1966-12-14

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
queen's PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1967
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 14, 1966

THE ROYAL ASSENT Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, December 14, 1966
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 14th December, at 5.45 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 [DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on labour and employment-Mr. Lachance.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, there have been further developments since the announcement last evening by the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association of the December 20 strike date and I feel I should report these to the house.
I think the house should know that I met with the representatives of the three organizations concerned-Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association, Public Service Alliance of Canada and Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada-for two hours this morning. As a result of these discussions I am encouraged to believe that both sides are prepared to show greater flexibility in their statements of position than has been evident heretofore. For one thing the three employee
organizations have for the first time shown a willingness to meet together with us in a joint discussion of our common problem, and in my opinion this is a hopeful development.
Second, after the discussions which took place this morning the employee organizations have agreed to meet with representatives of the government later today and to continue discussions tonight, tomorrow, and for a further period beyond that, as long as there appears to be any hope of arriving at a mutual understanding.
I should further advise the house that, after giving notice this morning to the staff association representatives of my intention to do so, I have this day given notice of a resolution indicating the government's intention to introduce legislation to deal with this matter. The text of this resolution, having been filed with the Clerk, will appear in Votes and Proceedings for today and it is the government's intention to call the resolution as soon as the rules of the house permit-that is, unless the progress of our talks makes further action by parliament unnecessary. I hope very much that this will be so, and that parliamentary action will not be necessary. There is nothing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to do less than to have to proceed with this legislation.
I have, however, explained to the representatives of the employee organizations the position in which the government and parliament would find themselves, in the face of the strike deadline on December 20 next at 8 a.m., if notice of intention to introduce the resolution were not filed today. They have assured me that they understand this position and the reasons why the government finds it necessary to take this step at this time. More important, they have indicated that they are quite prepared to continue discussions in full knowledge of what the government has done, in the hope that further discussions will produce a settlement which will make it unnecessary for parliament to take further action.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, this announcement by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson), who is evidently one of the chief negotiators on behalf of the government, is nothing but a glossing over of the ineptitude of the government
11112	COMMONS
Air Traffic Control Dispute to settle this affair. This announcement and the whole matter of negotiations that have been going on for a great many months has about it an aura of mystery. I say this quite frankly, because there is no question in the minds of those who have received the report and studied the situation that this is so, particularly in the light of the union's accepting the recommendation of the conciliation officer appointed by this government, and the reluctance of this government to accept the reasonable recommendations-


Edgar John Benson: On a question of privilege-


Michael Starr: -of that report. Certainly there is a mystery about it.


Edgar John Benson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is rising on a question of privilege.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege: There was no conciliation officer, as such, appointed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: This whole affair is shrouded in mystery. The statement made today by the minister and the statements made yesterday by other ministers about this matter certainly have an aura of mystery about them, especially when they tried to place the judge they appointed into some category that seems to be lost. Certainly the judge was an arbitrator, or he was acting in the manner of an arbitrator.


An hon. Member:: Do not be foolish.


Michael Starr: He dealt with matters affecting the union. Every person who is interested in union affairs in this country, except the government which appointed him, knows exactly what the role of the judge was. The minister in his announcement today says that everything is going well, that meetings have been held, that meetings will be held tomorrow, tomorrow evening and on Friday if necessary. At the same time the government is preparing legislation.


An hon. Member:: They have a club to wield.


Michael Starr: Why is this, if things are going so well? In a very simple situation such as this a settlement should have been reached today, and reached without legislation. All the government has to do is accept the recommendations of the judge it appointed. The union has

DEBATES	December 14, 1966
agreed to them. No glossing over of any pretended progress being made can deter us in parliament from our responsibility of again later this day moving the adjournment of the house, so that parliament may have a say in advising the government about what should be done in this matter.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: The fact that the air traffic control personnel of the Department of Transport have notified the government they intend withholding their services, commencing at 8 a.m. on Tuesday, December 20, means that this country faces a serious crisis.


An hon. Member:: The government does not care.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We face the prospect of having every civilian airport in Canada closed during the Christmas season. It is difficult to understand why the government has procrastinated on this matter for so long. The discussions with this group regarding salaries have been going on for some 18 months, without reaching any settlement.


Mr. Woolliams:: They need time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Last May the association asked the membership for a strike mandate and the government was so advised. The Minister of Transport, in order to head off a prospective strike, appointed Judge John B. Robinson to serve as a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act. The President of the Treasury Board says the judge was not a conciliator that he was not a mediator. What was he? He was a commissioner appointed by the government. For the Minister of Transport to say, as he said yesterday, that the judge was merely an adviser is the sheerest nonsense. You do not appoint an adviser under the Public Inquiries Act. He was appointed to ascertain all the facts, to look into the complaints of the traffic personnel that comparable employees in the United States received over 50 per cent more in salaries and had better working conditions.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. Pickersgill:: I am rising on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Transport rises on a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I should say I am rising on a point of order. The hon. gentleman appears to be reading from a paper which
December 14, 1968	COMMONS
purports to say what this gentleman was asked to inquire into. My colleague has the order-in-council. Would the hon. gentleman read what the government asked the judge to do, not his interpretation of it?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That point of order is about as silly and nonsensical as most of the interjections in which the minister indulges. But I will say this: The minister's own views are set forth in a letter which he sent to the association and in which he said the government recognized the importance of achieving a solution to this problem, and the importance which must be attached to the findings of the special investigator. The government, he said, would make a report immediately available to C.A.T.C and would give immediate consideration to its findings.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman quote the whole letter?


Michael Starr: Obey the rules.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The air traffic control personnel were so seized with the minister's sincerity that, in advance of the findings of Judge Robinson's report, they agreed to accept his recommendations. But they underestimated the Minister of Transport. If the report had been favourable to the government, the minister would have looked upon it as coming from a mediator. But when the recommendations were more generous than the President of the Treasury Board was prepared to accept, the government said Judge Robinson was not a mediator, not a conciliator, but just an adviser to the government.
Nevertheless the minister's own letter makes it perfectly clear that he was appointed to find a solution, and he brought down recommendations which seemed to hold out the hope of a settlement. It is significant that the air traffic control personnel should have indicated in advance that they would accept the recommendations immediately. The minister has had this report since November 7. Five weeks have gone by.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister is continuing to drag his feet. He refused to act on the judge's report. He has given the employees of his department no satisfaction as to the action he intends to take. It is only now, on the eve of a Christmas recess and faced with the prospect
Air Traffic Control Dispute of a strike commencing next Tuesday morning, that the government is beginning seriously to bargain with its employees-and bargain, let me say at the same time as it is telling them it intends to introduce legislation to prevent them withholding their services.
If any other employer bargained with a club hanging over its employees' heads, the government would describe it as blackmail. But knowing it has these employees entirely at its mercy, and having rejected the report of its own appointee, the government now bargains, telling them at the same time: If you do not take what we give you, you will be compelled-


Michael Starr: That is what they mean by free collective bargaining.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -to continue to work on terms set down by the government and by parliament.


Mr. Grafftey:: Another triumph for the right wing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is the government's concept of free collective bargaining. Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for the government to put legislation on the order paper. It is not necessary to introduce legislation to prevent this strike next Tuesday morning. All the government have to do is accept the recommendations of their own appointee, Judge Robinson. All they have to do is to say that the salary recommendations which were put before them are acceptable to them.
For the government to hide behind the flimsy excuse that they must wait for the remainder of Judge Robinson's report, which does not deal with salaries and does not deal with wage schedules, is simply an attempt to stall these negotiations for a longer period of time. I believe that once they know the facts the people of Canada generally will take a very dim view of the government's continued vacillation. This government has not bargained in good faith with these employees. If the government wants to prevent a serious crisis facing the Canadian people, all it has to do is to accept Judge Robinson's report, recognizing that he made that part of his report in advance because he knew that this was the crucial question which had to be settled. I want to tell the government that if it does not get a settlement, and get it very soon, the people of Canada are going to be highly indignant at the procrastination and gross incompetence which the government has displayed in the handling of this whole affair.
December 14. 1966

Air Traffic Control Dispute


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, there is not much left for me to say. The two previous speakers have said it all much better than I could, and I agree entirely with what they said. Somebody once said that you can fool all of the people some of the time and that you can fool some of the people all of the time, but that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. If the government would only get down to work, instead of twiddling its thumbs and beating around the bush, and discover what the real problems are, it could find a solution before the house collapses over its head.
This is not the first time that such a situation has arisen. Time and again the government has waited until the situation in question has become like a balloon ready to burst in the government's face. This is no different from the situation we saw in the railway strike, the longshoremen's strike, and other similar strikes.
The government sent a person to investigate this dispute. The opposition did not do it. In fact, the government sent a judge. But the government does not want to call him a mediator or a conciliator. The Minister of Transport has put his hand in a hat and pulled out the description of adviser for this person. That is one of the minister's natural tricks. But call him what you like, the fact remains that the government sent a man to investigate and report back to it. This man did his job in an efficient manner. He located the main trouble spot, which is the question of salaries. He made a recommendation to the government, but the government did not accept that recommendation, and has not accepted it even yet.
Why did the government send that man in the first place? Was it just a waste of time, a waste of money? Maybe the government was waiting for Christmas and figured it could then send Santa Claus.
I could recommend which minister of the government should play that role.


An hon. Member:: Very funny.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, it is not funny. We still do not have any kind of legislation to prevent any other situation of this kind arising. 1 would not be a bit surprised if in the middle of next July we were called back to settle some strike on Expo island. Why? -because this government is too incompetent. They beat around the bush and expect us to beat around the bush with them.


An hon. Member:: They have a task force.


Raymond Langlois: If this problem is not resolved to the satisfaction of those concerned, they will end up like the rabbit that is chased around the bush. They should remember there will be somebody behind them with a sawed off shotgun, close enough to get them. I am still on the subject of the incompetency of this government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but perhaps I should remind him of the provisions of provisional standing order 15 (2a) to the effect that comment made on ministerial statements should not be designed to provoke debate. I will say no more.


Raymond Langlois: I quite agree with you, Mr. Speaker. In this case, however, I think the provocation sometimes comes from the other side. I only hope that what the minister has in mind, which he probably has not yet told us, will turn out to be to the benefit of all concerned. At this time, just prior to the Christmas holidays, we need all our means of transportation. I hope the government does not have in the back of its mind the use of a club, because then public opinion would be against them and not against us. I do not think this would be wise. I hope the minister and his colleagues will keep the members of the house fully and truly informed in respect of all the facts, in their effort to avoid another strike on Tuesday next.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure, after hearing the three previous speakers discuss the announcement made by the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson), we realize we are in a very serious and critical situation. I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) that this country does face a serious crisis, but I certainly cannot agree with all the conclusions he has reached. I am sure that he, as well as other speakers who have taken part in this discussion, would have been just as keen to criticize the government had it accepted carte blanche the recommendations of Judge Robinson.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are too many interruptions in the house at the moment. I suggest the hon. member for Red Deer
December 14, 1966	COMMONS
should be given an opportunity to make his speech in the same way other speakers were given the opportunity.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that they might listen with the same degree of respect with which I listened to the statements just made by the other three speakers. I should like to repeat that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, in bringing out certain points, failed to state that the report of Judge Robinson is not yet complete. The part which is still to be completed is to cover some very important areas which concern the entire problem involved in settling this issue.
I should like to say also that, in the past, strikes have been and today are a part of the legitimate process in labour-management relations to protect the rights of the workers. But strikes also can be used as a pretty heavy club. In fact, when it concerns a service which is as essential to the whole air transportation system of this country as that performed by the air traffic controllers, I think a strike threat at this Christmas season could amount to blackmail, and certainly is a very powerful club in the hands of those who are attempting to use it to achieve what they want.
It is one thing to criticize the government for its ineptitude and lack of initiative in dealing with this as well as in other recent strike problems-and members of the government deserve criticism in this regard. On the other hand, at this critical time we have a procedure which has been recommended by the government whereby legislation will be provided to deal with this matter and ensure that air transportation in this country will continue while at the same time talks, in which the government is taking a very direct part, are going on. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in our responsibility in this house it seems to me that we must face the issue as it is at the present time, and not be a part of any strategy or manoeuvring which might be an attempt to disrupt or hinder the negotiations going on now.
While we may feel very critical about what the government has done, on the other hand there is a responsible attitude which we as members of this house must take in respect of the situation, in the hope that an agreement can be reached which would avoid a strike, and avoid the implementation of legislation in this house, if a satisfactory agreement is not reached.
In my opinion the time has passed when the government should have taken the initiative 23033-704
Members' Acceptance of Fees from C.B.C. to provide legislation to cover certain essential services in this country in the event of the possibility of a strike, because the economy of this country cannot go forward in a stable and satisfactory way if it is continually disrupted by strikes. On behalf of our party I should like to say that we will give our support to the legislation which is necessary to avoid at this time a strike which would completely paralyse the air transportation industry. At the same time, however, we will not be a part of any manoeuvre which would endanger the negotiations taking place.
Without repeating some of the legitimate criticisms which have been made of the members of the government for their lack of initiative in this area, I should like to say that at this point we have something more to do than just to criticize.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in a question which has appeared on the order paper the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) has raised a question regarding the situation in respect of members of parliament who accept fees from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I said that I would make a statement in this regard and I shall be glad to do so now.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
First of all let me say that as regards the present parliament, no member elected in November, 1965, has been offered or has accepted a payment from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation since that election.
The question whether a member of parliament is disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons if he accepts a fee from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is governed by the Senate and House of Commons Act. Section 15 of that act reads:
No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or agreement, expressed or implied, with or for the government of Canada on behalf of the crown, or with or for any of the officers of the government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is to be paid, is eligible as a member of the House of Commons, or shall sit or vote in the said house.
11116	COMMONS
Members' Acceptance of Fees from C.B.C.
Section 17 of that act provides for a penalty to be imposed on a member, who has become disqualified but continues to sit in the house, of $200 for each day on which he so sits. There are two qualifications here, however. Section 17 provides that the fine is not automatic; a suit for the forfeit would have to be taken. Section 23 provides that such proceedings have to be taken within 12 months of the date when the forfeiture or penalty was incurred.
It is also clear that only parliament itself can determine who is qualified or not qualified to sit as a member, and that disqualification in one parliament has no effect on a subsequent parliament. Indeed a disqualification to sit in one parliament does not bar a member from subsequently being a candidate and, if elected, from taking his seat unless there was a continuing contractual relationship with the crown, or an agency of the crown, that might disqualify him.
When a member of parliament has asked the Department of Justice for an opinion, as has been done on more than one occasion in the past, about his position in respect of the Senate and House of Commons Act, the deputy minister of justice has merely indicated his informal or personal view on the subject. The view of this kind, given of an M.P.'s position if he accepts a payment from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is that this is a payment by the crown, of which the C.B.C. is an agent, and therefore would appear to come within the provisions of the act which I have just quoted.
In February of this year the deputy minister of justice wrote to the C.B.C. to the effect that the corporation should "consider the appropriateness of offering to a member of parliament an honorarium or out of pocket expenses for his participation in a program".
The facts of the situation are that 17 members of the present parliament have accepted payment from the C.B.C. for participation in programs while members of the previous parliament between May, 1963 and September, 1965. This is the period covered by the question on the order paper. It covers of course the previous parliament.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult to go back much further than that because for each year an exhaustive search has to be made of C.B.C. accounting records. The 17 members that I have referred to included 5 Liberals, 5 Conservatives, 5 New Democratic Party members-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

