dealt with. Today we are being asked to deal with Bill C-215 to complete the dealings between the two parties to the dispute, the shipping companies and the I.L.A.
There are two parts to the preamble to the bill and the first paragraph contains the following:
-it was recommended that an industrial inquiry commission be appointed under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to inquire into certain matters on which agreement was not reached and to report its conclusions thereon to the Minister of Labour at the earliest possible date;
I can agree with that. In fact, no one in the house would be in disagreement with it. But the second part of the preamble reads:
And whereas an industrial inquiry commission to inquire into those certain matters has been appointed under the said act, and it is in the national interest that the conclusions of the said commission with respect thereto be carried into effect without delay following receipt of the report of the said commission, by the incorporation of those conclusions in the terms of settlement that were entered into following the settlement of the other issues involved in the dispute and in any collective agreements entered into pursuant to those terms of settlement:
The second part of the preamble is nothing else but compulsory arbitration, and compulsory arbitration in its most extreme form. Not only are the terms binding on both parties but they are to be imposed before knowing what they are. Today parliament is being asked to impose upon labour and management conditions which have not yet been decided upon or revealed.
I ask myself, what has happened to this government, a government which until recently on every occasion hid its activity in respect of this matter behind the curtain of the principle of free collective bargaining? I am not going to set out the events as my colleague from Halifax will do that, but when the government was asked questions time and again during the question period respecting

July 14. 1966
Labour Conditions
the progress of the dispute and the activity of the Minister of Labour, it maintained that it believed in the principle of free collective bargaining. Yet today we are being asked to pass a bill to impose the conclusions of a commission of inquiry upon labour and management, and make those conditions part of a collective agreement even before they have been reached. In my opinion this represents a total breakdown of the machinery of collective bargaining.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: In its defence the government says that this is necessary, but I say to the government that no legislation is necessary at this point at all. A commissioner can be appointed. No one will object to that. The commissioner can go to work and eventually, upon hearing both sides and investigating the situation completely, he can make a report to the Minister of Labour who in turn should refer that report to the interested parties as a basis for collective bargaining.
Today the government is not following the collective bargaining procedure. It has abandoned the principle which it led us to believe it believed in. It has thrown that principle to the winds. Members of the government are saying that compulsory arbitration is now the order of the day in the settlement of disputes between management and labour. They are -saying: This is what we want; we do not know what the recommendations will be but we want them rubberstamped before they are made and parliament will be that rubber stamp.
This legislation is based on assumption. The government is assuming that the recommendations will be acceptable to both parties. What will be the situation if the recommendations are not acceptable? Will that tend to a happy and harmonious situation between these two parties for the duration of the present agreement? This is almost prophetic legislation. We do not know what is going to be recommended but we are being asked to put unknown recommendations into effect.
I say that this approach makes a mockery out of parliament. It makes a mockery out of [DOT]collective bargaining. What remedy would there be if an error were made in the recommendations? If this legislation is passed and a report is made to the minister, it then becomes law. How can it be changed? It will be fixed and unalterable and will require action by parliament to make even the slightest alteration, however beneficial it might be.
tMr. Starr.]
This is the kind of thing a government resorts to when it cannot cope with a situation, and this government has proven to be inept, indecisive and incompetent in matters of this kind. It has allowed such matters to drag on day after day, week after week, month after month, in this particular case for over a month, before acting, and it acted only when the tie-up of the ports was in danger of bringing about an economic crisis. Then and only then did the government proceed by way of concessions to both sides.
How did the government get management to accept the increased wage packet? I would say obviously by giving an assurance that an inquiry would be set up and that binding recommendations would be imposed regarding the work gangs and the loading and unloading operations. In fact, the Minister of Labour admits this. In this connection I quote from the remarks he made on Monday, July 11, as recorded at page 7523 of Hansard. They are interesting because I think this is the crux of the whole situation. He said:
We left the morning meeting at about 1.30 p.m. to meet with the Shipping Federation with whom we spent several hours in the afternoon. They insisted-
The Shipping Federation.
-that an agreement must be reached for the reorganization of longshoremen's gangs, new types of slings and other changes that might result in increased productivity. Eventually they did agree that if the government would take the responsibility for setting up the commission and agree to pass legislation, they would acquiesce in such a course and would agree to the second payment of 40 cents in 1967; 15 cents were paid on January 1 and 25 cents later in the year when the recommendations of the commission were implemented.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
This was the deal; this was the basis upon which this government then proceeded. What was the reaction? The Minister of Labour in his statement the other day said the reaction was not one of acceptance. He said that the unions then stated they could not go along with the proposal for this commission. If the government wishes to establish the commission it can. They have no power to stop the government setting up a commission. In his statement on Monday last, at page 7523 of Hansard, the minister said:
There were further discussions in the afternoon during which there was no doubt as to their acquiescence to certain aspects of the proposal.
What aspects of the proposal?
-the president of the Canadian Labour Congress said again that the Congress was opposed to compulsory arbitration and that he wanted to make it clear.
July 14, 1966

Mr. Cutler, according to the Minister of Labour, said that if the government does set up a commission and if the government is prepared to take the responsibility of making findings, "we will obey the law". Why not? The representatives of Canadian unions certainly obey the law. What else can they do if this government forces compulsory arbitration? If it becomes law the members of the union, who are good Canadians, will obey the law. That does not mean they acquiesce in the procedure now being taken by this House of Commons.
I say that all the statements which have been cited by the Minister of Labour as having been made by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress and the representatives of the I.L.A. are emphatic statements of opposition to compulsory arbitration. In view of these emphatic statements, was it not obvious at that time and is it not obvious now to the government that compulsory arbitration was not and is not acceptable? Yet the government goes ahead because of a commitment to the shipping companies. Why is parliament today asked to impose compulsory arbitration and buy a pig in a poke, to use the words of the Minister of Labour?
We of this party always have been against compulsory arbitration and in this particular instance we will oppose this legislation and vote against it. This is a last resort against the will of the unions who want to protect collective bargaining. This matter can be settled under the collective bargaining procedure. This is a serious mistake. I should like to repeat what I said earlier. The commission should be set up and the commissioner should make his inquiry. He should make his recommendations and the Minister of Labour could then take the recommendations and submit them to the parties. Then the two parties could study the report in an effort to ascertain whether or not it provided a basis for agreement.
As I said, under those circumstances there was no need for this legislation. This bill sets a very dangerous precedent. It says to management and to labour: This is it; we, the government, will legislate for you regardless of your wishes because we know best how these matters can be settled. This matter should be dealt with when the contents of the report are known and the recommendations have been made public and not before.
I say to the minister and to the government that this matter should be reconsidered. The
Labour Conditions
government should not jeopardize the position of free collective bargaining, something which they have said they stand for. Now they have thrown it overboard. They should reconsider their position. A commission should be established, a report made, that report should then be the basis for collective bargaining between the two parties much in the way a conciliation board report is. There should be an opportunity for free collective bargaining and not compulsory arbitration regardless of what the recommendations are.
What if the recommendations are not agreeable to the Minister of Labour himself? What if they are contrary to the things we stand for? How can you impose upon management and labour the conditions in a report? They might not agree and would have to pay for it for the balance of the life of the agreement. I say to the government that they are doing a very dangerous thing in introducing this bill. They are setting a bad precedent. They ought to reconsider this matter and withdraw the bill. They should set up a commission which would make its recommendations and submit them to the two parties as a basis for collective bargaining procedure.


Mr, David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to begin my remarks on this occasion by expressing my appreciation of the very clear and able presentation of the case which the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) has made. I suggest to the minister that the hon. member for Ontario placed the case before him in a reasoned and restrained way, as I too hope to try to do. I should like to join him in his request that the minister and the government reconsider their insistence on this legislation being placed before us.
I appreciate fully the difficulties which the minister had in this very important struggle on the waterfronts of Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres. I do so because, as hon. members know, I have had many years experience in a professional capacity in labour relations. Indeed, I have acted for many unions in Ontario and throughout Canada. I have acted also for locals of the International Longshoremen's Association in Toronto and Hamilton. I have had no dealings with locals in the province of Quebec but I have acted, as I said, for Ontario locals.
Therefore I appreciate fully that the parties are perhaps not the most flexible in labour negotiations. I can understand that on many occasions during the many weeks of

July 14, 1966
Labour Conditions
strike the minister and his colleagues, like all of us in this house, felt rather desperate about the developing situation. I say to him, however, that the bill he has proposed is totally unjustified. It is an evil yielding to the pressure of one side in the dispute. It is giving in to the Shipping Federation which is a rather tough outfit. It is legislation forced on the government by the Shipping Federation, and if it is legislation which the government really supports in principle, then this government stands condemned in the annals of labour history in this country.
I say to the minister that the legislation is wrong in principle. I say to him that it perverts the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act under which he appointed the commissioner of inquiry. I say to him it is also recklessly premature. It is an indication of weakness on the part of the minister and the government and is a shameful abdication of their responsibility to the labour movement of Canada.
Throughout his feeble defence of this bill the minister has been trying to place the responsibility for it in part on his contention that the union, if it did not actually agree, may have acquiesced and that if it did not actually acquiesce it at least knew it was coming. I say to him that in spite of his words, and I am not for one moment questioning his veracity or honesty, the record, as contained in the documents which he filed and which are appended to Hansard of Friday, July 8, 1966, shows that the union categorically denies any approval of binding arbitration and has insisted that the minister cannot use the pretence that the union approved as a defence for his action. That fact is stated in the letter which the minister quoted from Mr. Cutler to Mr. Tremblay. It was also stated in the telegrams which have been tabled and form part of the appendix. I do not wish to take the time to read them; they are on record. I challenge the minister to show me in any communication from Mr. Cutler to him or to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that has been tabled or appended to Hansard one word of acquiescence or agreement to binding arbitration legislation.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I continually asked the minister to table these documents, but I must say I got fed up asking. There is another document in the minister's possession which he ought to have tabled. I refer to the telegram from the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Claude Jodoin, dated July 8, 1966 to the

minister, a copy of which Mr. Jodoin sent me. The telegram reads as follows:
Following telegram sent today to labour minister Nicholson quote answer your telegram July 7, at no time was there any agreement by the I.L.A. in my presence nor by myself on behalf of the C.L.C. to compulsory or binding arbitration. I regret to have to disagree with your account of the discussions. References to an inquiry were to an investigation which would look into the situation with a view to possibly making suggestions which might be considered by the parties. It was the position of I.L.A. that such consideration would have to take place in the next negotiations. If compulsory legislation is introduced it will clearly be the responsibility of the government and in no sense can be attributed to any agreement made by the union.
Claude Jodoin President C.L.C.
Any one of us who have had any experience in labour negotiations-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit me to ask him a question for the purpose of clarification? Is it not correct that he received that telegram after the documents were tabled on July 8? I am sure he does not want to leave the impression that the minister deliberately did not table that document. A copy of it was sent to me and it reached me well after the other documents were tabled.


David Lewis: The Minister of Transport is quite right. I received it after the documents were tabled. I am not accusing the Minister of Labour of hiding anything. But several days have passed since July 8 on any one of which he could have tabled this document. Surely it is not necessary, in respect of such an important matter, for us on this side of the house to keep pulling documents from him one by one. I was on the verge of asking him to table it on several occasions but I said to myself: No, I will wait and read it into the record. The document was in his hands and he could have tabled it at some time since July 8. I became fed up trying to get these documents tabled.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did you not succeed in having a whole batch of documents tabled on just one occasion shortly after your request? You did not get them one by one.


David Lewis: If the minister wants to go into this subject, let me remind him that I asked him for correspondence between the union and himself, between the union and the Prime Minister and between the congress and the minister. I then asked him whether he would table the aide-memoire to which he
July 14, 1966

referred today. I asked for this correspondence on several occasions, in fact, so often that I reached the end of my tether.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Will the hon. member not agree that within two minutes of the time of his request I tabled all the correspondence which now appears as an appendix to Hansard.1?


David Lewis: I have no intention of attacking the integrity of the minister. He did file this correspondence, but in doing so he failed in a minor way in his duty in not tabling the telegram from Mr. Jodoin. I merely point that out, and that is as far as I wish to go.
In any case I suggest to the minister that in spite of his explanation I, as one member of many in this house, was misled by him, inadvertently no doubt, as to what his intentions were. At no time until he actually introduced this bill did he suggest what was in his mind with regard to compulsory arbitration.
Let me refer to the statement of the Prime Minister made on June 9 in answer to a question asked by my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). This is recorded in Hansard for that date at page 6173. The Prime Minister said:
Contrary to what the hon. member has suggested, and to what was suggested in the press release I have received from the New Democratic Party to the effect that there is no hope of an early breakthrough, there is hope of success in the negotiations.
We have not given up that hope. Judge Lippe is negotiating at this moment; we have been in touch with him during the last hour and we have not by any means given up hope that this serious issue will be settled very shortly by the processes of free collective bargaining and not by parliamentary direction.
If one reads the minister's statement of June 14 he will see that the minister made no reference to what Judge Lippe said or what Mr. Cutler suggested. His statement made it quite clear that the commissioner of inquiry to be appointed was to be appointed under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. If my memory serves me correctly, he used those very words. One does not have to be a labour expert to know that a commissioner appointed under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act does not make binding recommendations but that he makes recommendations for the parties to consider.
When the minister appointed a commissioner under the provisions of that act, whether he intended it or not he misled this house and
Labour Conditions
the labour movement. He may not have intended to do that, but the objective result was that he misled all of us as to what this commissioner of inquiry would do.
When the minister tabled the document appointing the commissioner on June 23-this is to be found on page 6785 of Hansard-he made a short statement to the effect that he was tabling the document appointing the commissioner. He could have indicated his intention, at that time, but he did not.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I apparently have mislaid the order in council appointing the commissioner but I venture to rely on my memory and state that the preamble to the appointment referred to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, indicating clearly that the commissioner of inquiry was being appointed pursuant to that act. I repeat again that any commissioner appointed pursuant to that act is a person who makes recommendations for the consideration of the parties, and he is not a final and binding arbitrator. Nor, I suggest to the minister, can he hang this legislation around Judge Lippe's neck. I appreciate that in his presentation today the minister seemed to suggest-I did not hear exactly what he said-that verbally Judge Lippe suggested that the findings of the commission be final and binding. But it is a most interesting coincidence that the date of Judge Lippe's report, which was tabled, is June 23, 1966, precisely the date on which the minister appointed the commissioner of inquiry under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act without saying anything about making his conclusions final and binding.
What has happened in this case, I suggest to the minister with the greatest respect, is that two things were being presented by the government and by Judge Lippe and, whether deliberately or otherwise, the two things have been scrambled in their presentation to this house. One, an entirely separate thing that was presented to the parties and was discussed, was the appointment of a commission of inquiry under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act for the purpose of inquiring into the question of productivity and making recommendations thereon. Everybody on both sides of the quarrel knew that this was not a mandatory thing, that the recommendations are not obligatory, not compulsory, but that on the contrary they are voluntarily put before the parties for their consideration.

July 14, 1966
Labour Conditions
Later in the game the Shipping Federation apparently said, "We will not give any increase in the second year unless we have this improvement in productivity and therefore you must tell us that you will make mandatory the results of the commissioner's findings. Otherwise we will not play the game." The minister and the government said, "O.K., boys; if that is your wish we will do it for you."
That undertaking, that promise to the Shipping Federation, need not necessarily have anything to do with the appointment of a commissioner of inquiry. Time and time again the minister in his statement said, "The union said they would co-operate with a commissioner of inquiry." Of course they would. Why wouldn't they? The fact is that they refused at first but finally they said, "All right, we will co-operate." Indeed, you cannot have a commission of inquiry looking into anything unless the union co-operates; otherwise the commission of inquiry is not worth a hoot in hades. You cannot have a commission of inquiry looking into the size of gangs and what the union members do unless the union is there, brings witnesses and presents its case. Until such time as you get the union to co-operate, the appointment of a commissioner is, of course, an entirely useless act. So they were finally persuaded to co-operate with the commissioner.
Time and time again-I repeat this because it is important-whether deliberately or not the minister scrambles up the perfectly sensible appointment of a commissioner of inquiry to give the facts to the parties, in order that they may be able to discuss what they want to do about them, with the second fact which is entirely unrelated to it, namely, making the commissioner a compulsory arbitrator. And the minister places in the mouth of the union spokesman statements-I say this without intending any offence to him although perhaps I should not be so kind in view of the legislation that has been put before us -relating to the appointing of a commissioner and to binding arbitration as if they were both made in one sentence at the same time. He knows very well they were not. He knows very well that the reply to one had an entirely different context from the reply to the other.
Too many times have I seen fellow practitioners of mine in the courts and before boards doing precisely that, namely, adding together two parts of statements made at different times in different contexts and trying to make them one in order to give a

certain image to the statement. Toward the end of my remarks I will come back to this matter, Mr. Speaker, because it is important in its relationship to the total situation.
We are opposed, as the minister has said on many occasions he is opposed, as the Prime Minister has said he is opposed, as the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) indicated when he interrupted me during some remarks I made on the labour estimates to express his criticism of a bill proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), and as the breast-beating by everybody on the Liberal side of the house has indicated-I am sure my hon. friend the minister of manpower is of this opinion

to compulsory arbitration and in favour of free collective bargaining. Yet the party across the aisle in this chamber brings in this sort of bill.
The hon. member for Ontario is entirely right when he says that this is the worst, the most evil kind of compulsory arbitration, because it is not imposing on people recommendations which have been made public, which the minister and the government have had a chance to study, which members of parliament have had a chance to look at, which the parties have had a chance to study. It is not imposing on them results which are known, which have been examined and about which people have an intelligent and studied opinion. It is asking this parliament to rub-berstamp results before anyone knows anything about what they may be, including, may I add, the commissioner himself.
During his representations the other day the minister said, if I may put it this way-I am not quoting his exact words but I am sure he will remember this-that the Shipping Federation was ready to buy a pig in a poke. The Shipping Federation may have been but I do not see why this parliament should buy a pig in a poke-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: -or why this parliament should force the dockworkers to buy a pig in a poke. It is because of the general principles of free collective bargaining, about which all of us care so much, that we are opposed to the imposition of compulsory arbitration except in the most serious and obvious national crises. I will come back to that, too, toward the end of my remarks. I say to the minister-and this was covered in the bill proposed by the hon. member for Skeena-that he had two alternatives on June 13 and 14. He could either have decided to place on the statute
July 14, 1966

Labour Conditions
books a law which would have put in force those items which the parties had already agreed upon-


John Carr Munro: What do you call that?


David Lewis: You call that, I say to the hon. member for Hamilton East, legislation enshrining their agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question? Has the hon. gentleman any reason to believe that at the time that bill was introduced the parties had agreed on anything?


David Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the last part of the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the hon. gentleman any grounds for believing that at the time the hon. member for Skeena proposed to introduce his bill the parties had agreed on anything?


David Lewis: There are in the record, particularly in Judge Lippe's report, indications of an exchange about wages and the like which make it perfectly clear that when the counterproposal of the union came it had in the wage package precisely the same, 40 cents for 1966 and the 40 cents for 1967, that the Shipping Federation had proposed.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I am not splitting hairs, Mr. Speaker. I think it is of the utmost importance that they said "on condition that we have a reduction in the work gangs or an increase in productivity at least in the second year of the contract." Therefore I say to both ministers that at that point the government could have done one of two things. It could either have incorporated into legislation those points which had been agreed upon and left to final and binding arbitration the points about which management was concerned, or it could have introduced legislation that would be against the dock workers, and it is the latter alternative that was chosen. The government could have introduced a bill that would have put into operation the wages and other items that had been agreed upon and left the issues that were not agreed upon to the commissioner of inquiry. Instead, it is the issues which the union opposed that will be finally determined by the commissioner of inquiry. That is the simple fact of the situation.
My next serious objection, as I have indicated, is that the bill represents a distortion
of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I say to the minister that from now on the labour movement in Canada will have every right to suspect the appointment of any commissioner of inquiry under the I.R.D.I. act. They will have the right to ask: Is this merely the first step toward another piece of legislation to impose on us compulsory arbitration?
I ask the minister, what is the hurry about this? The minister says we must do it now when this matter is fresh in everybody's mind. Why, Mr. Speaker? Surely, if I may say so, that is the silliest kind of argument. Whose minds should be clear about this and what is the rush about it? Why must we pass this legislation on July 14, 1966? Why can it not be passed six months from now? Why can the minister not wait for the recommendations of the commissioner of inquiry? The very worst that can happen is that the so-called improvements will not appear in 1967 but will appear in 1968. What does that mean? Will the members of the Shipping Federation go bankrupt? I happen to know they make enough profits to be able to carry the extra load of wages without endangering their existence and the existence of their associates. Our experience makes us doubt the good sense of what the minister is doing.
The other day I read a press release concerning the appointment of Dr. Laurent Picard as the commissioner of inquiry. I was interested in it because I wanted to see what experience this man had. Let me make it clear immediately that I know of no reason for attacking Dr. Picard. As far as I remember I have not met him and if I have I do not recall it. For all I know he is a very honourable man. However, the fact is that the press release issued by the Labour Department shows that Dr. Picard's background is solely in management.
Let me read the first two paragraphs of page 2 of the press release:
Dr. Picard is associate director of Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, of the University of Montreal, and director of the business administration department. He is a member of the Quebec commission of teaching and advanced education, and president of the research commission on the shoe industry of the province of Quebec. He received his bachelor of applied science in physics from Laval University, and his doctorate in business administration from Harvard University.
Then, Mr. Speaker, please note this last paragraph:
Dr. Picard has provided research and consultative services for several industries including the following: aluminum, printing, electronics, chemical

July 14, 1966
Labour Conditions
products, railways, paper and wood product Industries. He also has acted as a consultant to major Canadian and international companies.
It may be that Dr. Picard is fully qualified to make this inquiry and it may well be that he is an honest gentleman who will give it his most objective attention. I do not know. However, I say to the minister that if I were a member of the International Longshoremen's Association and learned of Dr. Picard's background I would be frightened stiff. I have had occasion to deal with these management consultants, these people who make time and motion studies, deal with work loads and all the rest of it. I have seen what they do. Surely the appointment of Dr. Picard by the minister is just as objectionable as if the minister had appointed the director of industrial engineering of the United Steelworkers of America who has had the same kind of experience on the opposite side of the fence. I think it is essential, if this parliament is to act responsibly and, I would add, democratically, that before we take any action to shove recommendations down the workers' throats we know what those recommendations are.
Indeed, I fully support the suggestions of the hon. member for Ontario and I say to the minister and to the government that there is no reason in the world for not waiting until the commissioner has brought down his recommendations. Those recommendations should be studied by the minister and then given to the parties for study in the hope that on their basis they will reach a settlement. If they cannot reach a settlement and the country is again faced with the possibility of another crippling strike, it will be time enough for the government and parliament to take any action they may consider necessary. To ask us to do this now seems to me to be asking us to carry out a commitment to the Shipping Federation which the minister made and for which he alone is responsible and not we, members of parliament, whether on this side of the house or the other.


John Carr Munro: Will the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member has agreed that at the time of the introduction of the bill advanced by his party there were items which were not settled and on which the parties were not in agreement. Does he not agree that by advancing that particular bill he would have denied the workers the right to withhold their labour with respect to those items that were not agreed to by both parties,

which would be tantamount to compulsory arbitration?


David Lewis: I do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker, any more than I would if the present bill were not before us. To answer the hon. member for Hamilton East, let me say that what has happened in this case when a commissioner was appointed but before the present bill was introduced was exactly what the bill of the hon. member for Skeena proposed, namely, that the points which had been agreed upon were to be put into legislate and those which were not agreed upon were to be submitted to a commission of inquiry to investigate the matter within a certain time limit and I believe after 60 days the report was to be given to the parties on the basis of which they would negotiate. That procedure would have preserved the collective bargaining process on those issues which were still in dispute.
That is what I first thought the minister had done when he announced the appointment of a commissioner of inquiry. The parties had agreed upon the other points so legislation on them was not necessary. All of us were happy that those points would not need legislation and that the minister had appointed a commission of inquiry to enable the parties to negotiate the remaining issues in the dispute on the basis of the facts, the evidence and the conclusions submitted by the commissioner. That is what we thought the minister was going to do, but he did not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member for Skeena sought leave of the house to introduce a bill but he was not given that leave. Personally I am quite sorry he was not. However, I wonder whether the hon. member would object to allowing the hon. member for York South to communicate the terms of the proposed bill to us, in view of the statement made by the hon. member for York South, so that all of us could be made aware of what is in dispute?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


David Lewis: Let me say first, Mr. Speaker, that I am not going to do so because I have not the time. The hon. member for Skeena will speak. He can do what he likes about his bill. No doubt he delights in enlightening the Minister of Transport and I have no doubt he will indulge in his delight today. I have answered the questions and interruptions as best I could, but let me say this: No amount of pointing at any bill we sought to introduce
July 14, 1966

can divert attention from what the government is doing now. If that is their intention, I say to the minister and hon. members opposite that they will fail.
Before my time expires, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, for the reasons I have indicated, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett):
That Bill C-215 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on labour and employment.
May I summarize my reasons for moving this amendment. The first reason, to which I have not yet alluded, is that I am sorry to have to inform the Minister of Labour that I have had long conversations with Mr. Cutler, whom I have known for many years, and I have had some conversations with Mr. Jo-doin, and those gentlemen, with whom I have taken up the precise statements made by the minister in this house, do not recall what transpired in precisely the same way as the minister does. This is nothing new. If anyone has been in negotiations, whether labour or any other negotiations, and has tried to remember what he said and I said and he said out of context, one invariably gets a one-sided picture.
Since the minister has had an opportunity on the floor of this house to place his version of what transpired before the public I feel that the union ought to have an opportunity, as well as the Shipping Federation if it likes, to place before parliament, through the committee on labour and employment, their version of what transpired. This is the first reason for moving this amendment.
The second reason for moving this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is that we as a parliament ought to know not merely that there was an argument over productivity and the size of gangs but also what the Shipping Federation on one side and the union on the other side thought about these issues. We ought to know as a parliament, before we vote on this bill, precisely the nature of the disagreement between the parties. Knowing merely the title of the disagreement is surely not enough. We ought to know what the disagreement is about. Is it about the numbers in a gang? Is it the number who go into the hold or the number who are on deck or the number who work in the shed? What is it about which the parties are in disagreement? Is it the work load or the various kinds of cargo, ordinary cargo, noxious cargo and all the other kinds of cargo about which I know from experience they argue?
Labour Conditions
We ought to know precisely what they are disagreeing about before we vote on the bill before us. This procedure would give the union and the Shipping Federation an opportunity in the next two or three months to live with the agreement they now have and to see whether the relationship between them cannot be improved in the meantime or whether an increase in productivity can come about merely by an effort of the men, if they should be called upon to put forth more effort. Above all, this procedure will give an opportunity to the commission of inquiry to begin its investigation and to start indicating what the evidence is and what the conclusions may be. These are my reasons for moving the amendment.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the question now before the house is of the utmost interest to me, and if we agreed on the facts, I would have made or would have been happy to make both the speech of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) and the speech of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) because I think we share the same convictions. Not only do I share them intellectually, but for 20 years of my life I have fought binding arbitration and I was even responsible, to a large extent, I feel, for the elimination of such binding arbitration in many areas of industry, commerce, and services in the province of Quebec.
Therefore, I do not intend to question anyone's motives; besides that is not my purpose. Let us say only that I do not see the facts exactly as they are described to me.
Like the hon. member for York South and even the hon. member for Ontario, I have some experience in the field of negotiations, and if every negotiation I was involved in were brought before the house under thg same conditions as this one, we would get very funny situations, because in one case, for instance, the employer did not want the Rand formula. He was opposed in principle to the Rand formula. But as he wanted to end the strike, he said: If we set up between ourselves an arbitration board and if that arbitration is compulsory, I am ready to submit the matter right away and you can choose the other members if you want. In other words, the employer found a formula to make himself accept something which he would not have accepted spontaneously.

July 14, 1966
Labour Conditions
Mr. Speaker, I have seen collective agreements signed because a government has enacted legislation, such as an order by the Minimum Wages Commission or an order under the Labour Collective Agreements Act. Of course, all this was not included in the agreement itself. That was part of the interplay of forces behind the dispute which had been settled by the labour collective agreement.
Now, there has been reference to binding arbitration. It is a fact that the basis of our system is the will of the parties, that is what the parties are willing to accept. That is why the labour collective agreement is said to be basically-and it must remain so-the will of the parties. Otherwise, you are no longer working under a free bargaining system but under a state intervention system.
Mr. Speaker, I think we must maintain the principle. Binding arbitration has existed and still exists. It is not an absolute principle. It is not a principle which cannot be waived; the parties themselves waive it in many circumstances.
In collective agreements, there may be arbitration not only on the interpretation and violation of the collective agreement, but also on conflicts of interests which can occur during the collective agreement. That exists. The parties' will is then respected. Binding arbitration exists by virtue of our provincial and even our federal legislation. Under the federal legislation on industrial relations, collective agreements must contain a clause providing for the settlement of grievances compulsorily or by an arbitration during the collective agreement. Binding arbitration is a principle which is often waived in the field of labour.
I do not agree with the hon. member for Ontario who said that the worse intervention that could be made in the field of collective agreement was an intervention like the one contained in Bill C-215. The worse intervention that can be made-I beg your pardon- [DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


David Lewis: Would the minister-


Jean Marchand: You repeated that too.


David Lewis: I just wanted to ask the minister a question. This is true bilingualism. The minister speaks French and I understand him, and if I speak English he will understand me. Is he suggesting that the compulsory arbitration of issues under negotiation is the same

kind of thing as the compulsory arbitration of differences about the meaning of a contract?


Jean Marchand: The hon. member for York South knows very well that I did not say that, but the opposite. I said: In the federal legislation on labour relations as well as in the provincial legislation there are provisions which make it compulsory to submit to arbitration the grievances resulting from the interpretation and violation of a collective agreement. I said that was one of the exceptions to the general principle of non-binding arbitration. They are conflicts over rights and not interests. However, it also happens that conflicts of interests are submitted to an arbitration board by agreement of the parties. There is no doubt that the parties wish it. All I want to prove in that we are not faced with an unchanging principle. Let us say that it is a principle which is applied differently at various times. It is, if you wish, arbitration which can be voluntarily binding-


David Lewis: It is voluntary arbitration.


Jean Marchand: Yes, yes, voluntarily binding arbitration.


David Lewis: No, no, voluntary arbitration.


Jean Marchand: In any case, I just wanted to underline the fact that it was not something new, something that had never happened: binding arbitration does exist.
When the hon. member for Ontario says that the worst intervention that can happen in this field is an intervention such as the one provided for in Bill C-215, I do not agree with him, Mr. Speaker. The worst intervention that can happen is the one which was indirectly suggested by the Leader of the Opposition when, to settle the longshoremen's strike in Montreal, he referred to the settlement of the railway strike, as it had been imposed by the Canadian Parliament. That is the most direct settlement, the one which compels the parties the most because they are not there.
At the present time, the parties are represented before the arbitration board. They can submit their case to the judge. If we decide on the settlement, as it was partially decided by the bill of our friend from Skeena (Mr. Howard), to the extent to which it was decided under the authority of Parliament, it is the worst kind of intervention because it is an intervention which does not leave any resort.
July 14, 1966

If we have to talk about interventions, or to graduate them, the worst is the direct intervention of Parliament which imposes a settlement on the parties. The second, is to impose binding arbitration, it is less serious. It may be open to question but, to my mind, it leaves some latitude to the parties to discuss their terms before a referee which can be impartial or who must be impartial, at least, under the act.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, the only question which requires elucidation in the conflict, and I am speaking of the debate in the house, is to what extent the parties agreed to having this measure brought before the house. That is the only point which interests me. With regard to binding arbitration, attempts can be made to frighten me; I can be told that that procedure would destroy the will of the parties; I would agree. That would pose no problem, as far as I am concerned. Only, if it is proved that the parties wanted this bill, things to be done that way, whether they said so officially or not, so that events might occur as they did, then I feel parliament should respect their wishes, provided in so doing we are not asked to do anything illegal or immoral. We will thus be helping society as a whole. That is the only point which needs clearing up.
The rest, to my mind, is of absolutely no importance. If, some day, we have a serious dispute, and the parties ask parliament to legislate with a view to facilitating its solution without creating a dangerous precedent, I really do not see why we should not do it, especially if society as a whole were to benefit thereby. It would not be a matter of principle, as some would have us believe here. As we say, rather poetically, one swallow does not a summer make. One special act to solve one particular problem does not mean that binding arbitration has just been forced upon Canada. That would really be carrying things too far. The problem is already complicated enough.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will comment on the point that to my mind is fundamental. Now, we will come up against a difficult situation because it is a matter of good faith: to know whom to believe and whom to disbelieve. It is at this level that the debate should take place if we really want to know the truth. On this side of the house we all agree not to impose compulsory arbitration, and I am the first one to be against it. But that is not the question here. We want to know whether the
Labour Conditions
parties, when they reached an agreement, have accepted, directly or indirectly, that this thing should be done as a condition of the settlement. That is the only problem, there is no other.
Then I try objectively to look for some clue in the documents tabled in this house. I have, let us say, two serious clues. As everybody knows, I was not there-like the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Ontario, I was not involved at all in the negotiations-and I try to rely on the documents I have. There are things which are very clear in my mind-


Robert Jardine McCleave: You should have been there.


Jean Marchand: I am not Minister of Labour. We already have a very good Minister of Labour. I do not know why we should have two.


Michael Starr: What about the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill)? Why was he there?


Jean Marchand: They were special advisers, Mr. Speaker, and one thing seems quite clear to me.
If we want to throw light on the matter before us instead of merely stirring up trouble, I must say that one thing strikes me and it is that the I.L.A. was bent on rejecting the principle of arbitration. It seems logical to me throughout, that is the association, either directly or through its lawyers or the president of the C.L.C., always maintained its stand against the principle of binding arbitration, saying that it did not want binding arbitration and much preferred that the government would not legislate.
That seems quite clear to me. Are the terms they accepted inconsistent with that stand? Not at all, in my opinion. How can I be sure that at a given time, the I.L.A., through the president of the C.L.C. or its lawyers, asked the government to assume its responsibilities? We do not want to assume it. We know it was a condition to have the employers sign the agreement. We know that is part of the general settlement without being included in the agreement.
I feel there is strong evidence to that effect, that is, when the Minister of Labour wrote to Mr. Cutler to tell him what went on, he said, and I quote from the English text:
7684
Labour Conditions

July 14, 1966
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)

I quote from page 7440 of Hansard:
It is a fact that the International Longshoremen's Association made it clear during final stages of the negotiations that it was not requesting the establishment of an industrial inquiry commission or that legislation be introduced in this respect but Mr. Cutler did assure me and my cabinet colleagues in presence of union officials that the International Longshoremen's Association would co-operate with the industrial inquiry commission which we stated would be established and that should legislation be introduced by government providing for the implementation of the conclusions of such commission through legislative enactment your clients the International Longshoremen's Association, though they would not support the legislation, would obey the law and that he as counsel for the association would so advise them.


David Lewis: Would the hon. minister permit a question?


Jean Marchand: Wait a minute. Let me finish. I gave you every chance and did not intervene at all.


Robert Muir: The minister is getting excited. He is on shaky ground.


Jean Marchand: Of course we are on shaky ground, not with respect to binding arbitration but on these statements that have been made.

Then, instead of taking a firm stand, Mr. Cutler simply says: We disagree with the principles of binding arbitration. He does not say: If there is legislation and if you do not assure us there will not be any legislation, we shall not sign the collective agreement. On the contrary, he took a different attitude, by simply saying: We refuse to have anything to do with the legislation itself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Oh, really?


Jean Marchand: It is there. It is there.

And if you want to know-there is no use laughing, for it is something serious, Mr. Speaker-why it is, and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), as a lawyer, will know why the word "otherwise" was added in the amending section to the collective agreement-and it is the only example I know of in Canada. Has he tried to explain this particular circumstances? Can the agreement be normally amended otherwise than by the will of the parties?


David Lewis: May I ask the minister a question? Would he also permit me to answer something he raised in the midst of his speech? If he permits it, I shall do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I cannot allow the hon. member to answer a question. It is a rhetorical question, I take it, made in the course of the minister's speech.


David Lewis: I thought Your Honour would make that ruling and that is why I asked if the minister would permit a question. The question is very simple, and it relates to the amendment.
The minister has heard his colleagues inform him as to what happened. Did the minister take the trouble to talk to Mr. Cutler to see him, or to find out what is the explanation of how the words "or otherwise" got into that statement? Did he do that, before asking parliament to vote on the kind of thing he is now asking us to vote on? I did. I spoke to him.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this paragraph-I read it very badly a while ago and somewhat quickly, I am sorry, but you had it before you and you could follow-indicates that Mr. Cutler did not succeed or did not try, in subsequent letters, to deny the contents of the letter from the Minister of Labour; that Mr. Cutler, who knew that the word "otherwise" was very important as to the understanding of the conflict, and spent his time sending telegrams to clarify its meaning, did not consider enlightening us on that point and it was left to the hon. member for York South to tell us that he had received a telephone call explaining it. I think there is something wrong. For, if it were of such importance, Mr. Cutler himself should have sent a document to explain to us how the word "otherwise" had appeared in a collective agreement.
As for me, I know of only two ways to amend a collective agreement: either through the will of the parties or through legislation, unless the agreement itself involves illegalities which make it automatically void. Apart from that, I know of no other way.


David Lewis: Would the minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, permit me to
July 14, 1966

ask this question? Do the words say "by agreement of the parties or otherwise" or do the words say "by negotiation or otherwise"?


Jean Marchand: "By negotiation or otherwise".


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether it is not entirely possible that the union received an explanation that what the words "or otherwise" referred to were the recommendations of the commissioner of inquiry which the parties would be considering after they came down?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this point was raised in a letter from the Minister of Labour to Mr. Cutler. It was raised and it is an essential point, it is even the basic point. By some acrobatics, an attempt may be made to have us believe that we are discussing compulsory arbitration, which is not the case. We are trying to find out if there was an acceptance by the parties, in circumstances approximating those I mentioned a while ago. That is the problem.
And a basic argument is brought forward by the Minister of Labour. It was even explained very clearly. However, they did not even take the trouble to reply to the Minister of Labour on that point.


David Lewis: I am really not trying to be an obstructionist. Would the minister be good enough to read the second last paragraph in the right hand colum on page 7441 of Hansard"! I refer to the appendix containing the exchange of correspondence? It reads as follows:
The I.L.A. locals reiterate their position that any inquiry the government chooses to institute despite I.L.A. opposition should be the basis for voluntary negotiations for the next collective agreement since to do otherwise would be creating the dangerous precedent of disrupting the relationship between management and labour during the life of a collective agreement.
I ask the minister, is that not answer enough to the minister's and the Prime Minister's statements as to the I.L.A. position?
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not know who signs this letter. Anyway, it does not explain the word "otherwise". The International Longshoremen's Association has been logical throughout on the principle of
23033-486i
Labour Conditions
compulsory arbitration. It has stuck to its views till the end. I do not deny this. I think the Canadian Labour Congress kept its opinions, though this could have been made a little clearer in the telegram sent by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress. This telegram is a simple declaration of principle which is against compulsory arbitration. It does not necessarily mean that he was against arbitration as proposed under the circumstances which we know. Anyhow, I do not in any way blame the International Longshoremen's Association. I think it negotiated well, obtained a very good work contract, and was justified in doing what it did, if it did it. Therefore I do not blame it. On the contrary, I think the association acted and negotiated well, and that I could very easily have behaved in the same way under the same circumstances, and been very honest toward the workers and the principles in which I believe.
There is no contradiction in all this. The only problem which should be clarified and has not been clarified by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) or the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), is this: whether the Shipping Federation has agreed to sign a collective agreement knowing that the government would pass this bill, the representatives of the longshoremen being fully aware of the facts and, even if they were at first opposed to compulsory arbitration, letting things happen provided Parliament alone assumed the responsibility for the measure. The Canadian Labour Congress would apparently have adopted the same attitude..
This is how I see the situation. I may be wrong, and if you want me to change my mind, I am ready to do so but you show me my view is wrong.
The question here is not to talk about compulsory arbitration. I am as convinced as you are on this point. Rather, we should find out whether, at the bottom of all this, there was a tacit, official, direct or indirect agreement leading to the present events. If there was no agreement, abstention or lack of opposition of this sort when there should have been, I am sorry, but we must respect the situation as being willed by the parties. This is how I see it, and I shall vote for this bill because it has not been established that the facts which I have just mentioned are true.
Debating the principle of compulsory arbitration during the debate on this bill, Mr..

July 14, 1966
Labour Conditions
Speaker, is tantamount to displacing the problem.
I am very sorry, but I shall have to be convinced; parties can agree on many things 'between themselves. I have done it myself 15, 20 times. All labour representatives have done it; the hon. member for York South has probably done it hundreds of times in .small committees.


David Lewis: It must be done once more.