DEBATES	December 14, 1966


Mr. Monteith:: There is where the money goes.
Some hon Members: Shame.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -1 Creditiste and 1 Social Credit.


An hon. Member:: What about the Independents?


Lester Bowles Pearson: And no Independents.


Mr. Ricard:: There were none at the time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No action was taken against any member of the previous parliament to invoke the penalty clause of the act because of the acceptance of such a payment. As I have said, in relation to the present parliament which was elected in November, 1965, no member has been offered or has accepted such a payment.
No payment has ever been made to a cabinet minister, so far as I have been able to ascertain. One of the 17 members of parliament I have mentioned later became a cabinet minister in a later parliament, and one had been a cabinet minister previously. In short, Mr. Speaker, no member of this parliament has done anything to disqualify himself from such membership because of any relationship to the C.B.C. However it seems to me that the legal position is a little uncertain and doubtful, and perhaps at an appropriate time it should be cleared up.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that greatly concerns the respect that Canadians should hold for parliament. It is one that is causing considerable difficulty in the minds of Canadians. I refer to the acceptance by members of parliament of payments from the C.B.C. The Prime Minister has referred to certain sections of the Senate and House of Commons Act. He did not refer to one other section. He referred to section 15. Section 16 of the Senate and House of Commons Act reads:
If any member of the House of Commons accepts any office or commission, or is concerned or interested in any contract, agreement, service or work which, by this act, renders a person incapable of being elected to, or of sitting or voting in the House of Commons, or knowingly sells any goods, wares or merchandise to, or performs any service for the government of Canada, or for any of the officers of the government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is paid or to be paid, whether such contract, agreement or sale is expressed or implied, and whether the transaction is single or continuous, the seat of such member shall thereby be vacated, and his election shall henceforth be null and void.
December 14, 1986
Section 21 (1) provides:
No person, who is a member of the Senate-
This deals with the Senate situation.
shall directly or indirectly, knowingly and wilfully be a party to-
The Minister of Transport is looking forward to the early expectation of being in that body and is showing a particular interest in this section while I am reading it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let's go together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: 
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: No one can deny this. I know personally what the C.B.C. did.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the right hon. Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Public Works

*


John George Diefenbaker: I want to say that I personally-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am trying to arrange for a bit of order. I understand the Minister of Public Works wants to ask a question. He cannot do this without the permission of the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: I first want to finish what I have to say, Mr. Speaker. I am always willing to answer the hon. gentleman. I was saying that the C.B.C. refused to make any payments after a legal opinion was secured from the law officers of the crown that the acceptance of any such payment would place in jeopardy the seat of an hon. member. That was not a passing opinion of the Minister of Justice; that was an opinion of the law officers of the crown. That is why in the present parliament no payments have been made.
11117
Members' Acceptance of Fees from C.B.C.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The Prime Minister said that, whatever the rules may have been in the past, they do not apply from one parliament to the other. The only example I know in respect of a member losing his seat in the house was the case of the Hon. George B. Jones from New Brunswick. He found that his company had accepted certain payments from the Department of Indian Affairs. He resigned his seat immediately and was re-elected subsequently. That is the only case on record of which I know.
Furthermore I would point out that in September, 1964 the C.B.C. announced in a policy declaration that no further payments would be made because of the opinion given by the law officers of the crown. I think hon. members generally will agree that it is the course of wisdom not to accept payments for appearances from an institution such as the C.B.C., into which we sink such a large proportion of the moneys from parliament and from the Canadian people.
It is unfortunate that this question was not answered sooner. The Prime Minister said that the period of limitation has elapsed. I would point out to him that the following question was asked on May 16 by the hon. member for Saskatoon:
1.	Has any member of the present cabinet, during the past three years received an horonarium or fee from the C.B.C. for appearances on television or radio?
2.	If so (a) who (b) in what amounts?
This was a starred question and I bring it to Your Honour's attention because starred questions are not supposed to remain in cold storage for months and months. This is an example of the cavalier way in which the government has treated questions placed on the order paper when it does not suit their purpose to answer them.
A further question was asked on September 8-not a starred one-which was as follows:
Have any ministers of the crown who may have received an honorarium or fee from the C.B.C. in the past three years for appearances on TV and radio, returned such fee to the corporation?
2. If so, which ministers and on what dates were the cheques received and on what dates were payments made?
Answers to these two questions have been flagrantly postponed by the government, for which there can be no excuse whatsoever.
In so far as the law is concerned, the law officers gave their opinion. I am sure that hon. members in all parts of the house will come to the conclusion that the acceptance of this type

11118	COMMONS
Members' Acceptance of Fees from C.B.C. of emolument is not in keeping with a member's responsibility. A member of the House of Commons must not under any circumstances, legally or otherwise, accept payments from an institution which, as I said a moment ago, receives so much of what is spent for the Canadian people.


George James McIlraith: Would the right hon. gentleman now permit a question? My question is this: Did the right hon. gentleman realize that he reflected on the character of each member of the House of Commons when he said that the only reason that members of parliament had not accepted payment from the C.B.C. was that the C.B.C. had not offered it to them?


Mr. Speaker:: I propose to allow the right hon. gentleman to answer the question if he wishes to do so, but I have some doubt as to the propriety of putting such questions. I may have made a mistake in the first place, when I allowed the minister to ask a question. I believe the practice we have tried to follow on ministerial statements until now has been to allow a statement and comments on it. If we allow questions on the statements made by spokesmen on behalf of parties we will start full debates every day on the different statements that are made. However, as I said, the question having been asked, I am certain the right hon. gentleman should be given an opportunity to reply to it.


John George Diefenbaker: It is very clear that the C.B.C. said no more payments would be made. The fact that payments had been accepted up to that time is sufficient of itself to answer the question of the Minister of Public Works.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. When a similar statement was made the other day the Chair wasted no time in ruling a backbencher out of order. The backbencher was me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have just admitted that perhaps I should not have allowed the minister to speak, but I did so, and hope that no such occasion will arise in the future.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party are in agreement with the statement which has been made by the Prime Minister, but we feel that some clarification should be made of the positions of hon. members with respect to the C.B.C. Conflicting rulings have been handed down from time to time by the Department of Justice as to whether or not members could accept out of pocket expenses. There has been

DEBATES	December 14, 1966
a good deal of misunderstanding with respect to this point. This has not been merely an oversight on the part of the C.B.C.
I have received a letter from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation dated February 21, 1964. I am quite prepared to table it so that any hon. member can read it. I myself will paraphrase it. The writer, Mr. Alfred Scott, program organizer for "Front Page Challenge" quotes sections 15 and 16 of the Senate and House of Commons Act. He proceeds to say that because of these sections no honorarium will be paid. However, the act does permit the C.B.C. to pay out of pocket expenses, and he encloses a cheque for $50. I sent him a personal cheque for $38 by return mail because my out of pocket expenses were $12. No member wants to contravene the law for $12,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: That is an admission.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -nor would he want to do so for any other sum. I am simply seeking to point this out.
Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter which hon. members should discuss seriously. An agency of the crown writes to members of parliament, quotes the Senate and House of Commons Act, and says that in its opinion, on the basis of legal advice, it is permitted to pay out of pocket expenses. It does not even ask for an itemized account. In this case I personally returned the major part of the payment and I gave an itemized account.
This places hon. members in a very invidious position. If the ruling of the Department of Justice is that members cannot accept out of pocket expenses, then the C.B.C. should not send members expense money and should make it perfectly clear to members that they are not entitled to accept it.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this matter ought to be clarified. It ought to be made clear once and for all that not only can the C.B.C. not pay fees to members of parliament or members of the Senate, but that they cannot pay those members out of pocket expenses. As long as this situation is left in its present state of ambiguity, there will always be this difficulty.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has said, it may be that some legislation will be
December 14, 1966
necessary. But certainly, I do not think that members should be condemned for acting on the suggestion of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which informed members that while they were not entitled to any fees they were entitled to out of pocket expenses. If members have accepted those out of pocket expenses they have done so on the recommendation of the C.B.C. and with the distinct understanding that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had sought legal advice prior to writing to the members in question. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Prime Minister will take whatever steps are necessary to see that the C.B.C. has the same opinion on this matter as the Department of Justice and that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will conduct itself accordingly.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I think there might be two solutions to this problem. One would be to keep members of parliament off television, which in some cases might be a public blessing. The second is that if they are to be allowed any out of pocket expense money they should be required to submit an itemized expense account in relation to all expenses which are legitimate. Otherwise, in view of the example cited by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), if some of the crown corporations operate in this way with regard to expenses they incur I can very well imagine why every year they have a deficit.
The law certainly needs some clarification and perhaps some amendment. At the moment, any member of a crown corporation or of the House of Commons or Senate can unwittingly find himself in quite a serious situation. I think it is up to us to look into the matter and to bring in the necessary amendments to patch up the law, if you wish, so that such a situation will not come about. It is up to the government to bring in the exact formula, which I presume they will do before some other awkward situation pops up where one of our colleagues either in the house or the Senate will find himself in a serious position, and we will have to bring in some amendments at that time.


Mr. Gregoire:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Lapointe rising on a point of order?
Members' Acceptance of Fees from C.B.C.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to quote standing order 30 of the House of Commons, which says:
If anything shall come in question touching the conduct of any member, or his election, or his right to hold his seat, he may make a statement and shall withdraw during the time the matter is in debate.
Now, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) has made his position clear and has taken this opportunity to make his statement. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, he and the sixteen others referred to by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and who do not intend to make a statement, should now withdraw from the house, as required by standing order 30, before debate on this matter continues. '
Therefore, I ask that this standing order be applied and that the seventeen members mentioned withdraw, unless they signify immediately their intention to make a statement on that matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member for Red Deer be given the opportunity to make a statement while the Chair reflects on the point or order raised by the hon. member.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order. I would like to point out that standing order 30 clearly stipulates that: "he shall withdraw during the time the matter is in debate". The debate is fully under way and after the statement of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) it will be too late_


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It might have been better if the hon. member had risen on a point of order earlier. But he waits until the hon. member for Red Deer has the floor and without knowing what he will say. It might be a good idea to hear him first.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very short. I believe the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) has brought up a very important point. I think the majority of the members in this house, at one time or another, have received from public funds money to cover legitimate-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. MacEwan:: Speak for yourself only.

11120	COMMONS
Members' Acceptance of Fees from C.B.C.


Robert Norman Thompson: If hon. members would wait to hear what I have to say, they would understand.


Malcolm MacInnis: We
have heard enough.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the noise some members make is matched only by their ignorance on some issues. The majority of the members of this house, at one time or another, have accepted money from public funds in reimbursement of travelling expenses. Most of the members have been on some form of delegation or other. Certainly a member is entitled to a fair repayment of out of pocket expenses incurred in legitimate travel while carrying out the normal duties of his office.
If a member of this house is to be condemned because he has received travelling expenses from the C.B.C., apart from any fees or any other type of remuneration, then I suggest this would be very unfair to him. I believe that if a check were made it would be found that most of the 17 members concerned, if not all of them, received only that kind of reimbursement. So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that in the investigation of this matter he be sure to include the question whether or not it is improper to receive legitimate travel expenses from the C.B.C., in the normal course of duty expected of one holding such an office, for such things as-


An hon. Member:: External affairs.


Robert Norman Thompson: -for external affairs or for any other type of duty which he may have been performing. The respect of this house as far as the public is concerned has suffered enough at this time without our heaping upon ourselves more disrespect for something of which we are not really guilty. I am not one of those who has accepted even travelling expenses from the C.B.C.-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Nielsen:: How did you get to the Congo?


Robert Norman Thompson: The point that has been brought up by the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam is a very important one and is certainly part of this whole issue. If only for the protection of new members and of people not familiar with some of these matters, this matter must be investigated.

DEBATES	December 14, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: It would perhaps be appropriate that, ex post facto, I should refer to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). My understanding is that standing order 30 applies more particularly to a specific case where the conduct of a member has been questioned and where the matter is under consideration following a specific motion concerning a member. In this case, circumstances are entirely different, and I believe that the standing order is not applicable thereto.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Brand: 1.	Has any member of the present cabinet, during the past three years, received an honorarium or fee from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for appearances on television or radio?
2.	If so (a) who (b) in what amounts?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1. Yes, a member of the present cabinet who was a private member at the time he appeared on C.B.C. programs was one of several members of parliament who received fees from the C.B.C. while members of a previous parliament.
2.	The answer to part A is the present Minister of Mines, Energy and Resources.
Part B: It is the policy of the C.B.C. not to disclose the amounts paid to any individual.


DECORATION OF HON. JEAN LESAGE BY GREECE
Mr. Allard: Has the government, through its former Ambassador to Greece, made representations to the government of Greece with respect to a decoration or a doctorate to be conferred on the Hon. Jean Lesage?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: No representations in the matter have been made either to or by the government of Canada by or to the government of Greece.
December 14, 1966


RETURN OF HONORARIA BY MINISTERS TO C.B.C.
Mr. Brand: 1.	Have any ministers of the crown who may have received an honorarium or fee from the C.B.C. in the past three years for appearances on TV and radio, returned such fee to the corporation?
2.	If so, which ministers and on what dates were the cheques received and on what dates were payments made?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	No honorarium or fee was paid to a minister of the crown during that period.
2.	Not applicable.


LT. COL. JOHN MCCRAE-CANADA COUNCIL GRANT
Mr. Hales: Is the Canada Council giving consideration to making a grant available to publish a suitable full-length biography of the late Lt. Col. John McCrae, soldier, doctor and author of the poem "In Flanders Fields"?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Canada Council that it does not initiate the preparation or publication of particular literary or scholary works.


BABINE, B.C.-SUPERINTENDENT OF INDIAN AGENCY
Mr. Howard: 1.	Upon what date was Mr. Cooper assigned to the position of Indian Superintendent of the Babine Indian Agency?
2.	Are there any plans to transfer Mr. Cooper to another location and, if so, upon what date will he be so transferred?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. July 1, 1963.
2. No.


GREAT LAKES SYSTEM-CANADA COUNCIL GRANT
Mr. Hales: Is the Canada Council giving consideration to making available a grant as a centennial project to one of our outstanding Canadian historians to write a story on the Canadian Great Lakes waterway development and its contribution in the development of Canada?
Questions


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Canada Council that it does not initiate the preparation or publication of particular literary or scholarly works.


INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD EXPENDITURES
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Over the last five years, what amounts of money have been deposited in the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the terms of subsection (3) of section 90 of the Income Tax Act?
2.	For each of the last five years, what have been the total expenditures of the Tax Appeal Board?
3.	During the last fiscal year, what have been the detailed expenditures of the board?


Edgar John Benson: 1.
1961-	62	$3,676.311962-	63	4,561.311963-	64	3,105.701964-	65	3,091.161965-	66	3,691.28
(Fees received are $15 each and the uneven amounts in the above tabulation result from crediting American exchange received on cheques sent in payment of the fees).
2.	Administration	Members'1961-62	$113,521.69	salaries $ 81,331.811962-63	113,848.59	84,816.651963-64	122,985.38	98,853.131964-65	141,756.35	113,000.001965-66	150,625.50	112,999.923.	1965-66	Administration	Members'Salaries	$ 87,019.63	salaries $112,999.92Court reporters'	fees	39,823.62	Travelling expenses	15,629.66	Telephones and	telegrams	1,478.93	Office stationery 5,653.00	Sundries	1,020.66	$150,625.50


CENTENNIAL COMMISSION MEETINGS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1. How many meetings of the Centennial Commission have taken place In the last six months?

December 14, 1966
Questions
2. On what dates and in what cities were each of said meetings held?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am informed as follows by the Centennial Commission.
The Centennial Commission as defined by Section 3 of The Centennial of Canadian Confederation Act is constituted by a board of directors and its executive committee.
1.	Fourteen meetings of the board of directors and/or the executive committee have been held in the last six months.
2.	May 31, Ottawa; June 12, Victoria; June 27, Montreal; July 18, Ottawa; August 8, Ottawa; August 23, Ottawa; September 7 and
Wheat
'"August 1 to November 30, 1966
(a)	and (b) Producers marketings	209,028	20,156
(c)	Shipments from
country elevators	237,775	13,225
(d)	Shipments from the
Lakehead since opening of navigation	351,300	31,300*August 1 to December 1, 1965 (a) and (b) Producers marketings	148,669	19,754(c)	Shipments fromcountry elevators	211,269	22,428(d)	Shipments from theLakehead since opening of navigation	271,745	44,432
* Figures compiled on a weekly basis.


TRANSLATIONS PERFORMED OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. McCleave: Will the government consider arrangements for translation services by non-public servants so that books and documents are not held up from public release?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the policy advocated has been followed by the Translation Bureau for many years.
The Translation Bureau already contracts out part of its workload to outside translators with proven competence to meet its standards of quality. There is at present a list of outside English, French and Foreign Language translators. These translators are recruited among former Translation Bureau translators and other persons who give proof of their ability to submit work requiring as little revision as possible.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.i
8, Toronto; September 19, Ottawa; October 6, Ottawa; October 25, Ottawa; November 9, Ottawa; November 10, Ottawa; November 14, Ottawa; November 22, Ottawa.


COMPARATIVE GRAIN MARKETINGS
Mr. Andras: What were the comparative figures for the crop year to November 30, 1965, and to November 30, 1966, for (a) producer marketings of wheat (b) producer marketings of all grains (c) shipments from country elevators (d) shipments from the Lakehead since opening of navigation?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: -thousand bushels-
44,401	6,068	8,588	7,339	295,58034,272	5,169	8,541	4,416	303,39841,600	8,300	13,700	1,200	447,30044,764	3,653	8,732	7,913	233,48436,379	4,128	7,764	4,254	286,22239,749	4,106	10,796	1,337	372,166
An expansion of this aspect of the bureau's operations is contemplated for the near future and will be reflected in next year's estimates.
Of course, some of the documents entrusted for translation to the bureau cannot be sent out for security or technical reasons.


SASKATCHEWAN-GRANTS FOR AIRSTRIPS
Mr. Soulham: 1.	How many applications has the federal government received from rural and urban municipalities in the province of Saskatchewan for grants to establish airstrips or repair those in existence in 1965, and 1966 to date.
2.	Where are these municipalities located and what were the amounts of grants in each case?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Eight.
2. Biggar, Sask.; Unity, Sask.; Lanigan, Sask.; Eston, Sask.; Weyburn, Sask.; Maple Creek, Sask.; Birch Hills, Sask.; Kindersley, Sask. Grants have been approved for two: Biggar, $19,000 and Unity, $9,000.
Oats Barley Rye Flaxseed Rapeseed
December 14, 1966


POSTAL RATES ON UNSEALED CHRISTMAS CARDS
Mr. Winkler: 1.	Has the Post Office Department issued instructions regarding postal rates on unsealed Christmas cards?
2.	What is the rate (a) within a city or town (b) elsewhere in Canada?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Posimasier General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is, yes. The answer to part 2 (a) and (b) is as follows: Three cents first two ounces and 1 cent each additional two ounces, provided envelope unsealed and written greeting on
Questions
card does not exceed five words, otherwise letter rates of postage apply.


INSIGNIA USED IN POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What inscriptions or insignia were used on (a) mail bags of Her Majesty's mail (b) mail boxes, and (c) mail trucks in each of the years 1962 to 1965 inclusive?
2.	What changes have been made this year, and on what dates and under whose authority?


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, the reply is as follows: 1. (a) Mail bags purchased since April 1, 1962 to date are stencilled as follows:
The Crown insignia The year Canada
Mail bags purchased prior to April 1, 1962, many of which are still in use, generally have similar markings as follows. There are three different types.
Type of Bag
(i)	Blue Air Mail Bags
(ii)	Red Air Mail Bags
(iii)	Letter Bags Newspaper-Parcel Post Bags Blue Fragile Bags
Catch Post Bags
(iv)	Overseas Mail Bags
Marking
The Crown insignia The year Canada Air Mail
The Crown insignia
The year
Air Mail
Registered
The Crown insignia
The year
Canada

Canada Post Office The year
When empty return to Canada
(b)	Mail boxes purchased during the years 1962-1965 inclusive have the following in scription and insignia. There are four different types.
Type of Box	Marking
(i)	Letter Carrier Mail Storage Box
(ii)	Group Mail Delivery Box
(iii)	Street Letter Box
(iv)	Free Standing Street Mail Receptacle
Coat of Arms Canada Coat of Arms Canada
(on one box in each installation)
Coat of Arms (cast or moulded)
Canada Coat of Arms Canada
(in addition, the purpose of the box is shown as "Parcel Post", "Letters" or "Mail")
Note: Prior to 1963, the letters "E" and "R" also appeared on (i) and (ii).

December 14, 1966
*	Questions
(c)	Prior to March 1964, mail trucks under exclusive contract to the Post Office Department bore a variety of insignia and markings. Most trucks bore the following markings:
E Coat of Arms R Canada
The trucks also bore the inscription "Royal Mail" or "Royal Mail" and "Poste Royale", depending on the part of Canada in which they operated.
In March 1964 it was decided to standardize the markings on a progressive basis as vehicles were replaced or repainted. The standard format is: The Coat of Arms, "Canada", "Royal Mail" and "Poste Royale". However, many trucks still bear the letters "E" and "R" due to the fact that replacement or repainting has not been necessary and decals in stock are still being used.
Highway mail service trucks are not required to display any insignia for security reasons.
Mailmobiles owned and operated by the Canada Post Office bear the Canada Coat of Arms under which appears the word "Canada".
2. No changes have been made this year.


JOHN C. DOYLE-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT CLAIM
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What is the present position of the claim of the government of Canada against John C. Doyle?
2.	Has any decision been reached?
3.	Are there any actions now pending for income tax against the Canadian Javelin Corporation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is as follows: Appeals by Mr. Doyle from outstanding income tax assessments have been heard by the Tax Appeal Board and judgment has been reserved.
The answer to part 2 is covered by the answer to part 1.
The answer to part 3 is, no.


DEATHS FROM TETANUS
Mr. Harley: How many deaths in Canada have been due to tetanus in the last five reportable years?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Thirty-four deaths due to tetanus have been reported in Canada in the last five years. These are as follows: 1961, 8; 1962, 5; 1963, 6; 1964, 9; 1965, 6.


ELECTRICAL WORKERS-TAXATION OF INCOME FROM PENSION PLAN
Mr. Prittie: 1.	Is there a pension plan operated by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers registered in accordance with the Income Tax Act?
2. If so, is this plan in accordance with section 62 (1) (q) of the act which states that the income of a pension fund is exempt from tax only if it is ". . . a trust or corporation established or incorporated solely in connection with, or for the administration of a registered pension fund or plan, not less than 90 per cent of the income of which for the period was from sources in Canada"?
3.	Does this plan meet the requirements for registration contained in the regulations under the Income Tax Act in Bulletin No. 14, Canada Gazette, July 18, 1959, which reads: "A plan instituted and operated outside of Canada will only be accepted for registration in the most unusual circumstances. When accepted it will be necessary that it be underwritten by an insurer licensed to do business in Canada or that funds contributed with respect to Canadian employees be held in Canada by Canadian trustees. There must be a specific provision that none of the funds contributed by and on behalf of Canadian employees be diverted to or for the benefit of other than the Canadian employees"?