Jean Marchand: Yes, that is it; and it may have to be done again often. Political parties and governments are not the only ones who have the right to find formulas which, even if they do not seem regular, lead to the settlement of certain disputes and to peace between men or institutions.
Trade unions also do it and rightly so, in my opinion.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, this question does not involve principles, in my opinion. There is no question of blaming the International Longshoremen's Association or the Canadian Labour Congress for the way they behaved. In my opinion, they have signed a very fine collective agreement. Active trade-unionists behaved well, they negotiated well. I do not blame them at all, there is no question of principle in my opinion. It is a question of finding out whether, through a misunderstanding or otherwise perhaps, it is a fact that this situation I have tried to set out-and from afar, since I was not there-is really the situation that existed at the time when an agreement was reached. That is the problem to be looked into.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard),

Federal-provincial relations.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford), Northern Affairs-Alaska highway-inquiry as to paving; the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray), Old Age Security

-announcement of guaranteed minimum monthly income.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills.


Mr. Paul Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, may I have the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions?


Gordon Minto Churchill: For what purpose?


Paul Langlois: To present the report of a standing committee of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi) presented the fifth report of the standing committee on industry, research and energy development in both official languages of this country.

[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-4, to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada-Mr. Cameron (High Park)-Mr. Rin-fret in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, at this late date I am surprised that the house did not decide to continue with the very interesting debate that was taking place. However, this private bill is an interesting one and I am pleased with the decision that was made to allow it to go to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
The reason I am pleased that it went to committee is that members of the government and particularly the sponsors of such bills have in the past told us that if we would let such bills go to a standing committee they would be able there to answer the questions asked in the house. I take note of the order of the house which was made on Thursday, May 5, to send five bills to committee including this one to incorporate the Aetna Casualty
July 14, 1966

Company of Canada, and also of the proceedings in committee on Tuesday, June 14, when 15 members attended and Mr. Humphrys, the superintendent of insurance was present.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Were you there?


William Arnold Peters: I do not see my name on the list of those present. It may be that members of the N.D.P. were elsewhere at that time, but it seems that the coalition that appears to be developing with respect to the passage of insurance company bills was in effect. It may be a matter of, you scratch my back and I will scratch yours but the N.D.P., not having an itchy back, does not need to have it scratched.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: The hon. member has said that there were 15 members present at the committee meeting. Were there any members of the N.D.P. present?


William Arnold Peters: I have looked at the list, following the question asked by the hon. member for Hamilton West, and I see there were none present. I think the fact that the committee came to the conclusion it did indicates that this was so.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: That is nonsense.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Does it not indicate that the N.D.P. were not too interested in being there when they should have been?


William Arnold Peters: I will show you in the next 15 or 20 minutes how interested we are. This is where our interest should be exercised and this is where it is going to be exercised.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Chairman, I will help the hon. member waste time by asking him a question. If the hon. member is so interested in these insurance bills he has a right, under our standing orders, to attend these committee meetings. Why did he not attend this one?


William Arnold Peters: Very likely because I was at another committee meeting, and I think my record of attendance at at least three of the major committees is fairly good. It may be as good as the record of the hon. member asking the question.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: That I challenge.


William Arnold Peters: You can challenge it if you wish but it is of little importance. I find it difficult to attend more than two committees a day. Some of them meet three times a day, and I make no apology for not going. But Mr. Private Bills
Chairman, to get back to the subject under discussion it is very difficult to decide, from reading the record, why these four or five bills were mixed up. They were referred together and to some extent, were handled together.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
It is indicated that the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) was the sponsor of Bill S-4 in conjunction with G. D. Finlayson, Q.C., and John H. C. Clarry, Q.C., parliamentary agents. This is a case of you scratch my back and I will scratch yours because they are, I assume, all on the same side of the fence.	.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Nobody is
scratching my back and I am not scratching anyone else's back.


William Arnold Peters: Actually this bill might have been passed were it not for what I consider to be political back-scratching, but we will let that go for the moment.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: I am not going to take that statement lying down.


William Arnold Peters: You are going to take it sitting down. I have the floor and I do not particularly care whether the hon. member lies down or sits down or what.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I ask the hon. member to resume his seat. I recognize the hon. member for High Park on a point of order.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: The hon. member is imputing motives to me. He is referring to a bill respecting the Canada Health and Accident Insurance Corporation. It was up for second reading. Because my hon. friend wanted the bill immediately following it to go down to the bottom of the list and because an hon. member on this side of the house got up and spoke, my bill did go to the bottom of the list, and now he speaks of political back-scratching. I might say that he was attempting to use me to accomplish his purpose.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I do not expect the hon. member to really understand much of the problem. The matter to which I was referring was in relation to Bill S-10. If he has other political irons in the fire, that is entirely his responsibility.


Mr. Pilon:: Carry on.


William Arnold Peters: Pardon?


J.-E. Bernard Pilon: Carry on.

July 14, 1966
Private Bills


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, there are many members who really believe these bills should pass whether they are right or wrong and they do not care so long as they are handled expeditiously.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: On a point of order, I think hon. members are completely fed up with the implication of motives by the hon. member for Timiskaming against all of us. If the hon. member would pay attention to his own responsibilities in this house, as other members do, we would proceed better. When he and another member of that party impute motives to members of this house it is an affront to members in all parties of the house and to those in his own party who have some sense of responsibility.


Mr. Howard:: You are getting nasty now.


Maurice Rinfret: I appeal to hon. members to refer to Bill S-4, an act to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada and leave aside references to personal motives and other matters.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have tried to get around to that. It is a very short proposition I am considering. I will try to be noninflammatory if possible. On the preamble the hon. member for Rosedale stated he had an interest in this company and therefore could not vote on the bill. The sponsor of the bill, Mr. Finlayson, introduced the parliamentary agents. Mr. Finlayson explained the purpose of the bill and Mr. Humphrys also made a brief statement. Mr. Finlayson, Mr. Humphrys and Mr. Rhine were questioned and the preamble carried. This was the procedure on the bill. The details, Mr. Chairman, are to be found on page 555 of the evidence.
Before I read what took place in this matter I should like to refer to the bill itself. There was some question in respect of the division of the capital stock into $50 shares and why this should be. There was a further question with regard to the fact that out of the $5 million in the original capital stock only $500,000 had to be subscribed before the company could hold a general meeting and go into operation. In addition, there were questions asked in respect of why certain types of insurance were being included in the list of insurance the company was going to undertake. There was an indication that some of these types of insurance were not handled by the company and yet they had made application for them.
In the questioning I am sure an explanation should have been given which at least would have answered some of these legitimate questions. Another proposition that was raised and which has been raised on a number of occasions was the matter of ascertaining from the Superintendent of Insurance his recommendation with regard to whether or not there is some reason this particular company should be incorporated. If insurance is being offered for fire protection and no other companies are providing coverage, then obviously there would be merit in the establishment of an insurance company that would do this. But I believe that literally thousands and thousands of companies issue fire insurance. I think it should be ascertained whether or not it is proper to expand the number of such companies. I can see one obvious reason companies are formed and why they should be issuing certain types of insurance, but in my opinion one of the roles of the Superintendent of Insurance is to indicate whether or not there is a need, room or place for another company. This should be true when Aetna Casualty Company of Canada makes this application.
In presenting their evidence the witnesses said that the company had been carrying on business in Canada for many years. One witness said:
-and we are really submitting more to the jurisdiction rather than less in asking the committee to approve the incorporation of a Canadian company. Our application has been fairly scrutinized by the Superintendent of Insurance and this is not a case of somebody coming in new; this is a company that has a background of experience and has been under the jurisdiction of the superintendent for a good number of years and we are content that we have his support in this.
Then the chairman asked Mr. Humphrys whether he had any comments. Mr. Humphrys, I presume taking into consideration some of the arguments which were made, said:
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I will make only a brief comment, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. As Mr. Finlayson has indicated, we have discussed this project with the company when it was under consideration and so far as the department is concerned, we are satisfied that we have no objection to it.
The bill is in standard form and has no special features. It will require a minimum of capital $500,000 paid and $500,000 surplus before the company can start business. It is my understanding the company intends to capitalize it somewhat higher. The company cannot start business until it has received its certificate of registry under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and we will, therefore, ascertain that the capital has been paid in before the company starts business.
IMr. Pilon.]
July 14, 1966

We know the parent company well since it has been in Canada a long time and it is one of the very largest of casualty insurance companies in the United States.
I have no further comment, Mr. Chairman.


The Chairman:: In short, then Mr. Humphrys, you would say that the applicants have met the requirements of your department in so far as they can be met up to this point?


Mr.   Humphrys@: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Do we have any questions?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Are you going to read the entire minutes?


William Arnold Peters: I beg your pardon.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: If you intend to read all the minutes why don't you just table them?


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member keeps moving around but the sounds are somewhat the same. Our main objection to the passage of this bill is that the questions we have asked in relation to this company has not been answered. I am sure that hon. members opposite would say that if this company received a charter it would be able to make more money. I have never suggested, and I do not think it would be suggested by any member of my party, that we disagree with what Mr. Humphrys told the committee. Aetna is a good and responsible company.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, one of the basic things we must consider, not only in respect of this bill but in respect of all insurance companies seeking incorporation in bills now before us, is the degree to which the companies are owned or effectively controlled in Canada. In other words, are these companies Canadian or subsidiaries of foreign companies? I understand that in the case of the Aetna Casualty Company it is a wholly owned subsidiary of a United States company, the name of which escapes me for the moment. If I am incorrect in this regard I am sure the sponsor of the bill will correct me. I have just been informed that the parent of this company has its head office in Hartford, Connecticut, so I am right in my thinking.
Since 1962, when the Liberal party decided to develop policies in respect of foreign control of service industries in Canada, we have come to accept the idea that the Liberals believe in Canadian ownership. The former minister of finance spoke at that time as he does now in favour of the concept of Canadian control rather than control resting
Private Bills
in the hands of foreigners who are not answerable to Canadian laws for the activities of their subsidiary companies. That hon. member still holds a great deal of influence in the ranks of the Liberal party. However, what has happened in respect of the Bank Act may prove me wrong in that connection. I usually refer to the former minister of finance, but I understand that hon. member who represents Davenport still receives a considerable degree of support for his enunciated ideas. Other Liberals support the idea of Canadian ownership of industries in Canada.
At some subsequent stage of the proceedings in respect of the bill now before us I intend to move certain appropriate amendments in order to ensure that in respect of this company there is the desired Canadian ownership, authority and control. One of the amendments I intend to move, and it could be moved in regard to the clause we are now considering, will be such as to require that all the directors of applicant companies such as this be Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada.
At the present time I understand that under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act the majority of directors are required to be Canadian citizens. In this regard I should like to quote from the minutes and proceedings of June 14 of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. Mr. Humphrys, who is the Superintendent of the Department of Insurance, gave evidence on this question in reply to a question posed by the chairman. In reference to the application of the law in respect of Aetna he said at page 560:
As matters stand under the law, a United States company or a company from any country outside Canada, if it is in a strong financial condition can enter Canada and become registered under the Foreign Insurance Companies Act and transact insurance in Canada. Most countries offer reciprocal facilities to Canadian companies; they may enter foreign countries and transact business there. Where a company operates in Canada through a branch office such as the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company does now, the main direction of the company is, of course, at the home office of the company where the directors are situated and where the management is.
In other words, as Mr. Humphrys put it, the main direction of this company is in Hartford, Connecticut, and not at any place in Canada. He then stated:
The same thing applies when a Canadian company does business in the United States through a branch.

July 14. 1966
Private Bills
There is no argument about that fact, because it is a fact of economic life. Mr. Humphrys then stated:
But where foreign interests who want to do business in Canada incorporate a Canadian company, this requires a substantially larger Canadian content and a more extensive submission to Canadian laws and Canadian decisions than is the case of a branch.
I think there is some conflict in that attitude because, as I read Mr. Humphrys comments, when a company operates through a branch office the requirements of the law are not quite as stringent as they are if the company is incorporated in Canada under our procedures. It seems to me there should be an equitable application of the law, whatever it may be, to all companies whether they operate in Canada as incorporated companies or as subsidiaries. Then Mr. Humphrys made this point about directors of a Canadian company being Canadians. He said:
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
The requirement that a majority of the directors of a Canadian company be at all times Canadian citizens resident in Canada has been in our insurance laws for some years.
He is referring to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. Then he said:
For this company the law will require that a majority of the directors of this Canadian company at all times be Canadian citizens resident in Canada. This will represent a substantial step forward in the degree of Canadian control and Canadian decisions on the policies of this company.
In Mr. Humphrys' view this is a beneficial thing so far as Canada is concerned because, as he pointed out, when a company incorporates in this country the requirements are tougher than they are if they are just operating a branch office. Mr. Humphrys went on to say:
If a Canadian company were doing business in the United States and wished to incorporate a subsidiary there are no restrictions, of which I am aware, that would require all the directors of that subsidiary to be United States citizens. It would be customary and usual that the parent company would have some representation on the board of directors.
He was making the point that this is a step in the right direction and is a progressive move because it brings a larger degree of Canadian decision-making into the operation of the company. It seems logical to me, if the majority of the directors are required to be Canadian, that this in itself would bring about a larger degree of concern on the part of the company for Canadian interests. If the requirement were that all the directors be Canadian, we would be one more step ahead of the present situation.

Parliament has enacted such legislation before. A few years ago we made the requirement in respect of a pipe line company, the name of which I have forgotten, that all the directors be at all times Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in this country. It seems to me this is what we should be doing now, namely, thinking in terms of giving the fullest possible degree of Canadian control to these companies. We are on the verge of perhaps developing a different concept of the structure, management and operation of insurance companies. Perhaps between now and the time these matters are considered again we may be able to develop some well laid plans and ideas about the amendments that would be necessary to put into effect certain basic ideas that we have. One of these is that all the directors of the company shall at all times be Canadian citizens ordinarily resident' in Canada.
I do not intend to move an amendment at this moment, Mr. Chairman. Such an amendment could well fit into clause 1 because certain people are named therein, and it could also fit into clause 2. Perhaps it would more appropriately be made under clause 2. Mr. Humphrys referred to the requirement that the majority of the directors of a Canadian company be at all times Canadian citizens resident in this country and said it has been in our insurance laws for some years. I do not know how long this requirement has been in our insurance laws but it seems to me that if it has been there for some years we must consider the situation as it existed at the time the change was made and take into account the fact that there is today a far greater desire on the part of the Canadian people to have a greater degree of control over their industries than was the case some years ago.
The reason for Canadian people thinking this way is partly due to the farsighted opinions expressed by the former minister of finance. For this he deserves a great deal of credit. The former minister of finance expressed such opinions before his Prime Minister caught up with him, found that he was advancing ideas dangerous to the rightwing swing within the Liberal party and consequently eased him out of the cabinet. But the former minister of finance is directly responsible for there having developed in Canada a greater desire for an appreciation of the necessity of having Canadian control of our industry. In fact, one of his campaign slogans was "Buy Canada Back". These views of the former minister were widely circulated
July 14, 1966

in Weekend magazine or Star Weekly magazine through an extensive and well thought-out article which he wrote. Other writings of the former minister of finance have contributed to our people having this desire for greater Canadianism.
I believe we should be taking steps to reflect this desire in the laws we enact and this company should not be excluded. In saying this I am liable to be accused of picking and choosing and it may be said: Why should Aetna Casualty Company of Canada be treated differently from any other insurance company? This is a valid argument. Indeed, why should it be treated differently? It may be said that every other insurance company in Canada can go about its business with only the majority of its directors having to be Canadian, and why should we suddenly step into the picture and say that the situation with regard to this company is different and all its directors must be Canadian citizens?
It may also be argued: Why should we insist upon this requirement in respect of the Aetna company and not apply it to all the other insurance companies in respect of which bills appear on our order paper? I admit the validity of this argument but I believe we have to start somewhere. Perhaps we could start with at least a discussion of this very vital principle and we might then be able to persuade the government to introduce legislation to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and make this provision applicable to all insurance companies in Canada.
All I desire to do in this instance, Mr. Chairman, is make a start and follow along from Mr. Humphry's contention that this represents a forward step in the development of Canadian based decision-making. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie asked Mr. Humphrys questions in this respect, as reported at page 560 of the minutes of the proceedings of the committee:
When we talk. Mr. Humphrys, of management or directors, are we talking about any special responsibility in the conduct of the policy of the company itself or do these directors have no power at all to decide the policy of the company?
Mr. Humphrys replied as follows:
The board of directors is the highest management group in the company-
That is understandable.
-so the policy of the company would be established by the board of directors.
Private Bills
The hon. member for Sainte-Marie then said:
I am asking this question particularly because we do not know that policies may be drafted in the United States by the parent company and applied to the subsidiary here in Canada without any change at all in the application of the policy. This is where I am concerned.
And well might he be concerned. Mr. Humphrys answered in this way:
This is possible, sir, but I believe that formation of a separate Canadian company with its management and its business directed primarily toward the Canadian market, it is more likely to result in management policies and general business practices that are designed for the Canadian market to a greater extent than would be the case if the company continued to operate a branch office here.
I would say that so far as our department is concerned, we do not attempt to influence insurers either way, either through a branch office or through a subsidiary company but I do believe that the formation of a subsidiary company creates a stronger element of Canadian control and Canadian design in the insurance product than is the case where the operation is through a branch.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I submit that this is an admission of failure, not on the part of Mr. Humphrys because he is only putting policy into effect but on the part of the government, to recognize the difference between the manner in which the requirements of the law are observed in so far as branch offices are concerned and those in regard to incorporated companies. It would seem to me, and I made this point earlier, that what the government should be doing is to make the law applicable universally so that it would apply to branch offices in the same manner as it does to Canadian companies. I do not know how this can be done but it will certainly require some alteration of the legislation because presumably there is no law requiring branch offices to have any degree of Canadian content or control; otherwise this requirement would be in effect. I simply leave it to those who have the responsibility of drafting the government's legislation to draw it up in such a manner that the law will apply equally to the two types of insurance operations.
Then Mr. Irvine followed this by saying-I do not know who Mr. Irvine is but presumably he is in some way connected with the company; maybe he is a member but I have never run across his name before:
The statement given under the preamble was a little technical which made it a little difficult for a person such as myself to understand it completely. This, as I understand it, is to be a Canadian company, a subsidiary of Aetna of Hartford operating in Canada and handling casualty only. Is this right?

July 14, 1966
Private Bills
To which Mr. Finlayson replied that this was correct, that it would operate in every field but life insurance. I might add that if we had 27 letters in the alphabet we would have to include life insurance as one because under clause 6 we have everything from A to Z.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: The hon. member is making that statement out of whole cloth. It is totally unfounded and an inference that should not be made. It is no credit to the hon. member to have made it.