Edgar John Benson: Parts 1, 2 and 3. Matters concerning particular taxpayers or group of taxpayers are regarded as confidential. Therefore, this question cannot be answered.


COMPARATIVE COST OF LIVING FIGURES
Mr. Barnett: In terms of the cost-of-living index currently in use, what was the average cost of living in each of the years 1946, 1951, 1956, 1961 and 1966 to date?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The consumer price index for Canada, based on 1949 equalling 100, in each of the specified years was:
1946, 77.5; 1951, 113.7; 1956, 118.1; 1961, 129.2; 1966 (average of 10 months), 143,6.


WEYBURN, SASK.-APPOINTMENT TO DISTRICT COURT
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,271
Mr. Southam:: 1.	Was Mr. T. L. Geatros, Q.C., of Weybum, Saskatchewan, notified by the Minister of Justice in October that he would be appointed to the District Court of Weyburn and Estevan?
2.	Was he appointed?
3.	If not, who received the appointment?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: 1. It would not be in the public interest to
December 14, 1966

disclose consultations leading to the appointment of judges.
2.	No.
3.	Franklin E. Rutherford of the city of Regina.


REMOVAL OF EXEMPTION FOR PENSION RECIPIENTS
Mr. Kennedy: Has the government removed the $500 exemption on income, for income tax purposes, on those taxpayers betwen age 65 to 70 years who are in receipt of an Old Age Security pension?


Edgar John Benson: Yes. The Income Tax Act was
amended to that effect in 1965.


C.M.H.C.-APPOINTMENT OF LAWYERS
Mr. Winkler: 1.	Has government policy regarding the appointment of lawyers to act on behalf of C.M.H.C. changed in the past three years?
2.	Is the government encouraging applicants to use the government-appointed C.M.H.C. legal representatives?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1.	No.
2.	No.


COMPARATIVE POPULATION FIGURES
Mr. Latulippe: What was the population of Canada in (a) October 1946 (b) October, 1966?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Information requested is not available for October 1966. Comparable figures are available for June 1, 1946 and June 1, 1966 and may be helpful.
Estimated population, June 1, 1946, 12,292,000.
Provisional estimate of population, June 1, 1966, 19,919,000.


AIR TRANSPORT
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the
Air Traffic Control Dispute house under standing order 26 to discuss an urgent matter of public importance, namely, the threatened strike on Tuesday, December 20, by the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association as a result of the refusal of the government to accept the recommendations of Judge John Robinson, the conciliator appointed by the government. I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for not having had time to have this motion translated into French.


Mr. Speaker:: Can the hon. member address the Chair on the urgency of debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, without referring to what took place yesterday, my submission is that urgency of debate is clearly established by the exculpatory statements which the President of the Treasury Board made. It is necessary that we secure much fuller information regarding a matter that up to the present time has received desultory consideration by the government. The statements made today simply are delaying ones.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Surely, parliament will not be denied the right to discuss a matter which so directly affects the economy as a national strike of air control personnel, particularly following the explanatory statements which have been made. Here is the position of affairs: The air traffic controllers accepted without question the mediation report by Judge Robinson. The message I received today from the air traffic controllers was that they urge government implementation of those recommendations. Responsibility for the failure to act rests squarely on this government.
This is not the case of a labour dispute in which labour has refused to accept the recommendations made by a body set up by the government. It is a quibble to say that Judge Robinson was not a mediator or a conciliator, but merely a recommender or adviser. That is a transparent quibble. The government has been sitting on this problem for months. It has refused to act, and in order to bail itself out it will place on the order paper a motion to bring about compulsory acceptance of a recommendation made by Judge Robinson or, on the other hand, compulsory acceptance of whatever alternative the government has to offer.
This will be the first time in Canadian history that the government of Canada has tried to get parliament to bail it out for its failure
December 14, 1966


COMMON'S DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
Air Traffic Control Dispute to act in connection with a labour matter. There can be no excuse for further postponement. The bill to be introduced might well be described as the Benson-Pickersgill relief bill to relieve them from the carrying out of their responsibilities. Responsibility for whatever will happen in the event that a strike takes place rests absolutely on the shoulders of the government. That was made clear today. They have played with this, and now they talk of free collective bargaining-free collective bargaining with a shillelagh over the heads of labour and with parliament to be used as a pawn in this game which the government has been playing with the rights of the Canadian people. Could anything be more urgent?
The minister in charge of the Treasury Board says: we are talking now; we are meeting together. Why have they not been meeting all these weeks?
Lester Bowles Pearson: We have been meeting.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) can smile with that supercilious sneer of his. He does that on every occasion. It is his responsibility and what he is trying to do now is to place on parliament the responsibility for his own failure.


An hon. Member:: And that of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: And that of the government. Even he will realize that. An attempt is being made to place on the House of Commons responsibility for becoming an instrument of intimidation to set aside the rightful claims of the workers in this particularly difficult field of the operation of air control.
In the old days, when the question of the urgency of discussion arose, we had the right of appeal from rulings of the Chair. However, we removed that right in order to assure that there would be a degree of justice which would not be challenged. The other day I took a view which was not accepted by Your Honour. I do not complain of that. But I say again that failure to grant the request of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) for an adjournment will mean that the rules are so constricted today that virtually nothing will be urgent enough to permit of the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance.
This is the first time-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order. The right hon. gentleman, I suggest, is not

arguing the urgency of debate. He is attempting once more to debate the substance of the motion which the hon. member for Ontario has asked leave to introduce, and I suggest once again that the right hon. gentleman contain himself and obey the rules like the rest of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a great affection for the Minister of Transport. I have a tremendous respect for him. When he rises, there is about him an aura. One almost has to wear coloured glasses to look at him as he speaks with that authority which he invariably vests in himself. I have dealt very gently with him in all I have said. What has annoyed him has been that I have been talking about the head of the Treasury Board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, I come to him on this question of urgency. The hon. gentleman pops up and down on points of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I invite the right hon. gentleman to return at this point to the question we should be considering, that is, the urgency of debating the motion proposed by the hon. member for Ontario.


John George Diefenbaker: The interruption by the minister might very well have received your attention, too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may say so, with great deference, invariably the hon. gentleman raises these gratuitous observations of his, and Your Honour does not see fit to point out-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I regret very much that I cannot agree with the right hon. gentleman. I believe the point raised by the hon. minister was a point of order; I did not consider it to be frivolous in any way. He suggested that members who take part in the debate at this point should restrict themselves to the very limited scope of the discussion, which is whether there is urgency of debate. I believe the point raised by the hon. minister was well taken.
On the other hand, I fully appreciate that it is not easy for anyone taking part in the debate at this stage to limit himself to this very narrow aspect of the subject. I always
December 14, 196G	COMMONS
try to take this into account. I must say that when some degree of leniency has been exercised by the Chair in this way it is always a little easier, I feel, to rule against the hon. member who has made the motion. This is why, in general, I have tried in a very sincere way to exercise some leniency in judging the extent to which hon. members respect the limitations placed on them by the rules and by our practice. I know the right hon. gentleman will wish to take that into account.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I have been doing. Had it not been for the usual repetitious interference by the hon. gentleman, I would have ended my argument long ago.
I do suggest, sir, that if ever there was a case of urgency, this is one. This house will not permit itself, if I sense the feeling of this chamber, to become the agency of the government in a matter as urgent as this is.
This house, if I have the feeling of the chamber, is not going to permit itself, on a matter as urgent as this because of the danger to the Canadian people and the economy, to be used as an instrument of intimidation against the air controllers. Yesterday Your Honour said, "Well, wait until tomorrow; there are discussions going on." How long are we to be denied?
Each day the minister can get up and say "It is not urgent today, the strike is not going to be until next Tuesday," while at the same time placing on the order paper an extension of the time for the house to sit, and also to sit on Saturday. In other words, nothing can be more urgent, otherwise the government would not have been impelled to place these extraordinary measures in anticipation before the House of Commons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
Erik Nielsen: Would the minister answer a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest, sir, that until there has been an opportunity to see whether this accommodation can be reached, it would not be in the public interest to have a debate. I suggest, sir, that the urgency of debate does not exist because an opportunity will be provided for debate.


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister answer a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Erik Nielsen: If the government does not consider the matter urgent, will the minister tell us why it is giving notice on the order paper for this legislation? If it is not urgent, why introduce the legislation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I consider the matter of the greatest possible urgency. I said so yesterday, but I do not consider it a matter that urgently requires to be debated within the narrow terms of our rules. In my opinion, which obviously isn't shared by all hon. members, while these negotiations are going on this afternoon in another place it would not be in the public interest to have a public, acrimonious debate here.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi rising to ask a question?


William Heward Grafftey: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make only one point, and that is to refer Your Honour to the fact that yesterday, as recorded at page 11048 of Hansard, you rejected a similar motion by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), and in these words:
The question proposed by the hon. member for Ontario Is based, by his own admission, on an assumption.
December 14, 1986

Air Traffic Control Dispute
In the latter part of the same paragraph, I read:
-I suggest the point was well taken by the Minister of Transport when he said this is not a fact but a hypothesis or a presumption.
Your Honour was referring at that time to the fact that a strike vote was in the process of being taken, and Your Honour pointed out that the strike vote might or might not result in a decision to withhold services. That point is now settled. There is no longer a presumption or an assumption. This morning the Air Traffic Controllers' Association notified the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that the strike would begin next Tuesday morning at eight o'clock.
It seems to me there can be no argument now as to the question of urgency. The country is faced with a very serious crisis. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) argues as to the advisability of debate but he certainly has not argued against the urgency of debate. I point out to Your Honour that the minister says the government has provided, by its own motion, an opportunity for debate. But it only provided for an opportunity for the government to make a statement and for one member from each party to make a statement. This denied all other hon. members an opportunity to debate, and certainly denied us an opportunity to question the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman would not want to misrepresent what I said. What I meant to say, and I probably phrased it badly, is that the notice which has been put on the order paper will provide an opportunity for full debate unless there is an accommodation reached.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I understood the minister to say both, and I was coming to that as well. The minister also said that there will be ample opportunity for debate if legislation is necessary. It is precisely because we hope legislation can be avoided by having a discussion that we support the call for an adjournment debate. We want to know two things: One, why the government has refused to accept the recommendations of Judge Robinson. I tried three times yesterday to get a statement from the minister on that, but he was not prepared to give such a statement.
We need to know why the government is so adamant. It may have perfectly good reasons, but certainly when those reasons are held so strongly that they bring us to the verge of a national crisis, parliament and the country have a right to know what those reasons are.


Also, the people of this country have a right to know what is in Judge Robinson's report. It is not going to be good enough for us to have legislation suddenly thrown at us late Friday afternoon or Saturday morning, with no opportunity to study Judge Robinson's report, no opportunity to know why the government has refused to implement his recommendations. We will have this legislation tossed at us and be told, "You must pass this legislation in a few hours or all the airports in Canada will be closed."
Surely, that is not fair to parliament or the Canadian people. We ought to have an opportunity here on Wednesday afternoon, December 14, to know what is in that report and to know the reason the government has rejected it. Then, knowing this, if legislation is necessary, we will be better informed and better able to discuss it intelligently. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is a cast iron case for allowing debate, at which time the government can give us some of the information it has hidden from parliament up until now.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, judging by what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has said, if he was speaking for the government and for the President of the Treasury Board, then the best axiom we can apply to the government is, "Why do today what we can put off until tomorrow?" That is not a good axiom and very early in life I was taught not to live by it.
With respect to urgency of debate and the motion presented by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), I point out that we are on the verge of a national crisis. If that crisis occurs it will be very awkward to have to start repairing all the damage then done which could possibly have been prevented prior to the crisis taking place.
I well remember the last occasion the house was called into session to discuss strike legislation. The strike in question was on at the time and I remember all the side-stepping, backtracking and tango dancing done by the government to revise its strike bill after the opposition pressed for something sensible in that legislation.
By allowing this debate today before strike legislation is introduced, parliament will be permitted to give its views. The opposition may present some sensible solutions that the government might wish to consider in drafting its legislation, rather than waiting until
December 14, 1966	COMMONS
the crisis is at its peak. If legislation is introduced then, we will have to start fighting to put sense into the legislation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I think one of the main purposes of a debate is that it would permit this government to listen to the views of the opposition in respect of what is becoming an urgent matter. At regular intervals we are faced with the same crisis-a strike threat here, a strike threat there, a strike here and a strike there. I think it is better that we try to control the disease instead of trying to provide a cure after it is at its peak. I cannot think of a more crucial or urgent matter which necessitates our immediate attention. At this time of the year particularly, we cannot permit ourselves to become involved in an air line strike. First of all, we would look like a bunch of nitwits here and, second, we cannot afford it. This is a very urgent matter and I strongly recommend this debate so that we can express our views on this matter to the government.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-slolie):: Mr. Speaker, with the other developments which have taken place since yesterday and the fact that the strike vote now has taken place, I think we are in order to move that a debate on this proposed stoppage be held at the present time. In our democracy we cannot predict the results of a free vote. The time is crucial. The government has a right to be concerned about the amounts recommended in the proposed settlement. We know they were not sufficiently concerned about the amount settled upon in the Montreal dock strike. This was very forcibly brought to their attention by all groups in the opposition. In effect, what has happened has been that the government has learned from the opposition to be a little more wary. I think we should congratulate them on this ability to learn. We should be concerned about the cost of air transport in Canada. Air Canada has just underwritten one of the most expensive experiments ever undertaken in the entire world in its agreement to buy supersonic aircraft. This is a development which has been relatively unnoticed in this house and yet it is one the cost of which is fantastic. We need to show more concern about this than has been shown up until now.
It is interesting to note that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) has advocated what has amounted almost to a proposal to raise the status of any mediator or conciliator automatically to that of an arbitrator. This is a policy which is not in accord
Air Traffic Control Dispute with his party's avowed stand on compulsory arbitration. However, if we could bring that about in this way it might be the thing which would improve our system of dealing with strikes. We would simply appoint a mediator and both sides would be bound by whatever he decided, because surely what fits the left foot also must fit the right foot.
I should like to add one more point on this matter of urgency. We are in a crisis. It is ironic that the anniversary of the birth of the Prince of Peace also should be the reason of labour strife. The distortion produced in our economy by the Christmas season is a problem which we well might send to the Canadian Economic Council for consideration.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, in speaking very briefly to the point of urgency, I should like to say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in opening up this discussion of urgency referred to the fact that this parliament did not wish to be faced with a fait accompli. It might be argued that the government wants to put a resolution on the order paper so that we can debate the issue soon, but this is just what we in the opposition wish to avoid. The government's credibility in respect of settling labour matters has been seriously endangered over the past months and years because it has intervened on one side and sometimes on the other. If the urgency of debate is recognized, then this house can have a full and frank discussion of this crisis situation. It is very possible that by this means we might avoid the necessity for the kind of legislation that would only exacerbate the labour-management-government situation. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) time and time again in this parliament over the last weeks and months-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: You know, when a government feels guilty they always joke and make light of a situation; when they are pushing their heads in the sand, they laugh. In respect of our repeated request for management-labour-government legislation, the government has promised us a task force. When the late President Kennedy spoke of a task force he meant experts all across the nation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member not feel that he now is getting to some extent away from the question of the urgency of debate.
December 14, 1966

Air Traffic Control Dispute


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of debate is this. We always deal with one situation, but this is not just one situation. The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) frankly admitted to us that not a week has gone by during his tenure of office when there has not been a strike. This kind of thing is going on every single week. The people of Canada want us to deal not with just the air strike but with the whole fumbling and bumbling of this government in terms of the overall problem.
If this matter of urgency is not recognized by the Chair, we will be faced with a fait accompli by a government which is to bring in legislation in this regard. As a member of Her Majesty's official opposition, I do not wish to have any part in the triumph of the right wing of that dinosaur cabinet. The kind of legislation which the minister wants to bring in, and which I want to avoid, is nothing more nor less than a triumph of the bureaucratic right wing of the cabinet. I want a debate here this afternoon in order to avoid that kind of legislation which will only hurt management-labour relations. I want to hear what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) will have to say in this regard. We all wish to hear from this great friend of the labour movement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression the hon. member now is making the speech which he might have the opportunity to make if the motion is granted. I cannot think of any other speech he might make except this one. I do feel he is going beyond what I thought was the limited scope of the discussion at this point.


William Heward Grafftey: May I summarize very briefly Mr. Speaker. In order to avoid the kind of legislation which I think will be harmful to any future situation of this type, I think we should have a debate this afternoon. I do not wish to be faced in 48 hours with a fait accompli and be a participant in the triumpth of the right wing of the Liberal government.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make two or three points on this matter of the urgency of debate. May I respectfully point out to Your Honour your ruling of yesterday afternoon.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I might mention to hon. members that this was done in the course of the afternoon.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with referring to it again because it leads up to the remarks made by the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, the hon. gentleman said the vote had not been taken, and therefore it was presumptuous to decide anything on the basis of what might happen. Now, the Minister of Transport says there is to appear on the order paper, and notice is being given, a proposal to deal with this matter. However, with the greatest respect Mr. Speaker that settles nothing. Certainly, it should not be deemed that this debate would anticipate something that is already on the order paper. This is in the nature of a definite confession if it is deemed to be a reason this debate should not take place.
In any event, the question of opportunity of debate must always remain foremost in Your Honour's mind. There are no estimates left. There is no indication that the government is going to call this item of business. There is no indication that this house will sit extended hours on Friday or Saturday. There is no certainty about that; nothing has been decided by the house. It is not what the government decides that determines whether this house shall hold a debate. It is this house that decides whether there will be a debate, subject of course to Your Honour's approval. The decision is not based on the fact further negotiations are taking place, as the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) or the Minister of Transport indicated, because negotiations could continue until 0755 hours on Monday morning and at eight o'clock these people could be on strike. It is the strike that we want to prevent. There is the further principle that this house must debate, the question of participation by public servants in a strike, with parliament, the final arbiter, as one of the parties-because that is what it is.
The situation may be novel because this is one of the few times we have been faced with a direct strike by public servants, involving parliament and the government of Canada. We should not be precluded from discussing the matter, under the circumstances, even though the hour is late. In the light of what was said yesterday, I submit that Your Honour has no alternative but to allow the motion today.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that a number of hon. members want to take part in the debate, and I do not want to cut off the debate on the point of order. However, there is just about an hour and a half left this afternoon, and even
December 14, 1968

if the motion is granted at this point there would not be very much time to debate the matter. On such an important matter I do not want to preclude discussion, and if the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) want to contribute further to the debate on the point of order, I will recognize them. The hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to say that, to my mind, the debate is urgent, the matter is important and we should discuss it today. We must not wait until the strike is under way before trying to settle the matter; better to do so before it starts. In view of the considerable loss of money the strike would involve, and the fact that the government does not seem to be able to settle it, I feel the urgency of the debate is obvious. The other day, an appeal was made, on all imaginable grounds, to solve a certain problem as rapidly as possible. 1 believe the problem which confronts us today must also be settled as soon as possible. In order not to hamper the development of Canada, such strikes must be prevented. It is therefore imperative that we discuss the matter today.
That is what I had to say. Let us have the debate, so that we may suggest how to settle the labour dispute.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I will make my remarks very short and to the point. I will point out three matters that I think are different today as compared with yesterday. Your Honour indicated in his remarks yesterday that the matter had not then come to a strike vote. We now know that 94.5 per cent of the controllers voted for the strike. That is the first fact. The second one is that the date has been set as next Tuesday. Some had expected the date to be set in January. The third, and most important fact I think, to be remembered this afternoon is that after seven hours of negotiation yesterday, the controllers in conference by telephone last night decided that on the basis of what they had heard in those seven hours they could do nothing but call for a strike next Tuesday morning at eight o'clock.
I think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), when he suggested that discussion here would hurt negotiations going on elsewhere, is playing fast and loose with the whole purpose of the parliamentary process.
Air Traffic Control Dispute If we have not a right to be discussing here, publicly, the issues that face this country, there is something wrong with my conception of parliament and Your Honour's. I think it is something that should be straightened out here this afternoon.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I have asked repeatedly over the last five weeks why we have been deprived of the opportunity of reading for ourselves what the Robinson report has to say. The Minister of Transport was very careful, when circulating this report to the bodies concerned, to keep it shrouded in the utmost secrecy. I think this does not bode well for the kind of negotiations under way at the present time.
In addition, I cannot see how the government can contemplate bringing in legislation of this kind which says, in effect: We have ceased to be able to run our own house and must now pass legislation to force our employees to work for salaries that are below the proper level. I think now is the proper time, and we are in the proper place, to discuss this issue of national and urgent importance.


Mr. Speaker:: After the brainwashing to which the Chair has been subjected during the last few minutes it might be very difficult at this point for me to say that I am not in agreement with hon. members who suggest that we should have an adjournment of ordinary business at this time. It is not easy for me to reconcile the opposing views on this question. Certainly, a very strong point has been made by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and by all hon. members who took part in this debate that there should be an adjournment of the ordinary business assigned for today for the purpose of debating this matter of public urgency.
In view of what I said yesterday when this motion was made by the hon. member for Ontario, I am placed in an extremely difficult position today if I say that I cannot accept the motion. There is a seriously complicating factor, namely the notice of motion, with which we are faced. Hon. members know that the difficulty is there. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) referred to this question, but perhaps he should more specifically have mentioned standing order 26 (6) (d), which is rather difficult for the Chair to circumvent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am fully aware of that. But it is not on the order paper.
December 14, 19G6

Air Traffic Control Dispute


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will read the standing order he will see that it says, "with reference to which a notice of motion has been previously given". Notice has been given. The hon. member may not agree with this, but certainly notice has been given.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been placed in the hands of the Clerk of the House, and there is no question in my mind but that notice has been given.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has had the
opportunity to make this point. I take into account what he has said and have come to the conclusion, not necessarily easily, that the terms of this standing order do not preclude the acceptance of the motion. However, I feel this is a borderline case procedurally; there is no question about it. The only difficulty with which I am really faced at the moment is the notice. The notice, though filed with the clerk, is not on the order paper, and this places the government in a weaker position to oppose a debate at this time.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There is no doubt whatsoever that there is considerable public interest in this very important matter, as evidenced by the statements made by hon. members this afternoon. I am taking into account the fact that this is a short day, and that there is an hour and a half or so left in which hon. members might have the opportunity to indicate what, in their view, the government might want to do in connection with the settlement of this strike. In considering all aspects of the matter, the public interest and the fact that the procedural case against the motion is not too clear or too strong, I believe that I should accept the motion of the hon. member for Ontario.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Ontario would permit me to ask the house to allow me to revert to motions. I wish to table two copies of the first half of the Robinson report, so that it will become a public document. I regret that the judge did not have it printed and there are only a few copies, but I will try to get as many copies as I can. I think it is only fair to hon. members, Your Honour having made the decision, that they should have the document.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) moves that the house now adjourn.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in asking permission to table the first half of the document, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has used the same argument that was put forward yesterday, namely that it was necessary for the government to wait until they received the second half of the report before any conclusions could be reached. May I say to the government and to the ministers who are involved in this whole affair, in particular the Minister of Transport, that the most important issue in the dispute is the salaries and wages of the members of the association. The first part of the report makes a recommendation in that direction. All the government has to do, without further procrastination, and in view of the fact that they appointed a renowned judge to inquire into the whole situation, is to accept his report. This is our advice, unless the government has not been frank and revealed to us the whole situation. The government has not told us up to date what are their reasons for not accepting the recommendations of Judge Robinson.
Let me tell the government that there must have been a reason for choosing Judge Robinson to take on this important task. I am well aware of the fact, owing to my previous association with the labour department, that on many occasions that department has used Judge Robinson's services in disputes between management and labour because he has a good reputation and he is renowned for his work in this area. I suggest this is the primary reason for the selection of Judge Robinson from amongst other judges. Surely, if he was chosen on that basis, then this government should have no hesitation in accepting his recommendations, especially since these recommendations are considered by at least half the people who are involved in the dispute, that is the employees, as a fair and just settlement. It is our opinion that what the judge recommends is fair and just, in view of the fact that he has recommended an average of a 15 per cent increase. We can only assume that these are the facts because we read about them. The government has not been frank with parliament and has not told us what are the true facts. If these are not the facts, then I think the President of the Treasury Board should inform the house as to why he does not consider the recommendations to be acceptable. Why is the government refusing to accept
December 14. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES
the recommendations which they requested Judge Robinson to make.
Having regard to the reputation of Judge Robinson I should like to know why, upon receipt of these recommendations, the government feels that he knows nothing about the situation. This dispute has not arisen all of a sudden in the past two or three days. It has been going on for some 18 months because of dissatisfaction amongst the members of the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association. Time and time again they have brought their grievances before the government. These have been considered by the Civil Service Commission and by the Department of Transport. Various means were investigated to find a solution to the problem, all to no avail. This problem could not be settled by the government, so they appointed His Honour Judge Robinson to help them in their dilemma. However, when Judge Robinson brought forward his recommendations for a just settlement, the government, which found no method by which to settle the dispute, rejected the sensible suggestions and recommendations made by the judge.
The government which, a few months ago accepted the recommendation of another appointee for the settlement of a dispute on the basis of a 34 per cent increase, now says that 15 per cent is not acceptable in this case. When will they realize that 15 per cent is less than half of 34 per cent and that a recommendation for such an increase should certainly not be subject to any criticism, particularly when it is generally known that the members of this association are entitled to a reasonable increase? Judge Robinson did not bring forward these recommendations in a few days. I suggest that if his recommendations are adopted at the present time, the employees would not strike. We are faced at the present with the threat of a tie-up in our nation's transportation. This strike is not similar to the one which was experienced by Air Canada for at least ten days; it would be a great deal worse. It will shut down all air services in Canada because the air control people are the most important people at the airfields. The air services of this country will be completely suspended and thus the economy of the nation will suffer.
I will not cast aspersions on any minister, but it seems to me that over the past number of years it has been brought forcibly to the attention of anyone who has had the opportunity to study the actions of this government in matters of this kind that the government
Air Traffic Control Dispute has hidden behind the fence of free collective bargaining. This is nothing but a hoax. Free collective bargaining can take place in the various ways provided under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. The act permits the government to offer the services of mediators, conciliation boards and conciliators to conduct negotiations on the basis of free collective bargaining. In various disputes similar to this one, we have often heard the government defend the point of view that any interference by a minister of the crown would be an interference with the process of free collective bargaining. This argument is absurd and nonsensical. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) has a responsibility to the people of this country to act as a mediator on the basis of free collective bargaining in many instances where all other attempts at a settlement have failed. This has been my experience on many occasions. No one ever heard any criticism from either labour or management that free collective bargaining has been interfered with because a minister of labour acted as conciliator or mediator.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In this respect the government was guilty of a tremendous failure. This is the reason we have had a disruption of our economy and that labour-management relations, and in turn their relation with the government, have broken down and deteriorated in the past few years. The government has made no effort, but has sat back and waited and waited in the hope that some miracle of some sort would occur, and that a strike would not affect the various sectors of our economy. But it has not worked out this way.
This government must realize that they have a responsibility to the people of this country. This government must wake up to the fact that they have a responsibility in the field of labour-management relations. This government must wake up and realize that they must participate in labour-management relations and endeavour to bring about a solution to the disputes which have been occurring in this country.
By doing this they do not need to worry about injecting themselves into this field and disrupting the process of free collective bargaining-far from it. The government must assist the process of free collective bargaining. Any observer of the disputes that have occurred in the past years, particularly in the federal field of jurisdiction, will have noticed
December 14, 1966