Frank Howard: Even listening to my friend from High Park is no credit to me. So Aetna Insurance Company does not wish to get into the life insurance field.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: In entering this debate, Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to lay some stress on the whole question of the insurance business. I have been somewhat concerned for quite some time about the proliferation of insurance companies of various types, and I think in the case of an insurance company of this nature it might be as well if we were first of all to define quite clearly just what sort of an operation we are dealing with because I have noticed that any operation which involves a financial institution invariably assumes in our society some air of respectability, almost of untouchability, and perhaps obscures the reality behind the facade. Obviously insurance companies of this sort are engaged in what could be termed a gambling business. We all gamble with our fire insurance companies that we will not have a fire and they gamble with us on that basis. I am not suggesting it is an illegal or immoral business but I am suggesting it is not necessarily an operation that is highly respectable because it is a financial one. It is a gambling proposition, and this company is asking us to allow them to engage in gambling in 26 various fields of possible accident, danger or loss.
My feeling on this point, Mr. Chairman, is that we have had an experience in one part of this country of a very satisfactory solution to the provision of gambling opportunities, if you like, in a certain type of accident which may occur to citizens, and that is in the field Of auto insurance. I suppose everyone knows that one province in Canada has established a gambling operation, if you like, against car

accidents which is conducted by the provincial government. The result is that the fortunate inhabitants of that province are able to protect themselves from automobile accidents at a fraction of the cost which those of us who live in other provinces must pay.
On that score I would suggest it is about time that we considered this whole proposition of protection from accidents on the same basis as the Saskatchewan car insurance operation which is still being continued under a Liberal government although it was established under a C.C.F. government. I think we should look very carefully at these insurance bills, even the ones that are not concerned with life insurance which provide even more matters to be examined than the casualty insurance companies. I will not deal with those matters because life insurance is not included here.
One of the points I want to stress, as my colleague from Skeena did, and perhaps pursue a little further is the question of a company which is entirely foreign owned moving into the gambling industry to extract from Canadian citizens a very handsome volume of premiums, I presume, or they would not be asking to be allowed to operate here.
Quite seriously, Mr. Chairman, this is a matter which should be causing great concern to Canadians on account of the effects of foreign ownership particularly of financial institutions. It is not only the former minister of finance who has expressed his concern about foreign ownership of financial institutions. His policy is being continued in one very important area by the present Minister of Finance. I suggest that if we are going to permit this type of operation, if we are going to permit foreign insurance companies to operate in Canada, we are going to add to one of the most serious problems of every Canadian government, and that is the question of the balance of payments. Admittedly the profits of this company which will be remitted to the U.S. will not in themselves have any great effect on the balance of payments, but I suggest to you, sir, that the gradual remission of interest and dividends by U.S. owned insurance companies plays a very important part in creating our balance of payments problem. For that reason I think it is of dubious value that we should allow still another such company to enter the field to draw from the available pool of Canadian earnings that go into this sort of protection and at the same time create more problems
July 14, 1966

lor our government which must eventually be dealt with.
I also think, Mr. Chairman, it is time we began to look at the insurance business from the point ol view of the traditional free enterprise competitive theory. We are often told, of course, that competition is the life of the economy, that competition is what provides us with cheap services and goods. It may be true in some instances but I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is not and cannot be true in the field of insurance of any sort.
I do not have before me the proceedings of the committee which unfortunately I was not able to attend, having been away at the time, so I am not sure what is the exact volume of business which this company conducts. I am not sure whether any figures were given to the committee with regard to the operational costs of this company. However, if they are similar to the costs of a company sponsored under another bill by the same hon. member and considered by the committee the other day, then I suggest to you, sir, that we have ample evidence that the proliferation of insurance companies of any type does not lead to cheaper and better service and lower premiums but must inevitably lead to the contrary. As I recall, in this other instance there were some 400 employees who were employed in servicing 70,000 policies. I imagine that is a fairly average ratio of staff and organization to the volume of business.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
If we are concerned, Mr. Chairman, with ensuring that the Canadian people are able to acquire protection against the various hazards of life in a modern society as listed here such as fires, aircraft accidents, automobile accidents, boiler insurance, credit insurance, earthquake insurance, explosion insurance and the whole list right down to the end, windstorm insurance, then I think we have to examine the question of whether or not we can provide them with protection from these vicissitudes by means of competition or whether we should not seriously consider now that this particular type of service to the people of Canada should be carried on by a public authority at much less cost. Obviously it would be at much less cost.
It is impossible, I think, to make out any case whatever for the suggestion that competition is going to have the traditional effect in this particular field. Competition is bound inevitably to increase costs over the whole
Private Bills
insurance business. Competition is bound to increase premiums and increase the cost of insurance for those who seek protection.
I think it is the responsibility of this parliament to decide that this whole matter should be examined with very great care. I brought the matter up in the committee the other day, on another life insurance company bill sponsored by the same hon. member. I suggested then that the time had come for us to give serious consideration to the whole insurance business. The other aspect of the business that is important is that this bill would provide a means by which savings are accumulated. This is a sort of gambling operation. It is a gambling operation in which those who are running the house are able to ensure that they are never going to lose to any great extent.
Once in a while some major catastrophe occurs and one insurance company goes under in the storm, but that is a very rare occurrence. I would imagine, Mr. Chairman, that the very fact we have this endless string of new incorporations for every kind of insurance company indicates quite clearly that this is a very profitable business, that there is a great deal of profit to be gained out of protecting the Canadian people-from the innumerable accidents that may overtake them in our modern society. This being the case, sir, I think it is the responsibility of parliament to find out just how expensive this insurance is for the Canadian people and how these expenses may be reduced.
I want to return for a moment, if I may, to the question of foreign ownership of these institutions. I point out that only in the last two days we have had an example of one of the dangers of foreign ownership, about which no satisfactory answer was received. I may say, from spokesmen on behalf of the government.
I want to stress the fact that two ministers of finance have suggested that foreign ownership of financial institutions in Canada is not conducive to the Canadian welfare. Here in this bill we are providing the opportunity for a completely foreign owned corporation to gamble with the Canadian people, to extract from the Canadian people premiums to cover possible losses. The company may transmit its profits out of this country to the detriment of our balance of payments problem. I have often wondered, Mr. Chairman, when I am told that we must have great infusions of foreign capital in order to keep our economy going, if perhaps we stopped some of these

July 14, 1966
Private Bills
leaks-they are getting to be very large leaks now-which may run into the hundreds of millions of dollars per year we might find ourselves in the happy position of not having to rely, and it is a dangerous reliance, on these infusions of foreign capital. There may be a case that can be made out for foreign investment in productive enterprises. There can be, I submit, no case whatever made out for giving a licence to people who are not Canadians, people who are foreign to this country, to gamble with the Canadian people and extract from the Canadian people part of their income in order to protect those people from accidents.
This is something that should be undertaken by Canadians, only by Canadians, and preferably by Canadians jointly and collectively through their publicly elected governmental bodies. Otherwise, it means we are deciding against the interests of the mass of the Canadian people in favour of not merely our own privileged groups but the privileged groups of another country. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the time has come to examine what the costs are in these companies. I have a note here held over from an earlier debate on this bill and it states that the costs are 10 per cent to 30 per cent. I do not know if the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill has figures on this point, but I am not really concerned whether he has. In an operation of this size I am concerned only with the volume of profits that must be transmitted across the border year by year as this company continues to operate with a licence from the parliament of Canada.
Again I suggest to you, sir, it is the duty of those of us who are here representing the Canadian people, not representing special interests either native or foreign, to make sure that when the Canadian people want to protect themselves from accidents of all sorts they should have coverage at the cheapest possible rates. At the same time we should be able to ensure that there is no unnecessary drain on the resources of this country which such a company constitutes. This, I believe, is a very serious matter. I should like to see all these insurance bills stood over until there is a proper investigation of the whole insurance business in Canada because I have been convinced-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but I must advise him the hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nicholson for the second reading of Bill No. C-215, respecting certain conditions of employment of dock workers at the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lewis.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-215 is unjust and mischievous and to permit its passage would bring great discredit upon parliament. The bill will bring discredit upon individuals in this government who never again would be accepted as honest brokers in labour disputes between management and labour. As we know, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of labour unrest still faces this country and government will be forced to take action to deal with it.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
Second, it will bring discredit upon the supporters of the government, because by supporting this bill they betray the origins of liberalism, or they forfeit the trust that they should have in their leaders. For their leaders said nearly the exact converse of the philosophy espoused by the bill, almost until the very last moment before it was introduced.
Third, to pass Bill No. C-215 would bring discredit upon the whole institution of parliament. For as the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) pointed out so ably, we are being asked to give a blank endorsement to the placement in the labour contract which now exists of terms and conditions which would be drawn up by a commissioner, without there being any opportunity for either of the two sides involved to alter so much as one small fraction of any of those terms and conditions. People would ask: Why on earth do parliamentarians behave as donkeys, passing such legislation?
Years ago, Mr. Speaker, we had a member of this chamber who, after various unsuccessful voyagings in Saskatchewan, has now found his way to the other place. Once in comment on some notion expressed by a member of the Liberal opposition of the day he said: "This is the most unheard of thing I have ever heard of". I did not agree with him at that time, but when Bill No. C-215 wanders into his hands tonight in the other place-presuming it passes here-then he can repeat that sentence and I will agree with him fully.
July 14. 1966

It is possible, Mr. Speaker, under the powers that will be conferred upon the commissioner, whose report will be final and will become part of the contract, to stretch things to the absurd length, for example, of requiring that unloading on the longshores of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec city be carried out by elephants or camels. According to my reading of one clause it might be possible that he would require the longshoremen to do their work in bikinis in the middle of winter.
I do not suggest that the commissioner would abuse the powers that are placed in his hands with such absurd recommendations, Mr. Speaker, but I do suggest this: The power that we would be giving to the commissioner by passage of this bill would surely inhibit any person. I do not think that any one of us would ever like to feel that a commissioner had the last word on anything. There must exist the right for larger bodies or for other people to consider his actions.
I say that this places the commissioner, who perforce by this bill becomes a compulsory arbitrator, in an impossible position. It will also do this to him: No matter what his recommendations, people will be aggrieved by them. Some of those people will be unkind enough to suggest that this was part of the deal beforehand, that it was very well known that the commissioner was going to bring in such recommendations and that this was part of some under-the-table scheme. I am sure that this situation does not exist either, but none the less Mr. Commissioner Picard is put in that position. Therefore I say that Bill No. C-215 will promote mischief. It will lower the esteem of parliament and it will go a long way toward destroying what is left of the ability of this particular government to govern effectively in a time of labour unrest.
The hon. member for Ontario has stated clearly and unequivocally that we cannot condone or support compulsory arbitration; and I repeat the statement that he made then, so that our stand is quite clear. I think I can also say on behalf of my party that we will support the position set forth in the amendment moved by the New Democratic Party; and at the conclusion of my speech I will suggest three, four or five alternatives by which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) could act and take parliament from the unholy position in which it is now placed.
We have had the advantage, Mr. Speaker, of the intervention by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand),
Labour Conditions
who late in the day enters upon the scene. He said-and very fairly too-that he would not want to replace the Minister of Labour in the negotiations, and I am quick to add that I would not want to see him replace the Minister of Labour in the negotiations either. But he could have sat in with the Minister of Labour, who had the advantage-whatever it was-of the help of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and various others. Why not have gone to an expert who has made labour mediation his whole life's work, instead of bringing in those who have had very little experience with the subject?
When the minister defended, as he tried to do, compulsory arbitration, he confused methods of arbitration agreed to by parties well before any dispute arose. He did that at one time; at another time he confused the issue that is now before us with compulsory arbitration as set forth in the general laws of this country. As he well knows, and as we in this house all know, the compulsory arbitration which is being brought into this particular dispute is something smuggled in at the last minute, after everybody's attention had been diverted with many glowing statements about the virtues of collective bargaining. I regret that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, for whom I have a great deal of respect, has lost the candour for which he is famous, and on this particular occasion has adopted the dialectic used by others in the cabinet.
Before I review the record-and I will call this a "review B.C.": "before compulsion"-let me say this: I have a small apology to make to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) before I read some of the glowing statements made on this matter by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and some others. I read his contribution on this particular matter during the labour estimates and found it very difficult to understand. I have read it a couple of times and I cannot understand it. I think what happened is this. He was trying to bring "Industry and Humanity" up to date, but failed. Why? Well, my theory is that the custodian of the crystal ball, the Minister of Transport, dropped it at some time somewhere, and the message did not get through from the great beyond.
First, referring to the exchange between the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) and the minister, as set forth at page 5636 of Hansard for May 27:


Mr. Thomas:: ...Has consideration been given by his department to the use of compulsory arbitration as a means of setting disputes, rather than

July 14. 1966
Labour Conditions
resorting to strike action, as has been the case for many years?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: ...Very serious consideration has been given to this matter by the department and by experienced departmental officials over a period of several years. As a member of cabinet I know something of the difficulties that we have had in trying to work out and find an acceptable formula. If you really believe, as I happen to, in the importance and the significance of collective bargaining, which enables management and labour to sit down on opposite sides of the table and unburden their hearts and take strong positions if necessary, it is difficult to say in all cases compulsory arbitration would be necessary, or advisable.
Then the minister makes remarks concerning national interest, safety and security, for example in the air lines industry, movement of passengers and freight, in many cases on the railways; and then he says this:
I cannot give the hon. member a definite answer, but I can assure him-and this is why I made the appeal earlier today-that any constructive suggestions, which any member of this house or any other person may have to make as to how we might solve this extremely difficult question, when our national interests and economy are at stake, would be very welcome.
A constructive suggestion came from the former minister of labour, the hon. member for Ontario, on May 31, as reported at page 5743 of Hansard, when he asked:
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
-Will the Prime Minister call the parties involved to Ottawa, to bring them into a different atmosphere so they may proceed to a settlement through the collective bargaining arrangement, under the chairmanship of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), who has a great deal of experience in this type of work?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, everything that can be done is being done to bring this strike to an end. The Minister of Labour is in touch with the situation, as my hon. friend knows, and if and when the time comes that the minister who is dealing with the matter feels the intervention of the Prime Minister would be helpful, naturally he will let me know.
Those words were said after the strike had been going on for some time. The strike was causing considerable confusion to the economy in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres, Quebec city, and perforce in the rest of the country.
Then we have this question by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) at page 6054 of Hansard:
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his government anticipates bringing in legislation to end the strike on the St. Lawrence seaway, in view of its prolonged duration and in view of the statement made by the Minister of Finance?
I interject parenthetically that the statement by the Minister of Finance dealt with

the effect of the strike on grain shipments. The Prime Minister answered by saying:
Mr. Speaker, we hope this strike will be ended shortly by the process of free collective bargaining.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
We have here the statement of the Prime Minister and the performing mice.
The record continues on June 9, at page 6173, where the Prime Minister says:
-We have not by any means given up hope that this serious issue will be settled very shortly by the processes of free collective bargaining and not by parliamentary direction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Continuing, on June 10 at page 6240 the Minister of Labour says:
Mr. Speaker, if I remember the right hon. Prime Minister's words yesterday, he said the government was hopeful, as a result of recent developments, that a settlement would be brought about through collective bargaining in good faith with a sincere desire on the part of both parties to see an end to the dispute.
Then we have this intervention of the former minister of labour, now the Minister of National Health and Welfare, on June 13 at page 6907:
We have here a system of free collective bargaining, and it is the earnest endeavour of the government to reach a solution to these difficult labour situations through the procedures which have been established by law under that system of free collective bargaining.
Then came perhaps the happiest moment that the minister has had-I do not think he has had many since-when he announced what we all thought was the final settlement of this particular issue. Following the statements made, the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam made an observation which I shall read. It is to be found at page 6369 of Hansard for June 14, as follows:
I certainly have no objection to the idea of setting up a commission of inquiry to look into this matter, providing the decisions and recommendations of that commission are not binding upon both parties but are simply for the purpose of providing a basis upon which collective bargaining negotiations may continue. I hope the minister will give us some more information about that, perhaps when the orders of the day are called.
Earlier the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) had stated that the members of his party were very happy that a solution had been found without the necessity for parliamentary intervention. He said this:
Perhaps the proposal we made last week for parliamentary intervention without compulsory arbitration may have had some bearing on bringing the parties together.
July 14, 1966

Labour Conditions
At no time had the Minister of Labour said: Well, we have an agreement, but there are two words in it, namely "or otherwise" which can bring about a bill. If there were any reservations in the minister's mind, they were not stated.
Continuing the record, on June 23 at page 6785 the Minister of Labour announced the appointment of Dr. Laurent Picard, under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, as a commissioner. There is no suggestion in the announcement that the findings of the commissioner would become part of the labour agreement, through the measure to which we are now referring.
Continuing the story on June 29 at page 7019 we have the following:


David Lewis: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of the bill he introduced earlier, and ask him to tell the house whether he informed the union or the shipping federation at the time the settle-men was reached of his intention to introduce compulsory arbitration of the issue of productivity, following the appointment of a commission of inauiry.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I most certainly did, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: I wish to make sure of this. Did the minister inform both the union and the federation, or just one of those organizations?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes.
This was the first indication, of course, to my knowledge of a suggestion which had never been advanced in the press, or in any statements made inside or outside the house, that methods other than free collective bargaining were to be used in settling this particular dispute.
Continuing the story further, on July 8 at page 7387 the Minister of Labour said:
X think the phrase "compulsory arbitration" was carefully avoided; but the fact that there would be a binding solution, a recommendation to parliament-that legislation be enacted to make the terms binding, that is, the recommendations of the industrial inquiry commission on certain aspects-there is no question about that, Mr. Speaker.
I would say that the arguments this afternoon presented by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) and by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis ) have clearly brought that fact out.
What about the agreement itself, Mr. Speaker? It is set forth on page 7436 of Hansard for July 8. The words over which so much time has been spent namely "or otherwise" are set forth in this document. The pertinent part reads as follows:
The agreements terminating on December 31, 1965, shall be amended by incorporating therein
the terms of settlement set out above and these amended agreements shall remain in effect until December 31, 1967, unless amended by negotiations or otherwise.
We have had the voices of Philadelphia trilling in this chamber this afternoon, trying to explain that the words "or otherwise" do not encompass anything so wide sweeping and important as compulsory arbitration. May I add my own thoughts. I will not deal with the words "or otherwise" but instead I shall deal with the word "unless". The way I read this provision, it means that the agreement remains unless something is done. That is, the agreement as set forth here shall remain in effect unless something is done. That agreement deals with wages and some other matters, but certainly not with questions of productivity, and like matters which are the heart and soul of the measure we are now considering.
The record, I think, clearly indicates an understanding which led to a misunderstanding which, if properly spelled out, might have saved difficulties for both sides. Perhaps the longshoremen would not have accepted the idea of a binding report by a commissioner. Perhaps they would have accepted it. But to ask working men to take the words, "or otherwise", and construe them into a piece of legislation being solemnly enacted in the House of Commons and in the other place, to which royal assent might be given, is stretching the absurd into the impossible.
[DOT] (7:20 pjn.)
The agreement is neither flesh nor fowl, but bad red herring. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is an obligation on us to rescue the government from its own follies if there is to be hope for labour peace in Canada this year, and if we are to restore the confidence of management and labour that they can come to this place, present their problems, and the government will offer the assistance of its Department of Labour, its skilled people, and even such skills as members of the government themselves possess, to bring industrial stability to a country that is badly in need of the same. Therefore I make some positive suggestions to the minister to help extricate him from the difficulties that he himself, or somebody else, plunged him into.
There is the suggestion of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) to forsake the bill and leave it up to the two sides by collective bargaining or, at the very least, to let them look at the report of Mr. Commissioner Picard and make what they can of it before

July 14, 1966
Labour Conditions
coming back to parliament and telling us their troubles again.
Also, there is the suggestion made some time ago by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) considered although, to my knowledge, he did not act upon it. It is set forth at page 6299 of Hansard for June 13, when the Leader of the Opposition inquired- -whether the government is giving consideration to setting up a commission to review in detail the general position created in employer-employee relations by reason of technological change, a matter that is of prime importance in connection with the various disputes which are arising?
The answer of the Prime Minister was:
Mr. Speaker, the matter mentioned by my right hon. friend is, of course, one of very great and continuing significance, as we have learned

if we needed to learn-from the dispute that we have been discussing. It may well be, Mr. Speaker, that if the house requires an opportunity to discuss this particular dispute, this will be one of the elements that we will be discussing. I quite agree that it should be considered in its wider context. I think it would be the feeling of the house that the government would give consideration to an examination of the kind suggested by my right hon. friend.
I might add that the dispute being discussed at that particular time was the longshoremen dispute. That is the second suggestion I would mention which received an at-least-we-will-look-into-it-because-it-is-a-good-idea reply from the Prime Minister.
I would suggest to the minister that this is a way out for him not to deal with the longshore dispute by the compulsory arbitration set forth in this bill by having the broader issues examined, so that these people will not feel they are being treated separate or apart but that the whole problem of automation, job security and productivity is being examined at the same time. This could be done, as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, by setting up a commission of inquiry, and to this I would add the suggestion that we could do it in yet another way.
I suggest we could refer these important issues of job security, automation and productivity-surely the most momentous issues now facing the business and industrial life of the country-to a committee of this house in which a large number of hon. members, coming from varied backgrounds, could examine all these things.
I myself have great faith, I will not call it optimistic faith but faith which I am sure would be justified, in what such a committee study could bring forth not only to help the disputants in this particular case but also to 
set guidelines, by legislation if need be, that would help labour disputants in this country over a generation ahead in dealing with problems caused by computers and all the other modern trappings.
These are several suggestions, in addition to the one offered by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) that the subject matter of the dispute be referred to a committee. In that respect our ideas are probably very much alike.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I say that the bill is unjust and mischievous. It will bring government, the supporters of government, and parliament itself into discredit. I want to make it clear that the Conservative opposition supports the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South, and I also want to make it clear that we will reject Bill C-215.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)


Mr. Joseph-Alfred Mongrain (Trois-Rivieres):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the house understands why I want to take part in the discussion on that bill respecting conditions of employment at the ports on the St. Lawrence and on the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, before going on to my main remarks, I would like to thank all hon. members in my name and on behalf of all my constituents for the extreme courtesy and respect they show for the name of my riding, since I brought the matter up in the house, and the last example is that of the previous speaker who was careful to call my city Trois-Rivieres, as it should be called. Some people may think that it is an insignificant matter but in my riding it is a matter of pride, of family feeling, and saying that we are happy about the courtesy shown by my colleagues here is saying a lot.
About the bill, Mr. Speaker, I will say that, as an independent, I am a little like a spectator who does not even pay the amusement tax, who has the pleasure of seeing people in office introduce their bills and also seeing with what vigour the opposition fights them. I find it not only very entertaining but also very instructive.
For instance, I have great esteem for the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) and for the hon. member for York South, because they are never dull. They are above average speakers and also they have quite
July 14, 1966

an extraordinary gift for parliamentary debate; they always interest me even when 1 do not share their views.
I must say just the same that there are times when the strength of their arguments was greatly reduced in the eyes of the most interested spectator that I am, the independent spectator, by the partisan contingencies which become obvious. For instance, when I heard this afternoon the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) bitterly criticize the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) in a tone of voice and with arguments which seemed forced, twisted, in many cases, I said to myself, of course he is a member of the official opposition, leader of his party, he must absolutely object. That is his role, that of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, to object with all its might, with the argumentative strength at his disposal to what the government proposes.
In the eyes of the interested spectator as well as in those of probably many spectators outside this house, that weakens probably, certainly in many cases, the strength of his arguments. And that enables us to ask ourselves questions on the value, as far as sincerity is concerned, of some arguments voiced.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell a story about the member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I am known in my home town as one who likes to tease members of the bar, lawyers. Some people even say that I am allergic to lawyers. This may not be true. I like to tease them because lawyers can hit back better than other people. They are more argumentative.
Lawyers in several provinces of the country are great friends of mine. Back home, those whom I cruelly tease vote for me most of the time. But I was amazed in many cases at the reaction of some lawyers when I asked them, after hearing them making their plea with extraordinary conviction and eloquence: if, by any chance, the individual you defended crossed over to the other side and you had to put the case for the prosecutor, would you do it with as much conviction? And those lawyers would answer: Of course, it is my job. I must resort to all the tricks of the law to win my customer's case.
So then, Mr. Speaker, for a layman such as I, truth does not stem from legislation, but legislation from truth. With the years, I have reached the point where many questions come to my mind when I hear brilliant indictments
Labour Conditions
or eloquent pleas such as that of the hon. member for York South this afternoon. In his argument, he failed, in his wisdom and knowledge to consider that for common people such as me and many others, who heard him say "All my life I have been counsel for certain unions, I have appeared for certain unions" that would remind us: "He is doing his job and his job as a lawyer is to defend his client, the client who is paying his salary." I do not know whether he is still on the pay roll of the unions, but evil tongues claim that the N.P.D. campaign funds are supplied by-I am happy to see the hon. member for York South entering the house because I would have disliked to speak of him in his absence, I have too high a regard for him. The Holy Ghost probably inspired him to come and hear what I have to say and more power to him-when the member for York South brought out that point, the value of his argument was reduced to my layman's mind. And when I recalled that it is being unkindly said, although it may be true and it seems warranted by certain indications and by certain events, that the campaign funds of the N.P.D. are supplied by certain powerful unions, I may say that the value of his argument was somewhat reduced.
At home, Mr. Speaker, I am not being financed by any union although, to the surprise of the N.P.D., I would say that most of their supporters voted for the independent member, because the independent member for Trois-Rivieres has always told the truth to the union members at home. Twenty times, possibly, I negotiated collective agreements and I negotiated with learned lawyers, wise in the ways of labour-management relations, and we always got along fine.
We only had a dispute once, which involved a bastard union. I am not saying it was a bastard union: the other unions, the Conseil des metiers du travail, the Syndicats natio-naux catholiques clamoured from the roof tops that it was a bastard union. That is probably why we did not agree.
But, Mr. Speaker, I have always told the people back home, our union people with whom I have had contacts in public life for 20 years what I believed to be the truth.
After this preamble, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that, under the present circumstances, I fail to see how anyone can blame the minister for introducing this bill. When it is claimed that it deals a blow to free and

July 14, 1966
Labour Conditions
voluntary negotiations, I say the facts and the truth are being twisted. I say the best proof that the parties accepted that solution, when there was no other alternative, is that they decided to go back to work. There was, therefore, tacit agreement, Mr. Speaker.
And when they say that this is an almost criminal interference with free and voluntary bargaining, they forget that this is an exceptional case.
As for me, Mr. Speaker, I would go farther than the Minister of Labour. I submit that, in public services or in organizations, even those not directly responsible for public service, but having contingencies where public interest is at stake, there should be a machinery to provide for prompt bargaining. For instance, it should be provided that three, four or five months before the expiry of a collective agreement, the parties concerned should sit down and negotiate. And if on expiry of the collective agreement, for instance, they did not agree, let us have arbitration courts to settle the matter.
After all, in our complex economy we must manage to arrive at some sensible solution. I tell you that it is not intelligent to allow a union to endanger the whole economy of a country to satisfy its own interest.
And I am not the only one to say so, Mr. Speaker. I should like to advance the testimony of someone who knows more about it than I, because I did some research when, like everyone, I read in the papers what the president of the Labour Congress said at one time. The Montreal La Presse said:
The president of the Canadian Labour Congress violently contested yesterday the statements of the Minister of Labour who said that compulsory arbitration could help to reduce the number of strikes.
Mr. Jodoin added:
However, he said, if union members are to keep their integrity and share in Canada's growing prosperity-
I find that very surprising. In order to share in the growing prosperity, we must jeopardize it by ruinous strikes such as we have known.
They must be able to stop working without threat of government intervention.
Elsewhere, Mr. Speaker, I found a statement by Mr. Walter Reuther, president of the United Auto Workers, affiliated to the American Federation of Labor and to the C.I.O. He is not a newcomer in the field of labour; following the strike of the bus drivers in

New York a short time ago, he said this- I shall try to give as faithful a translation as possible and in case I do a bad job, I shall say I took this passage from the January or February issue of Time magazine: we must put an end to our strikes-this is Walter Reuther speaking-we must put an end to our strikes, which are endangering the survival of society. We can no longer tolerate a situation where a group of employees, even if they have a right to what they ask, can paralyse the economy of a whole community.
It is obvious that Walter Reuther is not in favour of compulsory arbitration. He suggests solutions less generous and less ruinous than endless strikes. In regard to protracted strikes which further the interests of some people, he adds this: We must create without delay a tripartite commission representing the worker, the employer and the state, which will set up the machinery for new policies for the immediate settling of strikes in the public service.
Well, I for one believe that the bill before us is not only acceptable but that it is going to provide, once and for all, for those disputes which are disastrous to the economy.
And I was shocked at hearing the hon. member for York South say: "Postpone that. And if another disastrous strike should occur, it will still be time to pass legislation."
We would have to go through another disastrous strike, Mr. Speaker. For my part, I believe that workers have had more than enough of such things.
I suggest that our workers are getting to wonder whether this is not all eye-wash, whether the whole truth is not hidden from them. I think it is time that workers in 1966 hear the truth, even from their politicians, even from their labour leaders, even from the learned lawyers representing the labour union. In a case such as the one with which we are concerned, at a time when an agreement could not be reached, I say that the will of both parties was expressed clearly enough to warrant government action. I would go as far as to say that the government waited too long to take action and, in saying that, I say I have the support of the rank and file of the labour unions, perhaps not of the leaders whose prestige is at stake if they accept that, but of the people who have to tighten their belts when they have been on strike for 38 or 40 days without getting any wages.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the workers are wondering whether too many people are not
July 14. 1966

playing politics with the workers' interests and with the so-called benefits of labour unions. I think that the workers are beginning to realize that they are being fooled in order to increase the prestige of some fabulously paid labour leaders.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the workers are aware of the fact that they are the ones to foot the final bill on all disputes harmful to the whole economy and that they may be the cat's-paw, in other words, the suckers. They are too well informed these days, not to realize that the wool is being pulled over their eyes and they are only waiting for the opportunity to rightly rebel against such goings-on. They have not had many opportunities so far and I know something about it, because I have personally walked the docks of Trois-Rivieres for twenty years. I have in Montreal and also in Quebec, a certain number of friends and acquaintances who give me their views on the situation and tell me, each in turn, that they would refuse, in certain circumstances, to follow their labour leaders if they were not being threatened with broken legs or being thrown into the St. Lawrence. For the enlightenment of those who think that I am dreaming this up, let me remind them of all that happened a few years back at the time of Hal Bank's union and what came out at the inquiry that the government launched later to find out what had occurred.
I say that our workers find it intolerable to see labour leaders urging them to break the law, to overlook court orders and to flout the law, because their own interests are involved, knowing that this will boomerang, that others will also scorn the law and that they, themselves, will become the victims of such contempt of law.
Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, I think it is the government's duty to take action, which it did perhaps a little too late, in my opinion. Maybe it did not have the freedom to do it before, obviously fearing all this public protest coming from certain sectors more concerned about their personal advantage than about the commonwealth, but this is a case where the government cannot forget that the commonwealth must come before everything, that the general economy of the nation must have precedence even over the rightful interest of a group, and I think that our workers have enough common sense to understand it.
Mr. Speaker, our workers want to work; they want the government to give them work 23033-487J
Labour Conditions
or organize an economy where they can find employment. They want to work at reasonable wages and for that, they know that the economy must be strong, firm. There are no miracles in life and they know it. They are sufficiently well-informed nowadays to know that. It is no longer possible to make them believe that the moon is made of green cheese and they know that, at times, the government will have to intervene to protect them and that, in other cases, it will have to bring them to reason because they will have been misled by others. I think the majority of our workers are eagerly seeking that truth and that they will be happy to see that the government has the courage of its responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I know it is unpopular to speak this way. I am also of the opinion that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) know very well that after the statements they made there will be tomorrow a general outcry in certain fanatic and pro-labour papers and when I say prolabour, I mean in a fanatic way, because there are papers which are pro-labour in an intelligent way. Hence, that calls for certain courage. I know also that my statements will perhaps not be popular in a certain press but I know that they reflect the feeling of the humble worker who is deprived of his wages during three or four weeks because of legal red tape and of bickering on the meaning of a word or of a sentence which enable learned lawyers to get phenomenal salaries and politicians to make the fortune of their political party, while they do not have the means to pay for their groceries during the week end.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favour of the bill and against the amendment of the New Democratic Party for the reasons that I have outlined and for others that I would have liked to point out. But I do not want to overtax the patience of the house, I will conclude my remarks now and repeat the words of a famous politician named Abraham Lincoln, for the benefit of those who deal with labour questions in a biased or interested manner:
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)

You can fool some of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

July 14. 1966
Labour Conditions


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the former independent member for Three Rivers.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. friend that my city is called Trois-Rivieres.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order let me say that I deliberately used the phrase "Three Rivers" and will continue to do so until the hon. member and some of his friends cease to refer to the province from which I come as "Columbie Britannique" and commence to refer to it by its proper name, British Columbia.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I will say to my hon. friend that I would be greatly pleased to do so, at his request.


Frank Howard: In so far as I am concerned now, the riding will now be referred to as "Trois-Rivieres".


John Whitney Pickersgill: This sounds like a lesson in bilingualism.


Frank Howard: I want to express admiration for a certain aspect of the Liberal party, and I do so ungrudgingly. Having listened to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) it seems to me that Liberals, no matter what their origin may be, have a tremendous ability to justify any procedure by distortion of the facts and misinterpretation of the words. That hon. minister obviously set out to substantiate a very poor argument by using the very weakest quotation he could find in Hansard. Let me congratulate him on his success.
Under our rules we are required to accept the word of an hon. member. In the circumstances of the present situation we are required to accept the word of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) as to what took place during those wee small hours that he talked about. By the same token we are required to call Claude Jodoin and Mr. Cutler liars because of what they said as to what took place.


Jean Marchand: On a point of order,
tMr. Moagraln.)
Mr. Speaker. I would like to know who said that Messrs. Jodoin and Cutler were liars?


Frank Howard: Had the hon. minister been listening he might have understood what I said, but for his benefit I will repeat myself. Our rules require us to accept the word of hon. members of this house. Accordingly we must accept what the Minister of Labour told us took place at these meetings. Whenever there is a conflict between what has been said by the minister and what has been said by Mr. Jodoin and Mr. Cutler as to what took place we must accept the minister's version, and therefore classify the other two gentlemen as liars.


Jean Marchand: That is not true.


Frank Howard: That is a regrettable situation, but it is what hon. gentlemen opposite are asking us to do. I for one think this is an extreme misuse of the rules of this house. Unfortunately this misuse will continue so long as the government blindly insists on ramming this bill through parliament, and so long as the government refuses to accept the cautious course advocated by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) in his amendment.
If hon. members opposite would accept our advice and proceed cautiously in regard to this bill, permitting the subject matter to go to a committee before which hon. gentlemen here, Mr. Jodoin and Mr. Cutler could appear as witnesses, perhaps the committee could come to a conclusion as to the facts. The key to the whole matter is, as has been said by many hon. members and by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who said what, and who agreed to what? I quite frankly say this, with all due respect to the rules and the minister, that at this juncture I am not prepared to accept the minister's version as to what took place, because on a number of occasions when he has spoken in this house about this matter he has hedged, qualified and been vague.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
I think in a situation such as this, perhaps unique in labour-management history, perhaps unique in parliamentary history, that was no time for the Minister of Labour to be coy. It was no time for him to be silent about this extremely vital question of whether or not there should be compulsory arbitration. I should like to read what the minister said, as have other hon. members. On June 14 the
July 14, 1966

minister announced the settlement of the dispute. I shall read only the particularly relevant sections of his remarks. I do not want to read them out of context, and if anybody wants me to read the whole thing, I will do so. He said, as reported at page 6368:
It was difficult if not impossible for the parties to agree on the nature and extent of possible increases of productivity.
He was there approaching the nub of this question. Then he said:
When this situation developed I, as Minister of Labour, several weeks ago announced that I intended to set up a commission of inquiry under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to inquire into the possibilities of improving productivity-
That was the time the minister should have disclosed that he was going to do something unique. This was the time that I contend the minister misled the house by not going further, by not saying that he really did not intend to set up a commission under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act as it exists. He should have said: We intend to follow that up by introducing legislation which will make that commissioner's report final and binding. He did not say that at that time.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Frank Howard: Gladly.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Was the hon. member in the house this afternoon and did he hear the minister's explanation of why he did not say that?


Frank Howard: If you wait, I will give you the answer-if you will sit down. No, I was not in the house, unfortunately. I had every hope, desire and intention of being here, but other circumstances more personal than public unfortunately kept me away. I did not hear the minister's explanation. I would be glad to listen to it now. I realize we would be running contrary to the rules in doing this, because my hon. friend from York South ran into this difficulty before. Then, Mr. Speaker, I have to go in the direction of saying that the minister should have related that on that day. The minister then said:
I now wish to confirm that I intend to set up such a commission within the next few days. I will have more to say on that subject when I announce the appointment of the commissioner.
The minister was giving an indication of something vague and indefinite at that time, true; but an indication of something else,
Labour Conditions
something in addition to the mere appointment of a commissioner under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I submit that the minister was probably ashamed to say it at that time-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. I think that when I asked the question that I asked a few moments ago the hon. member should at least have asked for a copy of Hansard, or the blues of this afternoon, or something else, before carrying on in this vein, becaue I explained in no uncertain terms that I had prepared a statement to be used in the house and had deleted a section of it at the request of the lawyer for the I.L.A., because he said he thought the representatives of the unions should be allowed to explain it to their membership before any statements were made in this house about proposed legislation. It was done at their request, and the original notes that were sent up to Hansard will show that.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, when the minister rose on the question of privilege I inquired of my hon. friend from York South what was said, so I have heard it from two sources. This is all the more reason why the minister should send this subject matter to a committee in order to get at the true facts of the situation, because I understand that Mr. Cutler denies that. Whether he does or not, I cannot say. What went on in those wee, small hours of the morning is unknown to me. I submit that perhaps the minister can be excused for not having disclosed that information to the house on June 14-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I again rise on a question of privilege. The statement I made did not refer to anything that happened in the wee, small hours of the morning; it referred to something that took place just as I was coming into the house with a prepared statement.


Frank Howard: The minister just said that on June 14 he did not make any reference to the compulsory feature of the legislation which he intended to introduce because he was requested not to do so by Mr. Cutler. Whether that took place in the wee small hours of the morning, I really do not know. It took place presumably in a conversation between the minister and Mr. Cutler. The minister says one thing: Mr. Cutler says another. All that the amendment before us seeks is a bit of reason, a bit of sense of fair play in

July 14. 1966
Labour Conditions
order that parliament can hear somebody else's side of the story. The minister apparently did not treat Mr. Cutler's request with any great respect because on June 14 he told us he would have something further to say about the subject upon the appointment of the commissioner.
On June 23 the minister announced the appointment of the commissioner and his remarks were noticeably barren of any reference to this something additional. Was that at the request of Mr. Cutler or anybody else? Let me read the statement the minister made on June 23:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in English and French of the appointment of Dr. Laurent Picard, under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, as a commission to investigate and report on certain outstanding matters arising out of the industrial dispute that involved longshoring operations and related trades in the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec.
Let me read part of it again:
-as a commission to investigate and report-
Those are the words in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, "investigate and report"-not "investigate and impose". I submit that, with all the bland comments of the minister, he is doing a darned poor job of trying to cover up for gross mismanagment in an attempt to represent one particular side in this dispute. I am not one of those who usually refers to years of experience, and the like, but never have I heard anything in the labour-management field as terrible as this. The most gracious way in which I can put it, the most kind comment I can make is that it is a piece of legislation based on a misunderstanding.
For heaven's sake, Mr. Minister, don't ask this parliament to stigmatize itself by authorizing yellow dog contracts. There have been enough of them in the past, of sell-out contracts by unscrupulous individuals in both the labour and management fields, and to demean the position of parliament in endorsing such things is, I think, asking too much of parliament.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) earlier today referred, by way of query I think, to the contents of a bill in my name which was listed for introduction. Because this information was requested I think it might be worth while to place on the record the key points of that particular bill, those that relate to the question of negotiations and operation under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I might say that even though the bill was in my name, I

only acted in that respect as an agent for the party itself, because this was a matter of strong unanimity.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
We had no illusions that the bill would be accepted or that it might become law; such is not the course to be followed in this house. Our main contention and approach at that time was to get negotiations under way which would lead to a solution.
Let me read clause 7 of the bill that I had hoped I could introduce. It says:
The company and each union-
And let me add there are previous parts to this interpretation clause which define the words "company" and "union". It goes on to say:
-shall forthwith and, in any case not later than five days from the commencement of this act, enter into negotiations with a view to the settlement of any matters presently in dispute beween them as to the terms of an amendment or revision of the existing collective agreement, and shall negotiate in good faith with one another and make every reasonable effort to conclude a settlement and to enter into a new collective agreement.
The principal point behind this clause is not compulsory arbitration but compulsory negotiations, which I think anyone would want to see, because for some five weeks up to that time there had been no attempts to bargain in good faith so as to reach a conclusion in the dispute. We felt that one of the principal points in any law of this nature should hinge upon the requirement that there be collective bargaining in good faith.
I might add at this point that I received comments from several hon. gentlemen opposite in an unofficial way, and that they were almost venomous in their opposition to this sort of legislation. I will refrain from mentioning their names, as they know themselves better than I do, but their objections and comments made to me personally related to compulsory arbitration. This is another reason why I welcome the opportunity to present the principal point in this bill, which is that it does not contain any element of compulsion, except to require compulsory negotiations which are most necessary in order to reach a settlement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he would read all the operative sections of this bill? I do not ask him to waste the time of the house by reading the interpretation clause, but maybe he will read to us all the operative clauses, and not just clause 7.
July 14, 1966


Frank Howard: That is what I am doing. I will gladly make this bill available, as I did to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister who asked me specifically if he could have a copy. Subclause 2 reads as follows:
If at the expiration of 60 days from the commencement of negotiations pursuant to subsection (1) any matters in dispute have not been settled such matters shall be referred to an industrial inquiry commission consisting of a single commissioner-
This is a departure from the general rule, -appointed pursuant to subsection (1) and (2) of section 56 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act;
I may say here that it has long been my belief that a three-man arbitration and conciliation board is a waste of time because two of the members represent their people, and when a conflict arises within the board itself concerning the matter in dispute, it invariably falls upon the chairman to make a decision anyway.


Jean Marchand: Did the hon. member ask the labour movement what it thinks about having a single arbitrator?


Frank Howard: I was in the International Woodworkers of America for a long period of time and in our contract we had a single arbitrator, the late Chief Justice Gordon McG. Sloan.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the hon. gentleman say "a single arbitrator"?