Air Traffic Control Dispute that time and time again, because of the prolonged negotiations and the dragging out of the processes of conciliation, labour and management have become impatient. They have only been going through the process, waiting for the time when they will throw the problem on to the table of the Minister of Labour. They have been waiting for him to deal With the problem.
However, Mr. Speaker, they do not want compulsory arbitration. Labour does not want it and neither do we. We do not believe in it if we are to maintain the principle of free collective bargaining. But labour and management do expect the government to negotiate as a third party in bringing labour and management together, and in this the government has once again failed.
The government say that they believe in free collective bargaining, that negotiations and meetings are taking place-two hours today, two hours tomorrow, a break for dinner, a break for the week end. Is this the way to conduct negotiations and to hold meetings in order to bring about a solution to a problem, Mr. Speaker? Certainly not. Anyone who knows anything about management and labour negotiations knows that you cannot break off; you must continue talking. The government is talking utter nonsense when it says that it met with these people on the west coast for two hours and then broke off for dinner for three hours; that it met them again the next day and then broke off for the week end. That is no way to carry on negotiations to bring about settlement, but it is the method that the government has adopted.
A few weeks ago when we had this disruption on the west coast involving the longshoremen, the Minister of Labour went to Vancouver and evidently put forward some formula that the stevedoring firms rejected. The minister came back to Ottawa and the government were ready to put through legislation to appoint an administrator who was to hold talks with the stevedoring firms. I suggest to the government that, as employers, they are failing in their attempt to resolve this question by not putting forward legislation to force these people back to work. The government should be doing the same thing that it wanted to do in respect of the stevedoring firms. I suggest that they bring in an administrator to run the affairs of the government.
This matter can be solved, Mr. Speaker. There is some hidden reason that has not been explained to parliament as yet for this

obstinate attitude of the government, which has now injected itself into this very serious problem. The only thing bringing about this situation with which we will be faced next Tuesday night, December 20, is the inaction of this government. The government must be frank with us today and must tell this house the specific reasons for rejecting the recommendations of Judge Robinson.
Do not let the government tell us, Mr. Speaker, that they are waiting for the second report, because the second report has nothing to do with the settlement of this dispute or wih the strike that has now been set. Yesterday, we were talking about the danger of this situation and about the necessity for taking immediate action. If the government is unable to take immediate action, then parliament should be given the opportunity of expressing the feelings of the people of this country and of advising the government.
The reason given by the government for inaction yesterday was that our apprehensions about the result of the strike vote might be unfounded. The situation was hypothetical in that we were presuming the strike vote would be carried by a majority of the union members. What the result was going to be was quite obvious to everybody except the government-or were they using this as a smokescreen or an excuse? It is now evident, the result of the strike vote having been made known, that the government were actually throwing a smokescreen over the members of this chamber in order to procrastinate for another day.


Mr. Munro:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member who has the floor wish to receive a question from the parliamentary secretary?


John Carr Munro: Is the hon. member suggesting that mediation can only be successful when a minister of the crown intervenes?


Michael Starr: Of course not.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He never said that.


Michael Starr: There are occasions when this is successful, but it has certainly not been successful when any member of this government has been carrying on mediation.
But in this case, the situation is a great deal different because the government has appointed a mediator, a person who is experienced in labour-management disputes and
December 14, 1966	COMMONS
who has continually been used as a mediator by the Department of Labour to intervene in many disputes, even in my time. He is looked upon as a person who has the experience to give wise judgment and be able to bring together both parties. He has been appointed by this government. Yet when he brings the most important part of his report, a strike vote having been taken and a date set, this government refutes his recommendation and throws it out of the window. They must tell us why they have done this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit me to ask him a question. Has the hon. gentleman read the order in council which appointed the judge? It was tabled in the house at the time.


Michael Starr: I heard what was said by the President of the Treasury Board yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: According to page 28 of the report, the judge said he had the power, so that answers all that nonsense.


Mr. Turner:: He extended his own terms of reference.


Michael Starr: Is the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) questioning the integrity or knowledge of the learned judge, who has a great deal more experience in this area than has the Minister without Portfolio? According to his report, he said he had all the power required. I do not think that this judge would ever overstep his jurisdiction at any time, whether on the bench or in the field of labour-management negotiations. There has never been any criticism of him; and then all of a sudden, when he brings in a report which for some unknown, mysterious reasons this government does not want to accept, the government are prepared to besmirch his character and say that he is wrong.


John George Diefenbaker: The judge interpreted the position at page 28.
[DOT] (4:50 pjn.)


Michael Starr: It was even hinted yesterday that there was no rush for parliament to discuss this matter; that the strike date might not be set until the first of the year. That was intimated. But what did the strike vote bring? It brought about the date, for next Tuesday. Now, we shall have legislation, as part of our pre-collective bargaining process this government hides behind, to force people back to
Air Traffic Control Dispute work. This is through no fault of the employees but is because this autocratic, arrogant government is not prepared to give them what a renowned judge has recommended.
I will read from page 28 of the judge's report:
In the Direction by the Minister of Transport dated July 14th, 1966, that a Commission do issue appointing this Commissioner and at paragraph 4 thereof we find the following wording:
"4. ... to report to the Minister of Transport . . . with such recommendations as he deems appropriate, including recommendations on the effective dates of any changes proposed"


Erik Nielsen: Any recommendations he felt.


Michael Starr: I continue to read:
This wording, in my opinion, supports the interpretation that rates of pay are included within the terms of reference because it would confer jurisdiction upon the Commissioner to recommend retroactive changes and, as a general rule, retroactivity is applied to pay rates as distinguished from other improvements in working conditions.
That is why he brought down the first report.
I might also refer to one additional consideration. If, as a result of a full and careful investigation, this Commissioner came to the conclusion that the present rates of pay, for this particular service, had not been determined upon a proper basis, due to the fact that the factors and considerations, which should be applied, had not been applied, then, surely, it would be an exercise in futility if, under such circumstances, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to recomend appropriate changes designed to correct the situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Michael Starr: Let me finish reading from the Commissioner's report.
Indeed, in my view, if such a result were to ensue, the whole purpose of the inquiry might well be frustrated with a consequent aggravation of the rather sensitive situation, the existence of which gave rise to this investigation.
For the above reasons I have come to the conclusion that the terms of reference under this Commission do include jurisdiction enabling the Commissioner to make specific recommendations as to the rates of pay for Air Traffic Controllers, if, as a result of the investigation, it is determined that the present pay scales do not properly reflect the factors and considerations that should be taken into account in determining such rates of pay.
What could be more simple? The Minister of Transport says that he does not agree with this. He says the judge had no business writing these words into this report.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not what I said.


Michael Starr: That is the intimation he gave. Does the government say now, having read
December 14, 1966

Air Traffic Control Dispute this report "Throw it through the window; we know better. We do not want it because the judge has not recommended what we hoped he would recommend." This is a judge, I point out, who has experience in labour matters, and who has had discussions on many such matters. This is the judge who brought forward a report based on his experience.


John Napier Turner: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member be willing to show the house where in the terms of reference, there is jurisdiction given to the commissioner to determine rates of pay.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the terms of reference yesterday. I am not a lawyer and I am not trying to protect myself in that respect. Believe me, if the government's terms of references have been worded in the same way they run this country, then no one can understand what the heck they mean. I am sure that not even the judge was able to understand them. He read the terms of reference and he felt that he was entitled to make these recommendations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman, who is always very reasonable and fair would mind reading paragraph 3 of the order in council appointing the judge. That is to be found at the beginning of the report.


Michael Starr: By asking me to read that I think the Minister of Transport is degrading the judge.


An hon. Member:: No.


Michael Starr: The minister is saying that the judge did not understand his terms of reference, that he has stepped beyond the bounds of the terms of reference drafted by this government. I rely on Judge Robinson, as I have always done in the past and as many others have done. I would rather take his interpretation of what the terms of reference mean than the interpretation of the Minister of Transport or the interpretation of the President of the Treasury Board.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Or the interpretation of the Minister without Portfolio.


Michael Starr: There is no question about that. This government appointed a special investigator in the person of His Honour Judge Robinson. They asked him to do certain things. He read into the terms of reference

what he considered were his duties, and he performed those duties. On November 7 he brought down the first part of his recommendation, the part that the whole situation hinges on now, the part on which the strike vote was taken. That vote was taken because the government refused to accept the recommendations. The date has been set for Tuesday, December 20.
I urge the government to change its mind. Unless the government is frank with us in putting forward valid and just reasons for failing to implement that part of the report submitted by Judge Robinson on November 7, grave consequences will follow. Is the government trying to convince the members of this house, representing the people of this country, that its judgment in this matter is better than the judgment of Judge Robinson? I do not think the government can maintain that view. I urge the government, in the interest of the Canadian economy and the people of this country to come to its senses and to be fair to its employees. I urge them to accept the recommendations of Judge Robinson and avoid the disruption that is viewed with apprehension across the country. Every week when people in different parts of the country pick up their newspapers they read about impending strikes in industries under federal jurisdiction. This does not help the morale of the people. I urge the government to mend its ways and to think this matter over. Do not bring in this repulsive legislation which will force men back to work in the government's employment. Rather, let the government see light and reason and accept the report and recommendations of His Honour, Judge Robinson.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the traditional position of civil servants in dealing with the government of Canada has been that their pay has been determined by the government arbitrarily. It has been determined on an arbitrary basis through a minute of the Treasury Board. Such a salary settlement was then imposed on civil servants.
Changes have taken place in this process since we became a government, and greater changes will take place in the future when we move into collective bargaining through the three bills presently before a joint committee of this house and the other place.
I have been berated by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) for being small and meagre. One of the most interesting things I
December 14, 1966

Air Traffic Control Dispute
have learned from talking to civil servants in the past few years is this: the basis for their being so far behind in salaries is that the former government headed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) failed to provide civil servants with salary increases, when they should have had them.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is that your case?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members who were so anxious to hear from the government would allow me to speak on behalf of the government, I will continue to deal with this important matter.
The position with regard to the air traffic controllers is this: Their salaries were set, along with the salaries of a large group of other employees, effective July 1, 1965. They were granted an increase of 12 per cent at that time plus an additional three per cent effective July 1, 1966. This totals 15 per cent. The figure used by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) with reference to the implications of the increase recommended by Judge Robinson, including longevity payments, does not add up to 15 per cent; I am informed it adds up to 23 per cent. So, what we are concerned with here is an increase of almost 40 per cent for the air traffic controllers over two years. These are the facts. Look at the report.


Mr. Lewis:: Is the minister suggesting that the implementation of Judge Robinson's report tomorrow would involve a 23 per cent increase tomorrow? Is he not aware that the proposal relates to supplementary payments for years of service over a number of years?


Edgar John Benson: The hon. member does not appear to recognize that Judge Robinson believes service to date should be recognized, and most operational controllers are in the operational category, which is group five, with seven to ten years service, and would be entitled to longevity pay. The point to point increase over a two year period, if it were granted, including the 15 per cent already given, would add up to more than 40 per cent, I am told by my officials. Mr. Speaker, I can just see hon. members on the other side of the house howling if we granted people a 40 per cent increase over a two year period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: I am very pleased we now have the hon. member for Ontario on our side, saying the government should give people
great increases. He was complaining the other day about a 30 per cent increase for seaway workers over two years. Now, he says we should be giving a 40 per cent increase to civil servants.


Michael Starr: I rise on a question of privilege. Hansard will record that I said nothing of the kind. The minister is trying to put forward a case based on false versions of what I have said.


Edgar John Benson: I indicated that the figure of 15 per cent he used was absolutely wrong. The increase which was granted was made under a contract which expires on July 1, 1967 at which time negotiations will take place under collective bargaining arrangements which will govern salaries from that point onward.


David Lewis: Are you sure you will not exclude them?


Edgar John Benson: We hope no civil servants other than management will be excluded from collective bargaining.


David Lewis: Is the minister assuring parliament that these air control people will not be excluded from bargaining untis by the government?


Edgar John Benson: I have answered that question. No one will be excluded from bargaining units expect management personnel.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Not even their lawyers.


Edgar John Benson: To deal with Judge Robinson's report, we have not accepted that report although we have accepted the most important concept, in my opinion, which it contains.


John George Diefenbaker: Everything but the wage increase.


Edgar John Benson: The Leader of the Opposition will have a further opportunity to speak provided he allows me to speak.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has made a statement. I ask him what portions of the report are acceptable to the government.


Edgar John Benson: If the Leader of the Opposition will give me the opportunity, I will deal with that point. I was about to say that one of the important recommendations in the report was that air traffic controllers should be compared with airline despatchers. We agree with this in principle-that their salaries should be comparable with those of airline despatchers.
December 14, 1966

Air Traffic Control Dispute There is, however, one error in the report- I do not say this to be critical of Judge Robinson. But there is an error in the report in that he has assumed a person can become an airline despatcher in two years. In theory this may be so, but we have checked with Air Canada and we find that one in the past ten years has become an airline despatcher in a period shorter than five years. The most usual period is nine years. By taking this longer period, the salary scales computed by Judge Robinson and included in his report are automatically thrown out.
As I say, we accept the principle that, man for man, with equal service in this particular field through assistant despatcher and on to airline despatcher, and through the various grades of air transport controllers, equivalent rates of pay should be given. What we cannot agree to is the proposition based on the calculation of rates of pay on the assumption that a person becomes an airline despatcher in two years. In Air Canada that is not the case.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether this would not be an appropriate time for the Chair to intervene and bring to the attention of hon. members that there are only about 35 minutes left for debate this afternoon. I am referring to no one in particular, but perhaps hon. members might wish to exercise some personal discipline in limiting the length of their speeches so that more members might have an opportunity to take part in the debate. The hon. minister has the floor.


Edgar John Benson: This is the basic problem we had when dealing with Judge Robinson's report.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the minister a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure the minister would be most happy to answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister allow the hon. member for Yukon to ask a question at this time?


Edgar John Benson: If hon. members opposite would allow me to finish-and I do not intend to speak at great length-I will be pleased to answer any questions they may have if it is within my ability to answer them.
For the reason I have given, the government was not able to accept the full report of Mr. Justice Robinson. This has been the subject of our discussions with the air traffic controllers over the past two weeks at least.

With regard to the meetings which have taken place with the air traffic controllers I am told we met with the controllers whenever they requested to meet with us. Furthermore, we agreed to discuss the first part of the report without waiting for the second part of the report to come to hand. Again, the adjournment last week from Thursday to Monday took place at the request of the air traffic controllers. We have always held ourselves ready to meet with them and discuss this matter.
On Monday night we felt we could not accept the full report of Judge Robinson. Their position was: we must have the full report or we shall not be satisfied. The C.A.T.C.A. withdrew its negotiators at that point.
We met again this morning. As I indicated, I met personally with the members of the three associations. One of the difficulties here-a difficulty which does not exist when there is collective bargaining; and I would remind hon. members that there is really no basis for collective bargaining in the civil service at the present time-is that employees who are air traffic controllers are represented by three organizations and it is necessary to meet with representatives of these organizations separately.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This morning I asked them to come altogether to meet with me.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What are these organizations?


Edgar John Benson: I mentioned them earlier. They are the Public Service Alliance, the Professional Institute and the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers' Association.


David Lewis: The latter has the majority.


Edgar John Benson: I am not going to get into a jurisdictional dispute as between the various associations at this time because presently we have no system for certifying anyone as a bargaining unit, but I hope with the assistance of the house and the committee we will get that very soon after the New Year.
This morning, as I mentioned earlier-


An hon. Member:: What offer did you make?


Edgar John Benson: I am not going to indicate to the house what offer we have made to the air traffic controllers.


An hon. Member:: Because it is embarrassing to you.
December 14, 196G


Edgar John Benson: Air Traffic Control Dispute have tried to make as complete an explanation as I can. I would like to assure hon. members that we intend to carry on negotiations to the best of our ability, and I for one hope we do not have to use the legislation which is on the order paper. We had to give 48 hours notice because of what happened in the house last week.
This morning I suggested to the parties involved that since negotiations were going better, maybe the strike deadline could be moved back. I said that we really were faced with an extremely short timetable at this point, and I said I would be putting the notice on the order paper providing they would continue negotiations in good faith. They agreed to do this, and I can assure hon. members that if necessary I will introduce the legislation, but I for one hope we do not have to do that.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I would like to ask a question of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would like to remind hon. members of what I said a moment ago. There are only about 25 minutes left in view of Royal Assent, and I think the Chair should be given the opportunity to recognize a spokesman for the minority parties. I understand the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) wants to speak, and it appears that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has been writing copious notes and may want to ask a question.


John George Diefenbaker: That is all, Mr. Speaker. The minister has gone into a great deal of detail, and this shows the benefit of the discussion which took place here this afternoon.
Is it clear that with the exception of one portion of the report, on which the minister takes the view that the judge arrived at a wrong conclusion, the report is acceptable to the government, and has the treasury board so declared?


Edgar John Benson: There is another point that we-although there may be adjustments in other ways-as a government at the present time have not accepted, and that is the principle of longevity pay. We are in a difficult position here because Mr. Justice Montpetit's report on the post office said longevity pay should not be introduced, and here we have a report from Judge Robinson recommending that it be introduced. I think that the problems can be overcome without facing up to the question of longevity pay. Ultimately we will have to face up to it and I hope this will be when we get into the collective bargaining


processes. I would like to reiterate that the settlement being made is only to July 31 next, at which time the people involved will be in proper collective bargaining, under law, with the government.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I wish to clear up some misunderstanding. In his remarks the President of the Treasury Board said that the comparison should be made-and he thought quite properly so-with the air line despatches. Could he answer two questions related to this?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
First of all, does he think the responsibility exercised by these despatchers is as great as the undertaking exercised by the air traffic controllers in relation to flight? Secondly, does he know any air traffic controllers who are over age 50, and if not why not.


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I might answer the second part of the question first. I do not know that many air traffic controllers. There are a thousand spread out across Canada, and I do not have an intimate knowledge of their ages. In respect of the first part of the question, I believe the duties of the air traffic controllers and despatchers are comparable. I do not know whether this goes down to the nth degree of comparison, but I know that both groups have very great responsibilities. Based on the submissions of the air traffic controllers and the suggestions of Judge Robinson, we believe there is a basis of comparison.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Is it not true that actually the pilot is responsible, on the advice of the despatcher, whereas the air traffic controller has the final responsibility in respect of the flights.


Edgar John Benson: I am told that this varies from air line to air line. In some air lines the despatcher decides whether or not the aircraft takes off. I am not sure whether or not this is the case in respect of Air Canada, but in respect of C.P.A. I believe the pilot makes this decision. It varies from air line to air line.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I should like to suggest to the hon. minister who just sat down, and to other members of the house, that the issue is not at all what the minister tried to suggest it is. The issue is not at all whether or not he agreed with a particular calculation of Judge Robinson; the issue is not at all whether or not the government thought Judge Robinson
December 14, 1966

had jurisdiction. The issue before this house and the issue, in my respectful submission, in respect of which the government has been totally wrong and which has undermined the total question of collective bargaining is whether or not the government as employer has a moral duty to accept the decision of a third party the same as any other employer in this country has. That is the issue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question. Does the hon. gentleman say that before this appointment was made the employees were equally bound to acceptance because in that case what he is saying is that Judge Robinson was an arbitrator and he certainly was not intended to be such.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and I have been friends for years, but it is not necessary for him to point out to me elementary things. I know the difference between a commissioner, an arbitrator and a mediator. I know the hon. minister likes to jump up and make interruptions, but I may say that I know the differences in these things as well as he does. I say to him that the whole philosophy under any kind of collective bargaining by law lies in the proposition that when the two parties cannot agree, a neutral party is introduced to look into the matter and make recommendations. The whole concept of industrial peace rests on the proposition that management and labour ought to be prepared to accept the judgment of a third party. This does not mean that they must accept it if the third party is not an arbitrator. It does, however, say this: that if the government which administers the labour laws generally is to have the respect of those in the private sector of the economy, and if the government which administers the labour laws ever is to have any hope that a management or union in the private sector will in fact accept the recommendation of a third party it, as an employer, has a moral duty to accept that recommendation when it is brought down. That is the principle involved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? Does the hon. member consider that this exercise was collective bargaining and, if it was, why do we have three bills before parliament now to give these civil servants the right to bargain collectively?


David Lewis: What the Minister of Transport is saying in the course of a question expresses his and his government's attitude much better
Air Traffic Control Dispute than I could. What he is saying, as a matter of fact, is that the air control people do not have the right to collective bargaining and that he in his great, magnanimous generosity sat down at the table with them not because they have any rights but because he wished to be generous with them-only they have to do what they are told. That is precisely the implication in the minister's remarks.
The Minister of Transport and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) raised the question of whether Judge Robinson had the jurisdiction to deal with this matter. If they will look at this report, which I am sure they have studied much more carefully than I because I saw it for the first time only a little while ago, they will find that this very issue concerning whether or not the judge had the jurisdiction was raised by Mr. Love, I believe, the representative of the Treasury Board. The judge considered his responsibilities and his terms of reference. He looked over the material and came to a decision. Is the employer in this case entitled to say that he will not accept a decision of the judge who has adjudicated this matter?


Edgar John Benson: Would the hon. member permit a question. He has had long experience in labour negotiations and he has my respect in that regard. Would he not admit that there are all sorts of third party appointments where the principle is agreed upon by the two parties but where one party or the other, or both parties, do not accept the findings.


David Lewis: This is the kind of difficulty in which we are. Let me go back to the point I was making, and then I will come back to the question. As I say, it is not for the government, in this situation where it is an employer, to refuse to accept a decision of the judge on the very point of jurisdiction. He considered it. He adjudicated on it and they are stuck with it. When it comes to the question of who should be appointed, I am instructed by representatives of the association-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the hon. gentleman say he was instructed?


David Lewis: Informed, I beg your pardon; I was informed. I have the information on a piece of paper if the hon. Minister of Transport wishes to see it. I am informed by the air control association people that the C.A.T.C.A. was involved in the selection of a commissioner. Both sides placed names on the list. Judge Robinson's name was the third name on the list, and in order that he be
December 14, 1966

Air Traffic Control Dispute appointed I am informed that the association must agree.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member who has the floor accept a question from the hon. minister?


David Lewis: I will gladly, Mr. Speaker. My only concern is that because of these interruptions I will be taking up the time which might be allotted to other members who might wish to have the floor.


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I should rise on a question of privilege, rather than to ask a question. I did not wish to mislead the house in respect of this appointment. My officials did speak with C.A.T.C.A. with regard to the appointment, but there are two other associations involved which were not I believe consulted.


David Lewis: This is the kind of thing I really regret. Had the minister originally said that the major organization so far as numbers are concerned, or one of them, had been consulted in respect of the recommendation of Judge Robinson, that would have helped the situation. But he did leave with me the impression that this was a unilateral agreement. That was the phrase he used. This is where the government has such a terrible responsibility. These negotiations have gone on over the past 18 months. The government was faced with the threat of a strike last May and as a result of that and in order to avoid a strike the government undertook to make the appointment and discussed it with C.A.T.C.A.
[DOT] (5:30 pjn.)
In a letter to C.A.T.C.A. the government said-I forget the exact words-it would give serious consideration to the findings of the commissioner. The government said it would give immediate consideration to those findings. The President of the Treasury Board cannot come here and say that these are terrible people, that they have the government in a bind because they are going to have a strike next Tuesday, when he has had in his hands for five weeks a report from the commissioner. The minister also said: We met with these people every time they asked us to meet with them. He may be right. I am not questioning him; I have never had occasion to do so.
He had a duty to ask them to meet with him, and not wait for them to come to him. I say to him that he knew last May or June that these men were going to take strike action if


they did not get what they considered satisfactory, and he has no reason to sit back in his chair and wait for them to invite him to meet with them. In the interests of Canada, in the interests of the Canadian people, he should have been on his toes and got them into his office the day after he received the report and said: Gentlemen, we cannot agree with this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. He said he was going to take up all the time allotted to him, so I am sure he will be fair enough to allow a question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, during the speech of the President of the Treasury Board we tried to ask questions. The minister has now risen for a third time to interrupt the hon. member. I think this is quite incorrect. If this is to be allowed, I should have been granted the privilege of asking a similar question of the President of the Treasury Board.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) was allowed to ask a question.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is within my power to have the question asked, but I think I get your wink that I should not do so.