Frank Howard: Yes, in the contract that existed. When I was in the International Woodworkers of America, our contract named a single arbitrator, the late Chief Justice Gordon McG. Sloan to arbitrate in disputes arising out of collective agreements, not those dealing with negotiations which was an entirely separate matter.
May I also say to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that I am not representing labour; I am here to try to legislate for the good of the nation. It is my view that a single commissioner would be far more beneficial than a tripartite group in a case such as this.
Subclause 2 goes on to read:
-provided however, that in the event the union and the company fail to agree upon the person who should constitute the industrial inquiry commission the governor in council shall make the appointment within five days of the expiration of the said 60 days.
Labour Conditions
This is standard practice. Subclause (3) reads:
Immediately following its appointment the industrial inquiry commission shall inquire into the matters in dispute and shall give full opportunity to all parties to present evidence and make representations.
This again is standard practice.
The following clause is a departure from the provisions in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. It reads as follows:
The industrial inquiry commission shall have the authority to make reports including recommendations to the Minister of Labour from time to time on matters referred to it, but in any event all such matters shall be recommended upon not later than the first day of June. 1967.
This would allow the commissioner ample time and opportunity to study the matters involved in the dispute and to make recommendations about them, provided that by June 1, 1967 all the matters had been disposed of.
Note the key word "reports", which is taken from the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and which the Minister of Labour used on June 23 when he announced the appointment of Dr. Picard as the commissioner, with the same implication-that he report.
Subclause (5) reads as follows:
Upon receipt of a report including recommendations from the industrial inquiry commission relating to any matter in dispute between the company and each union, the Minister of Labour shall furnish a copy to each of the parties affected and shall publish the same in such manner as he sees fit.
This again is the standard approach.
Subclause (6) reads as follows:
Nothing in this act shall be deemed to limit or restrict the rights of the parties to an existing collective agreement to agree to vary or amend any of the terms thereof and to give effect thereto.
This is the operative part of the proposed legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman another question? Is there no provision in the legislation requiring the I.L.A. members to go back to work?


Frank Howard: Yes, this is again standard practice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman read that clause?


Frank Howard: The proposed bill, patterned as it was on one passed by this parliament

July 14, 1966
Labour Conditions
some time ago, arranges for the appointment of an administrator to carry on the business of the company. There is a further requirement that every employee who was then on strike should return to the duties of his employment, that there would be no discrimination against him and the like. There is also a provision for wages, which we understood at that time had been a matter of agreement amongst the parties, although it is true they hinged upon certain other factors. I left this clause out because I thought the Minister of Transport and other hon. members on the government side of the house would have a sufficient knowledge of such legislation to know that these provisions would automatically be included in such a bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say, sir, that I would still be very grateful to the hon. gentleman if he would read every clause, without commenting on each, except for clause 7 which he has already read, so that we will all be acquainted with what was in the proposed bill.


Frank Howard: If the minister had had sufficient interest, as did the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, to make inquiries about these provisions at the time I gave notice on the order paper, he would have been acquainted with the bill. If the minister's colleagues or hon. members on his side of the house had not refused our request for unanimous consent to introduce the bill, it would have been introduced and made public. It is only upon the request of the minister that I brought it forward today.


Jean Marchand: Perhaps I should not ask a general question of this nature, but will the hon. gentleman tell me whether according to his bill the workers would have had to return to work?
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Well, if the minister had been listening he would know I said they would, under an administrator, to carry on the business of loading and unloading the ships.


Jean Marchand: In other words, you would have denied the right of the workers to strike?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is as logical as the speech the minister made this afternoon.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: You would not know what logic was.


Frank Howard: As I said earlier to the minister in these remarks, I appreciate his ability

to distort the facts and misinterpret statements. However, no matter how hard you try, you are not going to do it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might request the hon. gentleman, very humbly, just to read his bill, for the benefit of those of us who did not think we had a right to have it before the house was in possession of it?


Frank Howard: You had the right to have it, if you had not objected.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not object.


Frank Howard: Not you, personally, I know; you would not dare do anything like that. It would run against your grain to settle a matter of this sort. I still have the stencils for mimeographing this bill in my office and I will gladly run off a few thousand copies for the minister tomorrow if he wants them. If I were to read the bill clause by clause, I would take far too long. I believe I have covered the salient points.
What we have before us in this bill-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? While I have not seen a copy of the bill, I have read the press release, and I should like to ask if the bill presented by the hon. member was not predicated on the fact that a firm offer had been made by the Shipping Federation? Is there any evidence to support the idea there was an unconditional offer made by the Shipping Federation?


Frank Howard: The bill was predicated upon a desire to get that aspect of our economy moving again and, hopefully of stirring the hon. gentleman off his seat in order to get cracking on that particular dispute.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would mind answering my question?


Frank Howard: You are just too impatient, that is all. This indicates a weak position on your part, since you are trying to push something through the house which you cannot fully substantiate. Part of the bill related to wage increases-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. gentleman-


Frank Howard: Just watch that impatience; you will never get any further in the cabinet that way, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is watching you. He does not like this impatience. He likes to take things slow and easy, mostly so that he can change his mind later at any convenient time.
July 14, 1966

The bill I drafted contained a provision with respect to wage increases which, as I said before, we understood at that time had been the subject of agreement between the parties. It is true we understood also they were connected with some other matters which formed part of the package. Not being privy to the offers and counter-offers, other than by gossip and hearsay, what else could one do? If I had been in the minister's position, and I say this quite humbly, perhaps things would have been started a lot faster than they were. If the minister had had any really serious desire to deal with this matter he would have done so long before he got pushed into it.
The bill before us contains a provision which, no matter how you dress it up, no matter how you misinterpret what the effects might be, no matter how you want to qualify it, calls for compulsory arbitration based on sneakiness. There is not and has not yet been exhibited any intention on the part of the government to allow the other people who were involved in this discussion to tell parliament what their views are. We have had one of three sides presented and we are being asked, under the rules, to accept that statement as the gospel truth.
The worst feature about the bill is that parliament is being asked to force the unknown upon two elements in our society. Parliament is being asked to legislate for some unknown thing in the future, a most unique sort of proposal. Parliament is being asked to say to the Shipping Federation of Canada: We do not know what this is all about, but we think Dr. Picard will be able to find out and he will force you to do certain things. We are being asked to say to the longshoremen who are working there: We do not know anything about the procedures of loading or unloading ships, but we are going to force you to accept what Dr. Picard tells us, you should accept that, because he does not know anything about it either. This is what I consider to be the worst feature of-the bill, and I believe it should be rejected. It does not matter who said what or who did not say what or whether was an agreement about certain things, which I submit the amendment seeks to work out. The principal feature, which I understand the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) presented with some force, as did the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), was that we were being asked to legislate some unknown quality in the future, and impose upon unsuspecting people some 23033-488
Labour Conditions
unknown provision relating to their wages, hours and working conditions.
Since wages have a connection with prices and profits we are being asked to legislate on one aspect of the economic activity in the longshore industry. The natural follow-up when you start to legislate on wages-and this is why I was reluctant to introduce my draft bill, and I am sure this is why the minister is reluctant, and why the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) is able to say his feelings about compulsory arbitration are such as to prevent his accepting something even approximating compulsory arbitration,-is that parliament must step in and legislate with regard to the other two aspects as well. This is an exeremely dangerous step for anybody who has any sincere desire to see free collective bargaining take place. This is another reason I think the bill should be rejected. It would be one more interference with the whole structure of prices, administration and profits. I am not saying that at some time this might not be a desirable thing. However, it is most unfair to extract one item and say we are going to impose particular conditions in respect of it, but allow the other two aspects to run free.
I do hope, even though there may be rancour and harsh feelings, perhaps some words said that would have been better left unsaid, that the minister will seriously consider accepting the proposal made by the hon. member for York South, namely referring the subject matter of this bill to a committee, so that parliament can get the story from all those who desire to appear before that committee. Perhaps on that basis parliament can come to some conclusion as to whether or not there was an agreement between the parties.
As the situation is now, we have one of three sides of the case and we are being asked to accept the hon. gentleman's word as gospel truth, because the rules say so. We are being asked to disregard whatever views the Shipping Federation or the longshoremen may have about this particular matter. The minister would be well advised to do this. If he does not, if he insists upon the course of ramming this particular legislation through parliament, he will be demeaning parlaiment. I, for one, simply cannot participate in parliament's being asked to legislate yellow dog contracts into existence for this union.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate at this time and very briefly to express my strong opposition to this proposed

July 14, 1966
Labour Conditions
legislation, Bill No. C-215. In doing so I do not plan, of course, to attack the minister, for whom I have always had the greatest respect, and still have. However, I do think that he has been misguided in this situation.
We all know that since this government came into power the minister has been brought forward on a number of occasions by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to bail out other ministers who have dug a hole in which to bury themselves. We have not heard from them since, so he did a very good job. However, I am afraid that the minister must have dug a hole for himself on this occasion; and this is regrettable because I do not think that he would have done this on his own. I think there must have been some assistance from an unknown source, and in reviewing the situation it could be that there is the fine Pickersgillian hand behind the scenes, to the extent that as acting prime minister on that occasion possibly he has led the minister down the garden path. I do not know whether or not this is correct, but I suggest it could be so. Goodness knows, we are bad enough off now with the present Prime Minister; but I hope that the day will never come when we will have the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) as prime minister.
The minister said in his remarks today that Mr. Claude Jodoin was opposed to binding legislation; that the union did not agree to a commissioner or to binding legislation. He also mentioned, through questioning I think, that an agreement was drafted by the deputy minister of labour. So here we have a situation where the government practically draws up an agreement, at least from what I have been told. Then someone has said to the Shipping Federation: Look, you agree to that and we will see that there is legislation brought in, and everything will be hunkey-dory for the shipping federation.
What are we faced with in this legislation, Mr. Speaker? The hon. members for Ontario (Mr. Starr) and York South (Mr. Lewis) put the situation exceptionally well and placed the case before the house, so I do not intend to recall dates, telegrams or letters, to show who said what and who did not say what. Both hon. members are to be commended for the fine job that they did of pointing out the flaws in this iniquitous and vicious-as I think it is-legislation. I cannot see the justification for compulsory arbitration. I am not for it, I will never be for it and I will vote against it.

As was said by the two hon. members to whom I have referred, this legislation is compulsory arbitration in its most extreme and its worst form. As other hon. members have said, it will put into effect recommendations which are not yet even made. We do not know what this commissioner will say.
Supposing, Mr. Speaker, we approved this bill, and the commissioner says in his report that from now on only Liberals will be employed on the docks. That could happen. It is just as reasonable to suggest that as to suggest anything else. We do not know what this man will recommend. The bill is asking parliament to legislate approval of the commissioner's report. It places the commissioner in an impossible position because any recommendation that he makes will become law at once.
With regard to the position of the government, I suggest that they made a deal with the company to guarantee legislative action to cut the work gangs. The minister admitted in his speech that that was one of the conditions. But the deal was not-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question. Can he refer to any part of my speech where I said any such thing? Would it not be fairer to say that a reduction in gang strength might take place?


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for that correction. One would assume that that is going to happen. The minister said "might take place", but I leave it to hon. members and the people interested to draw their own conclusions.
I suggest that the deal was not fully explained to the union members. We have as an appendix to Hansard copies of all of the wires, statements and so on to which I have already referred, to the effect that the union was definitely not in favour of compulsory arbitration. Labour is against compulsory arbitration, as certainly it should be. If we in this house have any thoughts at all for the workingman, we should be against compulsory arbitration.
This legislation is compulsory arbitration. The company dictated the terms to the government, and the government is asking parliament, as another member said today, to rubberstamp these terms. This is bad law. It is dirty, mean, cheap law; but not cheap for the workers concerned: I think it will be expensive for them.
July 14, 1966

We do not know, Mr. Speaker, for what we are legislating. Did you ever hear of anything so ridiculous? The minister comes into the house with a bill and the government says they want it approved. But we do not know what we will be voting on. We do not know what is in the mind of the commissioner, who has not yet made his study. This is bad legislation in that it imposes compulsory arbitration and destroys the collective bargaining process. It is an example of a devious tactic by the government in making a deal with the company and not spelling it out to the union.
The minister would have us believe that those representing the union are not telling the truth. As a member of parliament, a supporter of labour and as a Conservative I feel that this makeshift, anti-labour type of legislation must be rejected, must be voted down. We should wait until the report is made, until we see what are the recommendations of the commissioner, and get the reactions of the company and of the men. Who knows, Mr. Speaker, there may be no necessity for any legislation. We cannot tell until we see the report, and as yet there is no report.
This kind of approach, which imposes settlement on terms which are not yet known, destroys faith in parliament and in the government-that is, if many people still have much faith in this government. One of the rights of labour is not to be considered guilty until proven guilty. Labour has rights and management has rights. This bill should certainly be held back. We should vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South to refer the bill to a standing committee.
Before the dinner hour this afternoon we had the amazing spectacle of the minister of manpower, or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand)-whichever you prefer to call him-who is responsible for matters respecting labour in this country, in many respects coming out with what amounted to a defence of compulsory arbitration. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that this hon. gentleman, with his long and excellent record in the labour movement, would make the speech he did this afternoon? I found it rather difficult to realize that he was making the type of speech that he was. He said he was not in on the negotiations, and I for one feel that he should have been. With his long experience and his good record he should have been in on the negotiations. If the 23033-4881
Labour Conditions
Minister of Transport was, then we might as well have had some of the fat cats around, such as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), the "minister" from Davenport, and a few of these great champions of labour. We could have had them around. I am sure they would have worried about the union and the workingmen.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
This afternoon the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration defended the government's action in this matter. He defended a procedure through which parliament is asked to make into law recommendations that are not yet revealed. Am I correct in assuming that the former union leader, now the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, is saying that the present leader of the Canadian Labour Congress is not telling the truth? Would this be the right interpretation, I wonder? Would it be correct to assume, from the remarks that have been made, that the minister defended a situation where parliament is asked to impose the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between the parties, which have been arrived at by a government appointed commission?
The minister is defending the setting out of conditions dictated by the companies and approved by the Minister of Labour. As I have already said, I feel badly about that. I feel that the Minister of Labour is misdirected and misguided, because in his other portfolios he has done an excellent job of bailing out the Prime Minister and this government. Certainly, I hope that he will listen to reason and take another tack on this occasion.
One of the major points in dispute is the size of work gangs. This was the issue of most concern to the companies. The minister as I understand it, said that he would settle this question through the commission. Parliament would make the report of that commission binding, even without seeing it.
The unions categorically refused to reduce work gangs. Whether the unions were right is not the issue at the moment. The point is that the size of work gangs was one of the major matters between the parties. Through the companies' request the minister has removed this matter from the area of collective bargaining and made it a matter of compulsion. If there is any other interpretation than the one I mentioned I should like to hear it. Regardless of how long and how hard the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration shouted in this house this afternoon, I am

July 14. 1966
Labour Conditions
sure he did not convince me that compulsory arbitration was the correct or the right thing to do.
There is an old saying that when you have a weak case you have to shout. The minister was so loud that it was difficult to hear the translator, through the system.


Jean Marchand: Complain about the translator and not about me.


Robert Muir: Could the hon. minister repeat that? I did not hear him.


Jean Marchand: The hon. member should complain about the translator, and not about me.


Robert Muir: What	a brilliant statement.	That	was
great-great.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is like your brilliant speech.


Robert Muir: We have an interjection from this great Minister of Finance. What is your stand in this? Are you against labour? I would think you are.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly address the Chair.


Robert Muir: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to. But when there are objections from across the floor, as the volatile former minister of finance used to say: "When I am provoked, I must reply".
We have these great exponents of labour with us.


An hon. Member:: Don't be deterred by rabbits.


Robert Muir: No. We have these Bay street boys, these potential leaders of parties. They will be great leaders for the labour movement. The labour movement will remember them.
At the companies' request, as I have already said, the minister removed this matter from the area of collective bargaining and made it a matter of compulsion. Does this represent collective bargaining, as it is understood by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration? Is this his type of collective bargaining? Of course, the minister goes on to say that it all depends whether this sort of thing is what you want. It has been made clear in everything that has been said both

during and after the negotiations, that the union was unalterably opposed to having an imposed settlement on this issue.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They should send it to the committee, to find out.


Robert Muir: It should be sent to the committee. We would have an opportunity to find out what the union felt about this. As matters stand at the moment, we have the interpretation by the Minister of Labour of what others said, and what was to be thought of their statements at these gatherings. As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said, in long, drawn-out meetings of this nature there is bound to be confusion and it is difficult to remember who said what, and who did not say something.
I therefore suggest to the minister, as others have, that the whole situation should be brought to the committee. Let us delve into it. Statements have been made by Mr. Jodoin and by Mr. Cutler. After the minister revealed the nature of this legislation, what do Messrs. Cutler and Jodoin say? They are uniformly opposed.
This afternoon the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said that the Leader of the Opposition suggested a kind of compulsory arbitration to settle a rail strike in 1950. That is not correct. The Leader of the Opposition simply pointed out that the government had acted in a certain way. The minister, in his own words said that this was the worst kind of interference on that occasion. May I point out that the matter referred to was undertaken by a Liberal government under former prime minister St. Laurent. Certainly the matter was not similar to the one we are discussing, because at least labour on that occasion knew what it was getting.
I was deeply shocked by the stand taken by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, having for many years watched his activities in his former position, and having felt that there was much good in his stands on many, many occasions. I admire the work he did on behalf of labour. How can he tell Mr. Jodoin, Mr. Cutler, or the labour movement in this country: This is the best thing for you, because I say it is the best thing for you. That is what it amounts to.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we vote down this legislation. It is mean; it is small, it does not represent our way of life, it does not represent the Canadian way of life. We do not like compulsory arbitration. Certainly
July 14, 1966

there are problems, but there must be another way of settling them. I for one will vote against this measure.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I find myself able to support the amendment to the bill for reasons different from what might be expected. I do not believe we should concern ourselves particularly about the truth of various versions of what went on in the negotiations, because no matter how many witnesses are called, or how many times we go through the various versions of what happened, we shall really be no closer to the truth than is the audience of Rashomon when it hears the final version of what happened in the bamboo grove.
I feel that we ought to concern ourselves with the terms of the agreement as presented in the appendix to Hansard, and with the bill itself. The hon. member for York South spoke of the government's responsibility to labour. Some of us, I think, are concerned with the government's responsibility to the entire country. The agriculture industry is periodically threatened by stoppages at various docks, which become increasingly crucial year by year. Small businessmen found themselves seriously hampered this year when the tourist season opened, and the wares they expected to have were tied up at the Montreal dock. As a result financial loss was suffered thousands of miles away from Montreal. There is a concern that goes far beyond the immediate in this type of dispute, and we have to concern ourselves with it.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The situation at the docks, like many other situations in this country, will have to be dragged into the twentieth century, and it will be dragged screaming very loudly. We can see that from listening to part of the discussion this afternoon.
I know how important it is to the government to be able to put the best possible face on this agreement because we have heard a great deal, even today, about holding the line. We know at least one group of Canadian citizens who are being asked to hold the line somewhat longer. In the light of inflationary tendencies we know that the settlement of the dispute at the Montreal dock was a real break with the policy to hold the line, and so it becomes very important to the government to be able to say: Yes, but look at what we got in return for that; we got at least our foot in the doorway leading to compulsory arbitration.
Labour Conditions
I do not profess to be a labour person, but I have been involved in salary agreement negotiations and I know how intricate, how prolonged and how tense this kind of negotiations can be. I have had the experience of having to go back to a large number of people and saying: "This is exactly what we agreed to do." I find it hard to agree that the long list of people who signed this agreement could have been so naive, so fresh, so new and so innocent that they would have allowed this clause with its "or otherwise" to stand throughout the agreement. Possibly unwittingly it is there.
I am sure that the people who negotiated know that the whole question of automating the docks will have to be faced some day, sooner or later. What the "or otherwise" does, and what this legislation does, is to take the job out of the hands of the people negotiating the agreement and put it into the hands of parliament. If passed, this legislation will let the government off the hook, but it will let the negotiators of the agreement off the hook as well.
On the other hand, if we look at the terms of the legislation we find that they are concerned with the size and make up of work gangs, but there is also a clause concerning the safeguarding of job security, and in both these cases we run into the problem of looking into the future and not knowing what the suggestions of the commissioner may be.
I do not feel that it is any task of parliament unknowingly to enshrine a feather-bed situation, which we could do if we were to bring in a redundancy fund. We could do that and clearly know, when we are doing it, that we are bringing in a redundancy fund for people removed from employment by automation. Let us be sure we are doing that, if that is what we are doing. On the other hand, if we are setting up compulsory arbitration-and it might not be a bad idea-let us be sure we are doing that. Or, if we are moving into the area of labour courts, where this question can be examined by a body separate from parliament, where a great deal of expertise can be built up over the years, let us be very clear that that is what we are doing. But let us not do it on the basis of this bill, and on the basis of the expression "or otherwise."
Here I am not questioning the veracity of the minister in the statements he made this afternoon. I have never found that personal attack or rudeness accomplished anything,

July 14, 1966
Labour Conditions
either in this sort of situation or in negotiations for salary agreements. I think we can face the legislation as it is before us, and reject it on other bases quite removed from the basis of personality.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Well, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned this assumption that was made on that day, on the strength of the minister's announcement that the inquiry commission was to follow the processes of free collective bargaining, continued until the minister burst this bombshell in the house. In view of statements which have been made persistently by members of the government and their supporters on that side of the house, I must say that it came as a great shock to me that this kind of action would be taken, particularly with the knowledge we have of the background of some of the members of this present government.
However, Mr. Speaker, I think all of us recognize that at the present time we are in the midst of a rather crucial situation within our economy, and that it is a responsibility of all members of the house to give some serious thought to just in what direction we should move, and what is the role of parliament and of government in the whole field of collective bargaining with particular reference to the questions involved in this period of rapid technological change. My own observation is that this question is at the root of most of the disputes which have been developing in recent times. I have had some experience of first hand participation in industrial warfare. So far as I am concerned it is a nasty, messy, rather inefficient way of arriving at a settlement of the issues which are involved.
There is a responsibility on parliament and on government to seek to find techniques which will eliminate the necessity in the minds of those in the industrial field, both on the side of management and on the side of the workers, to resort to this kind of action. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this piece of legislation, which in my view has been hasty and ill conceived, will open up a real Pandora's box in this field, if it is allowed to receive the consent of this house for its passage. This will set a precedent, if it is passed, which some of the members of the present government certainly will live to regret. I would join with others who have spoken to ask the government to reconsider this request that they have placed before the house, no matter what may have been the commitments made by some of the members of this government in the heat of the moment, and indeed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) who, perhaps somewhat understandably in view of the great number of hours during which he was holding meetings, was lost among the trees in what admittedly was a very difficult and
Labour Conditions
complex situation, and one which in many ways did involve the vital interests of the nation.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to recall to the attention of members of the house some remarks the minister made when he was introducing in the house in the month of May the estimates of the department for which he has responsibility. On May 27, as will be found at page 5631 of Hansard the minister is recorded as saying the following-and I am going to quote him at some little length because I believe what he had to say on that occasion is very relevant to the matter we now have before us:
Before discussing even briefly the activities of the Department of Labour, having in mind the field of responsibilities that remain with it since January 1, I think it might be well if I made a very short statement about the general economic situation we have in Canada today, and more particularly about those aspects of this general economic situation which are of special interest to Canadian workers and employers.
I would not be frank if I did not say to this committee that I, as minister, and my department, have been plagued with a flood of disastrous strikes over the past few weeks. These strikes all seriously threaten the Canadian economy, and I urge all members of this house, regardless of party, to apply their minds to this serious situation which threatens our basic economy. We should be applying our minds in an attempt to find some corrective formula or solution which will prevent matters from getting completely out of hand.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say I agree wholeheartedly with that part of the statement the minister made when he was introducing his estimates. Then he goes on to refer to the situation in the province of British Columbia from which both he and I come. A little later on he makes reference to the more immediate situation which is involved in the question before us:
We are faced with the situations that have been referred to in the last week, namely the dock strike in Montreal, the threatened strike in Air Canada, the railway problems and others which are particularly serious. I really think that we should apply our minds in an attempt to find some solution to this extremely grave situation.
I have not been in this office long enough to be able to say whether the solution lies in the establishment of arbitration or of labour courts, such as those that have been set up in Australia and other countries of the world. The answer may lie in that kind of action because, while they have had divided success, on the whole they have been successful. I throw that idea out as something that merits the serious consideration of all members of this house and of all Canadians.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
On May 27 the minister said he had not been in office long enough to be able to say

July 14, 1966
Labour Conditions
whether or not the solution lies in the establishment of compulsory arbitration, and he was referring to the dock strike at the St. Lawrence river ports. I do not know what happened in the interval between May 27 and now which enabled the minister to suddenly make up his mind, but apparently he has now had enough experience to suddenly decide that this kind of blunt instrument which he has put forward in this bill provides the solution to the problems he was outlining when he introduced the estimates of his department.
As I said earlier, I think the minister was confronted with serious problems, but the government and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) dragged their heels far too long and have now pushed the panic button. This piece of legislation is the result. I agree with the minister's statement in introducing his estimates when he said we should give serious thought as members of parliament and as Canadian citizens to the solution of these problems. At that time I was somewhat concerned because of the minister's rather passing reference to the possibility of compulsory arbitration. I began to wonder at that time whether the minister was serious, and I must admit any fears raised in my mind at that time were allayed by the statements consistently made by members on the government benches regarding the desire and the intention of the government to adhere to the principles of free collective bargaining. It was my feeling that this reference by the minister was a passing aberration and not something that needed to be of immediate concern to hon. members in this house.
I did take seriously the minister's earlier suggestion that hon. members of this house address themselves to this question of how to settle industrial disputes of the kind he referred to on May 27. About that time X was absent from the house on a trip to Geneva and I spent a good deal of my travelling time reflecting upon the significance of the minister's statement. When I returned I was very pleased to discover that some of my colleagues in the New Democratic party, who had been here in the house during that period, had been giving serious consideration to this question.
As a result of that invitation the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) introduced a bill. He did not introduce it lightly, but as a result of a good deal of thought. It was introduced as a serious attempt to propose a

constructive approach in dealing with problems of national consequence. As far as I am concerned, this type of bill should not be introduced lightly because, in effect it attempts to preserve the essential rights of free collective bargaining in every sense of that phrase, in situations where the national interest requires a resumption of certain operations upon which our economy is dependant.
The hon. member for Skeena proposed a bill at a time when we had reached a point where the St. Lawrence river ports were tied up. Apparently the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) has some serious doubts in his mind as to the solution of this problem. He has tried to pervert the intent of this bill and its meaning. He knows as well as I that the difference between compulsory arbitration, and the parliament of Canada saying to a group of workers that in the interests of Canada they must resume their activities, while continuing negotiations, is indeed great.
Had hon. members considered our proposal closely they would have realized that it includes a termination date, and that following that date, if the issues in dispute had not been resolved, the two parties involved would then be free to resume any other activities connected with arriving at a solution under the prevailing circumstances. In my mind this is not the desirable course of action for a parliament to take, but it is the kind of course that, under certain circumstances, becomes necessary. This course provides an alternative infinitely better than the one before us.
In my opinion the judgment of the Minister of Labour became warped under the pressure of events and this caused him to push the panic button. The problem at the nub of this whole situation is one which should not be resolved by the techniques proposed in this bill. As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said earlier, this bill is a perversion of conciliation as intended by the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, particularly in regard to the appointment of a commission of inquiry. This act is designed as a technique for resolving disputes resulting from technological changes. It was necessary because of a continued and persistent attempt by management of large industries in this country to maintain an archaic attitude toward the proper rights of management, in that collective bargaining is not a proper method of dealing with changes in job content, security of employees and the right to free meetings on a labour level.
July 14, 1966
From personal experience I know something about this archaic attitude. Before I became a member of this house I was involved in this sort of thing, on the side of unions and working people. The opportunity has presented itself for some personal reflection upon the issues involved. This kind of thing cannot properly be settled in the heat of a battle to arrive at a collective agreement. This is the kind of thing that can quite properly be the subject of an inquiry and the fact-finding analysis of a commissioner. If there is to be any real and permanent solution resulting from the findings of such a commission there must be an acceptance on the part of the parties involved. This will not result from an agreement obtained by threats jammed down the throats of the participants to the dispute.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
That is the only way in which this kind of change can be brought about in a way which will tend to lessen the incidence of industrial disputes, unrest and dissatisfaction. I regret that instead of dealing with a bill of this kind we have not had from the Minister of Labour a bill which would implement in a broad way some of the principles enunciated by Mr. Justice Freedman in his report. Those kinds of recommendations and principles are applicable not only on the question of railway runthroughs but to other labour areas, and legislation based on them would become in effect a charter for the basic approach to negotiations in dealing with the rapidly changing industrial society in which we live.
We have had hints that the government has the report of Mr. Justice Freedman under consideration, but there is no suggestion in this bill that the commissioner in bringing in his binding report is to be activated or motivated in any way by the kind of principles enunciated by Mr. Justice Freedman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the hon. gentleman a question. Has he read the terms of reference of the industrial inquiry?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has he read the section relating to job security?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and having read them I stand by the remarks I have just made. As I understand them, the terms of reference do not give any general policy direction to the commissioner in respect of
Labour Conditions making his report. They do set out the points he is to take into consideration in arriving at his findings, but they do not include the kind of terms of reference that I understand are inherent in the report of Mr. Justice Freedman.
I do not know whether the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) agrees with me, but I was trying to point out that there would have been a much happier situation in this house if we were considering and discussing the principles contained in the report of Mr. Justice Freedman, rather than being asked to adopt this kind of shotgun legislation to force a settlement that, for all we know, may simply mean that upon the termination of the agreement the whole matter will erupt into an open sore that will have been festering for the entire period of the agreement.
I do not suppose that consideration of this bill will be the end of this matter. I hope that the government, if they feel they made a commitment in the heat of these negotiations in respect of action along the lines the bill proposes, will consider that they have honoured that committment sufficiently by having placed this proposal before parliament and brought the bill to the point of second reading. But I would plead with the minister to at least agree to the kind of compromise proposal set out in the amendment now before the house. If this motion is adopted I submit it will do at least two things. It will have the practical effect of allowing the kind of discussion and representations referred to by some hon. members who spoke earlier in this debate. I suggest it will also enable the members of this house, through the committee, to be acquainted with and have knowledge of the findings of the commission before the matter came back to the floor of the house for final adjudication. It might be that if those findings were available and it could be established to the satisfaction of the members of the industrial relations committee that there were reasonable grounds, within the life of the agreement, for accepting the proposals, the house when it came back might be disposed to allow the passage of this bill, with the understanding that its effect was limited purely to the particular situation in respect of which the bill has been introduced.
If we allowed the bill to go through without this type of examination I submit we would be opening the door to this sort of approach being used as a quick and easy solution to every other problem that develops and appears to be serious. We will create the



July 14, 1966
Labour Conditions
kind of atmosphere wherein parties to a dispute will no longer feel there is much point in engaging in serious collective bargaining, because they will know that in any event the government will step in, appoint a commissioner under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and say: You are going to accept whatever the inquiry commissioner decides, regardless of your collective bargaining.
Just at the time members on the treasury benches have been lauding the fact that the government of Canada is introducing collective bargaining for those in the public service of this country, they come into the house with a bill that takes the feet right out from under the whole principle of collective bargaining. It makes the measure for collective bargaining in the federal service a hollow and meaningless thing.
Surely the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) and the other members of the government are able to see the implications of this piece of legislation and should not attempt to force the members of the house to accept this method as a quick and easy solution of a problem which the government found to be a difficult one.
Before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, I ask once again whether the Minister of Labour will not agree to accept the amendment that is before us, so that this whole matter may be considered in committee. If this were done we would perhaps have a better understanding of the whole situation, and in an atmosphere of good faith would be able to arrive at a meaningful solution to the problem this measure was introduced to solve.


William Arnold Peters: that of a family counsellor who after counselling a man and wife in a major dispute will never be their friend regardless of whether he has settled their difficulties. I therefore suggest that the minister should consider whether this agreement has in fact been accepted by both parties. If the government wishes to appoint someone to ascertain the role of automation in stevedoring and to do a time and motion study on the amount of productivity that can be achieved with the least number workers, they will have to obtain the co-operation of these people. I suggest their efforts will come to nothing if the union decides to sabotage this agreement without really objecting to this inquiry. The government will find that the job classification which will have to be undertaken will not be successful.
I believe there are many hon. members on the other side of the house who will be voting with the government because of their membership in the Liberal party and regardless of their duty to the people they represent. I know there are many members on that side of the house who have a labour background but when we hear a man as highly esteemed by the labour movement as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicating to the house that he also has feet of clay and putting political support above his conscience, even though he said this afternoon that he is violently opposed to compulsory arbitration he will have to speak long and loud to justify the fine line he is drawing in this type of legislation.
There are many members who should take a look at what this legislation will mean in the future because if this bill is passed it will be easy to duplicate and the need for the Department of Labour will no longer exist because all the government will have to do is to legislate. All those who have been closely connected with labour will find that laws can be passed against labour but they will not be accepted.
Look at the laws against labour which have been passed in the province of Quebec and those which have been passed in the province of Ontario, particularly in the municipal field. They have not accomplished what they were supposed to achieve. If some hon. members doubt this, how do they explain that in spite of the existence of specific municipal legislation a police strike has taken place and there is a threatened strike of hospital workers even though they do not have the right to strike? Labour legislation can only be applied
Labour Conditions
if it is just and it is only in that case that it will be accepted. If those to whom it is applied do not feel it is just and warranted, then they will not operate under it. I am not suggesting they will break the law but I am sure they will look for many ways of circumventing its terms.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why some cabinet minister did not propose legislation to the house when we appointed the commmission on biculturalism and bilingualism which did not receive a great deal of attention from any hon. members until it had reached the stage of an obsession? I wonder why we did not pass a bill implementing the terms of the report of the commission on biculturalism and bilingualism and make that report part of our legislation? It seems to me just as silly to ask someone to investigate a situation the full implications of which are not understood either by labour or management.
I think that quite an extensive intestigation regarding automation in this industry will have to be carried out before this legislation will receive the co-operation of those concerned. Yet we are now being asked, before even seeing the report of the commissioner, to legislate the terms of an agreement. I do not know what is the reason behind this thinking. I would have no objection if the minister would stand up in the house and ask us to look into the whole matter of automation, not only as it affects this industry but any other industry.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we might some day decide that legislation could overcome some of the limiting factors to the freedom of the indiviual and the security he may have at present under contract. Companies may find some advantages in automation that may be modified by legislation. However, let us not do this to one, small segment of an industry by legislation before the facts are known.
I can recall a strike situation in which I went out to raise money for bail for people even though they had not yet committed offences. I did so because there had been a number of assault and battery charges laid and I had to raise bail for those people. When I came back to the office with a number of deeds 1 had pledged, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who was our legal counsel, gave me quite a lecture. He told me I was not supposed to get bail pledged for offences that had not yet taken place. Well, we are doing the same thing in this instance. I did not see anything wrong with it. I did

July 14. 1966
Labour Conditions
not understand the legal implications. I had spent half the night arranging bail for those who were in jail, so the next day I decided it would be better to arrange bail before the offences occurred.
I think it is a particularly dangerous principle we are adopting here. I believe it is one which will backfire not only on the government but on the operations of the Department of Labour with regard to their conciliation and mediation services. No one is going to trust them. I am not prepared to say the union did not know this was going to happen. I have negotiated many times and I know that quite often one says, if you go ahead it is your responsibility but we will go along with it. I have done this myself on a number of occasions. I am not saying it is or is not this way. Surely, however, we have a bigger responsibility to the over-all process of federal mediation and conciliation than to jeopardize it by the settlement of this strike in this way. In my opinion it will not be settled at all if the workers are not agreeable to accept the inquiry in a reasonable manner. There will really be nothing but trouble come out of it, as is already evident since the companies are saying they are going to apply the terms of this bill to the workers in Hamilton.
I know the minister did not intend this to happen. However, the workers in Hamilton are already on strike by reason of the fact they have been threatened in this manner. They are taking what they would call precautionary measures. I believe that this type of action may not accomplish what the minister wants to accomplish. For this reason I hope that the amendment, which is a good one, will be considered by the minister. Personally, I would be much happier if the minister would tell us he was not going to ask for third reading of this bill. He has fulfilled his commitment. I believe that if the matters into which the commissioner is inquiring can be negotiated by the two parties it would be foolish to have the federal labour department intervene. If the situation again became critical, then the minister could bring the bill forward for third reading. I believe it would be easier for conscientious members, even those in the minister's own party who have a background in labour matters, to support the bill then. People like myself who have had a background in labour relations are terrified of the idea of the government providing for compulsory arbitration and in effect eliminating the process of negotiation between labour and management.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the house long. I want to make three points very briefly. The first point is that this legislation demonstrates the government's sense of priorities. Yesterday the government told us that there was not time to sit a few days longer to discuss medicare, something to which the government is committed, something which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the government house leader (Mr. Mcllraith) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) have all said would be dealt with before a summer recess. We have not time to deal with medicare. Members are going to be on their way in a very short time to their constituencies, leaving the whole question of medicare up in the air. However, the government has ample time to deal with legislation imposing compulsory arbitration. I think the significance of that sense of values will not be lost upon the people of this country.
We are also going to leave without having done anything about additional help for old age pensioners. We had a statement from the minister today but that statement was notable for the fact that he carefully avoided setting any effective date. When I asked the minister about it he said we would find out the effective date when we saw the legislation. The old age pensioners, therefore, cannot look forward to any immediate assistance despite the fact they were promised that additional legislation would be brought in to help them. These important matters can be shelved but, according to the government, the legislation to impose certain conditions upon the dockworkers of Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres must be dealt with.
The second point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that I am opposed to this legislation because I think it is an attempt to cover up the fact that the government has misled both the country and parliament with regard to the whole labour dispute between the Canada Shipping Federation and the International Longshoremen's Association. Hon. members know that the basic dispute did not have to do with wages. The employers offered wage increases which were acceptable to the workers. What was not acceptable was the condition attached to the offer of increased wages. This condition was a reduction of the work gangs.
The minister can use the euphonious term "increased productivity", but what was meant
July 14, 1966

was the same amount of work from less men. The union was concerned because the men who were likely to be laid off were men up in years who, if they were fired, would not only lose their jobs but in many cases would lose their pension rights. This was the real cause of the dispute. It was for this reason that we, in this party, felt if both parties could settle the wage question, about which there was no quarrel, the matter of the reduction of the work gangs could be left first to an investigation by the commissioner under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and subsequently to collective bargaining on the basis of the facts produced by that inquiry.
I want to draw attention to the attitude which the government took with regard to our proposal. On Thursday, June 9, as recorded at page 6173 of Hansard, I asked the Prime Minister, first, if he had any substantial hope of an early settlement and, second, if he had not would he give consideration either to advancing the bill of which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) had given notice or introducing a bill which would contain provision for a settlement without imposing compulsory arbitration. The Prime Minister replied as follows:
Contrary to what the hon. member has suggested, and to what was suggested in the press release I have received from the New Democratic Party to the effect that there is no hope of an early breakthrough, there is hope of success in the negotiations.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
We have not given up that hope. Judge Lipp6 is negotiating at this moment: we have been in touch with him during the last hour and we have not by any means given up hope that this serious issue will be settled very shortly by the processes of free collective bargaining and not by parliamentary direction.
Those are brave words, Mr. Speaker. What is the bill before us now but parliamentary direction? This is parliamentary imposition of a requirement which was demanded by the shipping federation and opposed by the union. This is typical of the Liberal party, which is always unctuous in the proclamation of its principles but is always prepared to sabotage its principles when it comes to their specific application. A government that was not going to have any parliamentary direction is now asking us to take parliamentary action, not to require the parties to bargain collectively, but to require the union to accept the findings of a commission which has not yet brought down its report.
If the government wanted to do that they should have told parliament and the country
Labour Conditions
what they were doing. Unless the house insists I will not take the trouble to quote all the Hansards which I have here. But the fact is that when the minister announced the settlement on June 14, he made no mention whatever of the fact that the findings of the commissioner appointed under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act were to be binding. When he made his report to the house regarding the appointment of the commission there was no suggestion that the findings were to be binding. The government is now trying to tell us that the reason it did not make this announcement was that the union agreed to do this, but that they did not want it made public too soon.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) surprised me this afternoon with the speech he made. He has a very logical mind and whenever he indulges in sophistry I know that he is on weak ground and that he is all too conscious of it. He is also a very experienced and renowned labour leader. But when I listened to his sophistry this afternoon I began to realize the corrosive and seductive influence of sitting in the seats of the mighty. Because here is what the minister, in essence, said. He began his speech by saying that compulsory arbitration is not uncommon. Then he proceeded to tell us that this bill is not compulsory arbitration. He ended up by saying: Well, one swallow does not make a summer; we must not assume that compulsory arbitration will be the general policy of the government.
The minister sought to show that the union were really very happy about this imposed compulsory arbitration. I want to point out that if the union were agreeable to compulsory arbitration, there is no need for this legislation. Both sides could have put into the collective bargaining agreement the provision that they would submit this matter either to an arbitration tribunal or to a commissioner set up by the government, and that both would accept the findings of that commission. If they were both agreed there was no need for this legislation.


Jean Marchand: Would the hon. member allow me. I never said that it was not binding arbitration. It is definitely binding arbitration. The problem is to know whether it is binding arbitration based on the will of the parties or on the legislative action of this parliament alone.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I agree wholeheartedly with the minister. The issue is whether this legis-

July 14. 1966
Labour Conditions
lation represents the will of both parties or whether it is merely because the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made a commitment to the Canadian Shipping Federation. There is only one way we can find out, and that is for the government to accept the amendment moved by my desk-mate, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), and let this matter go to a committee of parliament and allow the parties concerned to come before representatives of this house and tell them whether or not this is their will.
The minister said that the I.L.A. officials were agreeable to this. Does he know that of his own knowledge? Did he sit in on these discussions? Of course not. What he tried to do, instead, was to argue that the union did not mind this legislation, but that for purposes of public consumption they had to appear to oppose it, and therefore there was no disagreement from the union. He suggested that since the federation wanted this legislation there was no reason why this house should not pass it.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, if the union is not opposed to this legislation, then we do not need the legislation. The purport of this bill can be incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement. If they are opposed, then we should not be passing this legislation. If they are in agreement with it but do not want to accept it of their own volition, then I would ask why the government should require this parliament to go through the farce of passing legislation for two disputants who want compulsory arbitration, but want to have it imposed upon them. If the minister is serious about what he said this afternoon, then let me repeat that part of his speech where he said that the nub of this question is: Does this legislation represent the will of the two parties concerned? That is the whole issue. We do not know whether it does represent the will of both parties.
The very best that the minister has been able to tell us is that the union counsel said: Well, it was the government's responsibility and if the government passed the law, then the union would obey it. That, Mr. Speaker, is what any good Canadian would say. That is what I would have to say. If this parliament passes a law, then I have to obey it. I may disagree with it; I may agitate to get it changed; but as long as it is the law of the country I have to obey it. However, to say that because the union admitted that it would have to obey the legislation means that it

agreed to the legislation is a distortion of the facts. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Labour ought to know that the union has denied saying that they were in agreement with this legislation.
We in this party, Mr. Speaker, are not only opposed to compulsory arbitration in this particular instance; we are opposed to compulsory arbitration on general principles. In a free society we have no right to impose by law the conditions under which a person will sell his labour. Everyone agrees that we have reached the stage in our modern society when we must try to find some alternative to strikes. Strikes have largely become an outmoded weapon. There is not time to discuss that subject now, but it is the question that we ought to be tackling-the whole problem of how we cope with automation in a technological society without periodic strikes and economic dislocation. That is a big subject, but certainly the answer does not lie in compulsory arbitration.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I want to tell the minister that he aroused a lot of fears across Canada when he was piloting his estimates through the house by his speech suggesting compulsory arbitration and labour courts as a possible way of dealing with labour disputes. Following close upon that we now have his introduction of legislation providing for compulsory arbitration with respect to dockworkers in Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres.
I say to the government that they have set their feet along a dangerous path. Does the government think it can stop the effects of the precedent involved in this particular piece of legislation? Already the Canadian Shipping Federation is taking the position in Hamilton and Toronto that the findings of the commissioner who has been appointed shall not only be binding upon employees in Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres but also in other places.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: With respect to the position taken in the instance cited, was it not agreed by both parties that the men would go back to work in the Hamilton area on the strength of what might be decided by the commissioner in the St. Lawrence ports dispute? Was that not what was agreed to by both parties?
July 14, 1966

Labour Conditions


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Exactly. May I point out two things to the minister. First, the federation has insisted on using the very legislation the minister is now asking us to pass as a lever to blackmail the employees into accepting that position. Second, the fact that we have a wildcat strike on now, in protest, is an indication of how the employees feel.
I want to point out another thing to the minister. Irrespective of the legislation which is passed, if the commissioner brings down findings that are totally unsatisfactory, does the minister think there will be peace on the waterfronts of this country? In the long run the only way we will resolve problems such as reduction of work gangs and whether men may be thrown on the human scrap heap without adequate security will be by negotiation and not by having an imposed solution.
I say to the government that this is a dangerous precedent which they are establishing. So far as this party is concerned I wish to give notice here and now that we shall not be a party to this precedent and that we shall oppose with all the legitimate resources at our command any attempt in future to extend compulsory arbitration to other areas of the industrial complex of this country.
I urge the minister and the government, before it is too late, to do the one thing which would be absolutely fair. I urge them to accept the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and let this legislation go to the committee on labour and employment in order to allow all parties to appear. If it can be ascertained then, as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration says, that this legislation represents the will of both parties, the house can decide whether it wants to pass it.
Surely it is unfair for the government to ask us in the dying hours of this part of the session to pass this legislation when we have no knowledge officially of what the longshoremen's position is with respect to it. We know the views of the Shipping Federation. They are in favour of the legislation. We think that the men have a right to be heard. If the government turns down this amendment, what it is saying is that on the basis of the demand of the Shipping Federation, without giving members of parliament the right to consult with the union, this legislation is going to be put on the statute books in spite of everything we can do to stop it. If the government takes that position the people of this country will know where the Liberal
party stands with respect to the rights of workers and the right of free collective bargaining.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the motion.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau).


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I found myself in the awkward position of not being able to vote against an amendment to a bill that I introduced because I was paired. Had I voted I naturally would have voted against the amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Michael Starr: No bell; call the vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that there be no bell?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: And that there be a vote?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Duquet	Neveu
Godin	Orange
Granger	Pearson
Gray	Pelletier
Habel	Pennell
Harley	Pepin
Honey	Pickersgill
Hopkins	Pilon
Hymraen	Prud'homme
Isabelle	Reid
Klein	Richard
Laing	Rideout (Mrs.)
Langlois (Chicoutimi)	Rinfret
Laprise	Roxburgh
Laverdifere	Sharp
Leblanc (Laurler)	Stafford
LeBlanc (Rlmouski)	Stanbury
Lessard	Tardif
Macaluso	Tucker
MacEachen	Turner
Mackasey	Wahn
McNulty	Watson (Chateauguay-
Marchand	Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Mongrain Munro	Winters-62.
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Alkenbrack	Johnston
Barnett	Kindt
Beaulieu	Knowles
Bell (Carleton)	Korchinski
Bell (Saint John-Albert)	Lewis
Brand	Loney
Brewin	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Cameron (Nanalmo-	(Vancouver-Kings way)
Cowichan-The Islands)	McKinley
Churchill	Mather
Code	Moore
Crouse	Muir (Cape Breton
Danforth	North and Victoria)
Dinsdale	Nasserden
Douglas	Nugent
Fawcett	Peters
Forrestall	Regimbal
Gilbert	Schreyer
Grills	Sherman
Hees	Southam
Horner (The Battlefords)	Starr
Howard	Winch
Irvine	Winkler-43.
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to make particular reference to clause 2 (b) which deals with the definition of a commission. Would the minister explained to the committee what, to me, is a very apparent discrepancy in the interpretation section of the act, because it suggests that a commission means an industrial inquiry commission appointed under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
July 14, 1966

I think this question was raised during the discussion on second reading of the bill. It was pointed out that section 56 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which has to do with the appointment of an industrial inquiry, makes it clear that the commissioners appointed under that act are appointed purely for the purpose of making an investigation and reporting upon the facts.
I should like the minister to at least make an attempt to explain this obvious inconsistency to me, the making of a reference to a commission in a measure of this kind which, in my view, is being employed for a purpose which is contrary to the principles embodied in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There would be no necessity for this Bill No. C-215 if it were not to complement the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. While technically this is a substantive measure, it is, in effect, an amendment to that act.


Thomas Miller Bell: I know the minister made reference to other ports, but I should like to get a quick answer about the effect of this legislation on other ports that may come under its jursidiction. For example, if the federation or the I.L.A. in the port of Saint John were dissatisfied with these agreements, do we have to go through this whole business again?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Not at all: this measure relates to these three specific ports. If, as a result of this legislation, the collective agreement between the unions in those ports and the Shipping Federation resulted in better conditions for the union, then I understand that with regard to Halifax the people would automatically get the benefits of any improved benefits in Montreal. I cannot say definitely about Saint John.


Thomas Miller Bell: In other
words this agreement, as it affects Montreal, would probably set the pattern for the others?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is not a case of setting a pattern. I believe there is a definite agreement with the unions in Halifax, and a partially negotiated agreement with Saint John, that any additional benefits that might be granted to the unions in the three ports on the St. Lawrence would automatically apply to Halifax, and I believe Saint John, but I cannot say definitely.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Labour Conditions
On clause 3-Incorporation in collective agreements of recommendations of commission.
Robert Jardine McCleave: I should like to point out a problem to the committee which I hope the minister will be able to correct by a simple amendment. There is here a possibility of error when one person is entrusted-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Are we still discussing clause 2?


Herman Maxwell Batten: No, clause 3.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: When you were asking about clause 2 carrying, I said no.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I apologize to the hon.
member, but I did not hear him.


Richard Albert Bell: And nobody else did, either.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I was pointing out that since this is a one-man operation there is a danger of human error in the report. However, on the happening of certain events set forth in clause 3, the findings of the commissioner automatically become part of the collective bargaining agreement.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
I suggest to the minister that he might put in the safeguard that the parties would have, say, a period of ten days to state objections to the report of the commissioner to give him the opportunity to revise his report within that framework, or to reject their contentions. I think that that is the only way we can avoid the possibility-I am not saying it is a great one but it is I think there-that there could be a mistake in his report and that it could be incorporated, by the bill we are now considering, into the agreement between the two parties.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 3 carry?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the minister was going to reply to the point I was making.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, the clause
says:
Forthwith on the receipt by the Minister of Labour of the report of the Commission, the Minister of Labour shall cause copies...to be furnished-
And so on. It is not to be presumed that the minister is going to defy a statute, but certainly the fact the bill provides for the presentation of the report to the minister implies that he will be given time at least to

July 14, 1966
Labour Conditions
read it and discuss it with the commissionner, if necessary before it was finalized, so as to guard against the situation mentioned by the hon. member.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I do not think the minister is correct in his conception of the operation of this report. This is clearly set out in the clause. The actual words are:
-cause copies of the report to be furnished to the Federation and to the Union, and thereupon each collective agreement-
And so on. So that at the magic instant that the report is furnished the collective bargaining agreement becomes fastened with the report of the commissioner.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: All I am saying is that at least the minister should read the report before he sends it on. He will have a chance to look at it.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 3 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 52; nays, 32.
On clause 4-Form in which conclusions to be set forth.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, how many collective agreements are apt to be included? I understand there is the one basic collective agreement that was signed on that fateful Saturday night. Will there be others?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Terms of settlement were signed by representatives of the six unions involved. It is contemplated that there will be, in the terms of settlement, agreements with each of the six unions.
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 55; nays, 36.
On clause 5-Saving provision.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the title of this clause is "saving provision". I should like to know whether the minister is being facetious in putting this in. If this clause can apply, then surely, should it not be the first clause in the bill? The clause appears to say that if there is voluntary agreement on the parts of both employees and employer, then the agreement will be added, under this clause. This, I think has been the crux of a large part of the argument, namely that if this clause would work, if there is any possibility of its working, then what is contained in it should be implemented, or should be carried out before the bill becomes effective, 
so that the bill does not come into operation until clause 5 has had an opportunity to work.
I think the minister should give consideration to putting a waiting period of at least a couple of weeks into the bill, so that this clause can apply, after which the bill shall apply. Doing that would eliminate what most members on both sides of the house believe may happen in a compulsory arbitration of this nature. The problem will be eliminated if the saving provision could apply. There ought to be a time lag, to allow this clause to be implemented, before the bill as a whole comes into operation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I must confess that the question raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming has been raised by one or two of my colleagues. That clause is included because you can amend an agreement by legislation, but unless there is authority, by legislation, to amend an agreement subsequently that cannot be done.
This clause is put in to permit discussion and possible variation, if the parties are able to agree on something after the reports are brought down. The justice department advises that it should be put in for that reason.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Is the minister indicating that there will be a codicil attached to the signed contract, implemented by the legislation without the signing parties being involved?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I can give an example. With regard to the Trois-Rivieres union that is affected, its work gangs are considerably less than the 18 that are involved. There might be some report with regard to the reduction of work gangs, and it might be necessary to amend the agreement with that particular union, or with any one of the six unions concerned.
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 58; Nays, 35.
On clause 1-Short title.


William Arnold Peters: I would suggest that the minister take out the words "it is in the national interest."


An hon. Member:: Read the clause.
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 58; nays, 39.
On the preamble.


William Arnold Peters: I am on the right section now. I would suggest to the minister that he withdraw the words "it is in the national interest" and substitute other more suitable words.
July 14, 1966

Division


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, irom the standpoint of the hon. member and his colleagues I would have thought these were very good words. They were in the press release in regard to the bill that was proposed to be introduced by the hon. member for Skeena.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Labour wants to revive the debate, we will be very pleased to accommodate him. This is not the kind of comparison he ought even to suggest to the committee. He knows perfectly well that the other bill was an entirely different thing. He could have had his preamble without this presumptuous suggestion that the deal which he made with the Shipping Federation is in the national interest. Do not let him try to run away from this kind of atrocious language and refer to something that never has been before this committee or the house.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the statement I made this afternoon, in the course of debate I expressed the opinion that the government was prepared to take its responsibility and that it felt, in view of the fact that the strike had lasted for a period of five weeks, that it was essential that the strike be brought to an end. The course we agreed upon in the national interest was this particular bill. We feel it is in the national interest and that is the reason the words are in the preamble.


David Lewis: In the national interest to end the strike but not to bring in this bill.


Frank Howard: Would it be in the national interest if one of the locals of the longshoremen decided to take some action to become de-certified; would that be in the national interest?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is an academic question with which I would not wish to deal at this time.
Preamble agreed to: Yeas, 59; nays, 39.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Title agreed to: Yeas, 58: nays, 36.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the title carried.
Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Bill agreed to: Yeas, 58: nays, 38.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the bill carried.
Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Bill reported: Yeas, 59: nays, 35.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: the third reading of the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.
until December 31st, 1967, Canadian National Company 4 per cent preferred stock in an annual amount not exceding 3 per cent of the gross revenues of the Company; to extend until December 31, 1967, the moratorium on interest on the loan of $100,000,000 to the Company authorized by the National Railways Capital Revision Act of 1952; to authorize Her Majesty to make loans to the Canadian National Railway Company and Air Canada to meet deficiencies in operating reserves to June 30, 1967, any such loans to be repaid from revenues of the Railway Company and Air Canada or, if revenues prove insufficient, by subsequent deficit appropriation by Parliament.-The Minister of Finance.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Sharp) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-229, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system for the period from the 1st day of January, 1965 to the 30th day of June, 1967, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?



PROVISION FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, ISSUE OF SECURITIES, ETC.

John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution;
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to make capital expenditures and to supply the financial requirements of affiliated companies in amounts not exceeding, in the calendar year 1965, the amount of $161,600,000, and not exceeding, in the calendar year 1966, the amount of $192,000,000; and to make, in the calendar year 1967 prior to the 1st of July, 1967, certain capital expenditures, by way of investing in the securities of Air Canada, not exceeding $126,000,000 and certain other capital expenditures toward the acquisition of equipment, additions and conversions not exceeding $90,000,000; to provide for the financial requirements of Air Canada in an amount not exceeding 50,000,000, either by means of loans from Her Majesty to the National Company or by means of issues of securities of the National Company, authorized and guaranteed as to interest and principal by Her Majesty, the cash proceeds by either method to be used only for the financial requirements of Air Canada, the capital needs of the National Company itself being met entirely through the sale of preferred stock to Her Majesty and from reserves from depreciation and debt discount; to authorize Her Majesty to continue to purchase


William Arnold Peters: It is going to be ten o'clock unless the government moves the motion for adjournment. They had better make up their minds.


Michael Starr: I think we agreed with the acting house leader that this was as far as we were going to go with this measure. I believe that was all that was requested.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to seek the indulgence of the house to get permission to suspend the business of the house until the call of the Chair later this evening while proceedings are being conducted in the other place. May I also at this moment be permitted to express the sincere thanks of the government to all hon. members for their conciliatory spirit and co-operation during this session.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I say this with a full measure of sincerity. I recognize the right of hon.
July 14. 1966

members on the other side of the house to make their position clear. I may say that this has been a very productive session as a result of the co-operation of all hon. members. Thus far we have given full legislative sanction to 43 bills plus a further 7 appropriation bills. In addition to these items which have been fully completed, the house has dealt with the introductory stage of 15 more bills, several of which are undergoing detailed study by standing committees of the house.
We have spent 47 days dealing with supply. Approximately 30 of the 47 days were spent in discussing the old estimates for the fiscal year 1965-66. The house has completed three of the four supply motions respecting this year's spending, and we have spent about 12i days on this year's estimates or on interim supply. In this time we have completed consideration of the estimates of some ten departments of government and nine other departments are now available to the house for final disposition following a detailed study by standing committees.
I must add further thanks to hon. members for their diligence in committee work. Twenty seven committees were established during the session and to date they have held a total of 349 meetings. Members have never before had or taken such an opportunity to examine the detailed operation of government departments. In a final sentence, on behalf of the government and the house leader as well as his parliamentary secretaries I reaffirm our thanks and respectfully suggest that these statistics reflect most favourably on the efficiency of our parliamentary machinery.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, from this side of the house I want to thank the government for their help and co-operation in dealing with the business of the house. At this time may I say that if the government were organized a little better these functions could have been performed with greater efficiency. I hope that during this period of recess the government will concentrate on seeing that they have a functional team and are organized to make our task easier. Then we will not have to play as difficult a part in organizing the business of the house. I want to say too that this has been a good, productive part of the session. I hope that the image of parliament will in future be enhanced again. I think it is the duty of every member to see that the image of parliament in the eyes of Canadians is brought to a point where Canadians can be proud of this institution.

Business of the House
May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that you have had your baptism of fire and you have come through it well. In my opinion you have had some difficult situations to handle and you have done an admirable job. We wish you a good rest and hope that you will come back refreshed and will be a little more lenient during the question period.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the statistics which have been read to the house by the acting house leader demonstrate that even a fainthearted government can accomplish great things if it has an alert and diligent opposition. Unfortunately the government, while it is guided by the opposition in some respects, becomes very stubborn on other occasions.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
We in this party regret, that we are leaving here without having dealt with either the old age pension legislation or with medicare. However, we hope that when parliament reassembles the government will have a program with respect to both these matters and will be prepared to proceed as expeditiously as possible. We appreciate the fine spirit of co-operation which has existed between the government and the members of this party through our respective house leaders.
I should like to express on behalf of this party our congratulations to you, sir, on having had your initial experience as Speaker of the house. When the house began we expected great things from you and we have not been disappointed. You have far exceeded our expectations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are convinced that you are well on the way to establishing a record as one of the best Speakers we have had in living memory.
We hope that the government will give some thought during the recess to working out what we suggested about a year ago, namely, the establishment of a definite timetable for parliament with periodic recesses of the house so that the committees can sit continuously. I think that the practice of having many committees sit simultaneously with the house is not working out well. Some committees cannot sit because they cannot get a quorum. Members have to hurry back and forth and are unable to give proper attention either to the work of the house or of the committees.
We hope that the government will give some thought to letting the house adjourn

July 14, 1966
Business of the House periodically for a couple of weeks when the committees would sit, or to having the committees sit for two weeks when the house is not sitting. We think that this is an area which could be examined with a good deal of profit. This has been done in Great Britain and has been found to expedite the work of parliament. We hope that the government will give consideration to looking into a similar type of reorganization of our parliamentary work in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Do hon. members agree that we will dispense with the adjournment debate tonight or do hon. members wish to proceed with the debate?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that it is the wish of the house that we suspend business until the call of the Chair later this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, July 14, 1966
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Emmett M. Hall, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 14th July, at 11.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.


Mr. Speaker:: The sittings of the house will now be suspended till the call of the Chair which will be indicated by the ringing of the bell.
At 11.16 p.m. the sitting was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 12.10 a.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have just received a request from the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) to revert to motions.


Lawrence T. Pennell: That, when this house adjourns at the end of the sitting of the day on which this motion of

adopted, it stands adjourned until Wednesday. October 5,	1966, at 2.30 o'clock p.m. provided
always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the house should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
In the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, with unanimous consent I should like to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: I see that there is not unanimous consent.


Auguste Choquette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are on the threshold of adjournment. The farmers in Canada, as those in the province of Quebec, would have liked us to adopt the bill providing assistance to livestock feeders in Eastern Canada and British Columbia. I ask the opposition to kindly agree unanimously to adopt this bill right away.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the hon. member that there is no point of order. There may be a grievance against the government, but there is no point of order.


Auguste Choquette: It seems to me the members of the opposition are refusing to pass the bill providing assistance to the farmers.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if you are going to permit grievances against the government we will be here until September.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
July 14. 1966	COMMONS
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs for the provision of assistance and welfare services to and in respect of persons in need.
An Act to amend the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act.
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.
An Act to establish a corporation for the administration of the National Arts Centre.
An Act to incorporate Bank of Western Canada.
DEBATES	7729
Royal Assent
An Act respecting certain conditions of employment of dock workers at the Ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec.
Mr. Speaker:: Before announcing the adjournment of the house may I be allowed to thank hon. members for the all too generous comments they expressed with regard to me a few moments ago. I should like to assure hon. members that I feel very sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, that anything I have been able to accomplish was possible because of the excellent co-operation I have received from members on both sides of the house.
Pursuant to special order, the house adjourned at 12.35 a.m. until Wednesday, October 5, 1966, at 2.30 p.m.



END OF VOLUME VII