Mr. Speaker:: It might facilitate the task of the Chair if the hon. member refused to answer questions.


David Lewis: That is what I thought I saw in your eye, Mr. Speaker, at this distance, and I intend to follow that advice.
I am confident that is the principle involved in this matter. I say to the Minister of Transport and to the President of the Treasury Board that if they found an error in the calculation or in the premise about equality of age, they had the authority by order in council, which they could pass in five minutes, to remit this report to Judge Robinson. They could tell him that in their view he had omitted something, and would he look at it again and hear further representations on the point.
I am not prepared to accept the statement of the President of the Treasury Board. I have been for too long involved in this type of negotiation to accept the statement of either side in a dispute as being "it". I have no doubt that the air traffic control people have their views about what happened. I could almost guess what their view would be from the quick glance I have had at the report. The
December 14, 19G6

fact is that as far as the regulations of Air Canada are concerned, the air despatcher can be appointed after two years. That is what the regulations are, if I read them correctly. The fact that they have not been for four, five or six years cannot affect the regulations which permit this to happen.
The fact is that the regulations of the Department of Transport do not permit an air traffic control man to be in group 5 until after five years' service. That is the fact. No doubt the air traffic control people would take the position that they have to go by the book and not by what someone thinks, deviating from the book. I have no doubt that is what Judge Robinson had in mind. If the government disagreed with that and argued that there was an error in fact, the report should have been referred back to Judge Robinson. This is what the government is arguing about. They accept the principle, but say there is an error in fact. They had the authority on November 8, 1966, five weeks ago, or on November 9 if they needed a day to study the report and reach Judge Robinson, to say: We think there is an error in fact here. Will you please reconvene the parties and discuss this error with them.
This man was the third party, the neutral. He is a man who, as the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) has properly said, has had years of experience in labour disputes. I have appeared before him I suppose 100 times in my years of labour practice. I have appeared before him when he has been chairman of conciliation boards and one of the arbitrators. As a matter of fact, if I may say so without offending Judge Robinson, I have never found him to be a particularly generous person where wage awards have been concerned. He has always been pretty careful not to make any salary or wage awards which were not fully supported by the evidence before him. It does not take a representative of union or a labour spokesman to know that he is one of those judges who does not make determinations at all lightly. Indeed, if you look at his report even quickly you find that he has gone into this matter most carefully.
Judge Robinson analyzes the comparison between the air traffic control man and the air despatcher in Canada. He looks at the salaries of the air traffic control man in the United States as compared with those in Canada. He looks carefully at the duties of the air traffic control man. He quotes at length from articles which have appeared on the subject. Obviously, as is seen in the early section of the report, he had numerous meetings at which

Air Traffic Control Dispute both sides presented their case. He took great care. There are several appendices to his report. He went into the organization of air traffic control. No one who takes even a quick glance at this report could for one moment suggest that his conclusions were made lightly or without very careful consideration of every submission put before him.
In that situation, has the government the right, as the employer, to throw that out of the window? Let me tell the house, if I may, that I do not know any of the secrets that took place in the negotiations, but I do know that if the government had at any time in the last two weeks indicated to the air traffic control people what the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board indicated to us today, there probably would not have been a strike vote. At no point, I am instructed, was the proposition that they accepted the principle of the comparison put to the air traffic control people until the very last few days. I do not know, of course, the details of the offer made by the government, but I know from the snort I heard from the people with whom I discussed this matter that the offer made was apparently so much below what Judge Robinson indicated in his report that the air traffic control people felt completely desperate and had to call the thing to an end.
This is an impression I obtained, not from labour representatives because everyone concerned is as honourable as I know the Minister of National Revenue to be, and when negotiations are in confidence they are not revealed to anyone. But you can get a pretty good idea of what took place from the tone and attitude of the people concerned. It is perfectly obvious to me, from those with whom I have discussed this matter, that the offer the government made was nowhere near what Judge Robinson recommended.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It was not even a serious offer.


David Lewis: It was such that the air traffic control people could not take it as a serious offer. The Minister of National Revenue said this morning that something happened which makes him hope that an accommodation will be found. I sincerely hope he is right. This is the major point I wanted to make.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I take one more minute to say that I regret very much that a few members in this house take advantage of even this situation to start talking about all the strikes we have had and the need of legislation and action to prevent them.
December 14, 1966

Air Traffic Control Dispute I can almost hear the bells of compulsory arbitration ringing. This is totally unfair in this case. There is no union in this case, in any real sense of the term, because there is no collective bargaining in any sense of the term, as the Minister of Transport admitted in answer to a question.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Strictly speaking, I suppose, air traffic control people are public servants who may not be permitted to strike under the Civil Service Act. I am not sure of that and I will not give a legal opinion on it. However, what obtains here is a reckless, unforgiveable and indefensible action by the government in appointing someone to make an inquiry which involves salaries, in receiving a report from a third person and then saying to the people concerned "Despite this inquiry which we instituted-because you said you would strike if we did not do so, despite the number of hearings that were held and despite the careful consideration by the judge of all submissions we, because we are the government, will tell you and the judge to go and jump in the lake". The issue which is involved is that a government which should be a model employer and which should make it clear to every employer and every union that when a third party is appointed to inquire into a situation his conclusions should be treated with respect, treated the conclusions of Judge Robinson without respect and with a callous disregard for the results of its own action, for the plight of the air traffic controllers and for the interests of the Canadian people which are now about to be seriously affected.
If, after having done all that, the government fails to make the recommendation which it is their moral duty to make, then this parliament will be asked to order the men to stay at work despite their decision that they have certain rights for which they want to stand. I say, shame on the government for placing itself, the parliament and the Canadian people in this terrible position. There is no excuse for it. After having received the recommendation of a third party, they have the moral duty to abide by it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I know that I have only a few minutes left and I will try to speak without the passion of the hon. gentleman who, of course, has a much greater ability for histrionics than I do.
I want to reply primarily to the last point made by the hon. member for York South. He


kept saying that we have the report. I am the minister who was responsible under part II of the Inquiries Act for the appointment of Judge Robinson. I asked Judge Robinson to do certain things for the government. The things which I asked him to do were agreed in advance with the three organizations. The third point was to examine the need, if any, for a special provision unrelated to established rates of pay to compensate air traffic controllers for these unique responsibilities and requirements. The first point was to examine the factors and considerations that should be taken into account in determining rates of pay for air traffic controllers, bearing in mind the unique duties, responsibilities and requirements that are expected to be carried out.
I did not ask Judge Robinson to make two reports: I asked him to make one. He saw fit, without any consultation with me or, as far as I am aware, with anyone connected with the government, to make a partial report.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Why?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The government had appointed him to answer all the questions. I took the view that we had the right to receive answers to all those questions which the representatives of the air traffic controllers had agreed should be put to Judge Robinson, and that we should not attempt to make a determination on some of the matters without having his advice on all of them.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Why did he only submit the first part of his report?


John Whitney Pickersgill: You will have to ask Judge Robinson. I did not ask for it. I did not want it. I do not think it was desirable. I do not want to be disrespectful to the judge who, I am sure, did his duty conscientiously according to his lights. As my colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) pointed out, the government is prepared to accept his basic recommendation that a comparable class outside the public service are the air despatchers, and we are quite prepared to make a recommendation based generally on that view.
However I also say-and the hon. member for York South gave us a long disquisition on collective bargaining-that there was no question of collective bargaining here, and the hon, member for York South was sufficiently honest and straightforward to admit this point at the end of his speech. It is the present government which has asked parliament to give civil servants the right to bargain
December 14, 1966

collectively. We are not ashamed of doing that.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: What about the strike?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member for Prince, who has had a little less experience in public life than I have, let me have my say, and later on I will listen to him just as politely as he does to me.


Mr. Barneti:: Would the minister comment on the fourth point in the terms of reference?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the few minutes that are left to me I should like to say that when this incident arose last summer the air traffic controllers said that they considered the determination of their pay by the Civil Service Commission and the Treasury Board was not fair because they had been put into the wrong category. They asked to see me and I said that I was not entrusted by the government with the duty of determining their pay. This was the function of the Treasury Board and the Civil Service Commission.
1 told them that we did not yet have collective bargaining, but, since I was the minister responsible for their activities, in order to discharge my work properly and to carry out the responsibilities entrusted to me temporarily by the government of Canada and the people of Canada, it was important to me that the morale of these workers should be good. I knew their morale would not be good if they had a sense of injustice. I said that of course I would be glad to listen to what they had to say. I would consider it very carefully, and if I felt that I could make representations to the Treasury Board, I would do so. In the course of our discussions, I said that it appeared to me that it would be quite impossible for me, as a member of the government or as a responsible member of parliament, to recommend to the Treasury Board that the Civil Service Commission classifications on which the pay of a great group of civil servants was based should be disturbed for one particular group after the determination had been made by a system which is now the law. I said that all I would be doing, if I were successful in making that kind of recommendation, would be to create discontent among all the other employees in the department who were in related categories and who were not getting this kind of special treatment.
I thought that either the salaries of the whole group would have to be redetermined
Air Traffic Control Dispute or else it would not seem to me that any of them could be. That is why I was so very careful in drafting this document. The President of the Treasury Board was even more concerned to make it very clear that we were asking for recommendations with regard to some unique or special aspects, and that is why we put in the phrase "unrelated to established rates of pay". We were not asking the judge to substitute himself for the Civil Service Commission in determining the relationship between all these various classes. But we were concerned about making sure that no injustice was being done to the air traffic controllers because they have an occupation which, in my opinion, is much more stressful than the work of most of the employees in the public service. We know that this kind of work can only be done by relatively young men, and it seemed to me that this factor should be taken into account. I am referring to the additional stress and the liability to lose the capacity to do this work if there were any defect in hearing-and I know something about such a defect-or in vision. I said that if we can find anything that is unique and special to that group which should be recognized, I would fight for it to the limit. But, Mr. Speaker, on the eve of collective bargaining and after the pay determination of this whole group of employees had been made, I could not in all conscience support a change of the ordinary rules for one group of employees unless it were made for all.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I think all hon. members who know how difficult these things are to determine anyway will realize that it is very difficult to take any other position with respect to public servants. What we are seeking to do-and this is one thing that Judge Robinson recommended and for which I think he has made a very good case-is to recognize that these people do have duties that are comparable with the duties of some other group of employees, not precisely comparable but sufficiently comparable that the comparison is a worth-while yardstick. We have been quite prepared to accept that view and have been quite frank in saying so.
We are also quite prepared to accept the view that these men cannot expect to continue as air traffic controllers, particularly in the active pursuit of the grade 5 category, for the whole of their working lives because of the special stresses and strains which are involved in this very exacting kind of work. At one
11146	COMMONS
Air Traffic Control Dispute time or another the lives of practically every member in this chamber and the lives of a very high proportion of the Canadian people may depend on the work of these people.
No one in this house could possibly be more concerned than I am as Minister of Transport-even if I were just thinking in minimal terms of saving my own skin and reputation -with the importance of having a good morale among the air traffic controllers and all those other servants of the Department of Transport who have to do with the safety of human life in our community. If any member from any part of this house thinks that any member of the government relishes the prospect of having every civil airport in this country closed up five days before Christmas, they are wrong. Certainly hon. gentlemen opposite will not be blamed for this. We who sit on the treasury benches know perfectly well who will get the blame if this happens, and we have the deepest possible sense of responsibility in this matter.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we know perfectly well that if we take the kind of action which is going to create a sense of injustice in the minds of thousands of other civil servants because we have disturbed a basic pattern, a comparable pattern which has existed for a long time, and have done so after the pay determination for this two-year period has half expired, then we are going to create a situation which, while it may not be as dramatically critical as this one appears at the moment, will probably be very much more serious than this one. This is the problem, and it is a very grave and difficult one.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: So that I understand the minister, may I ask him a question? He says that this will upset the pattern among comparable staffs in the civil service. What comparable staff is there in the civil service who would in any way be related to this particular group of air traffic controllers?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that he is as much of an expert on the civil service commission as I am. The pay research bureau of the civil service commission compared this group of people with a number of categories. Some of them were referred to by Judge Robinson. They are well known and represent many hundreds of employees. One group is in turn compared with others.
I am sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) knows- and certainly the hon. member for Carleton

DEBATES	December 14, 1966
(Mr. Bell) understands this sort of thing. Once you start disturbing this pattern, it causes what my hon. friend the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) called a ripple effect which goes through the whole structure; there is no question of that.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the problem. If we were just dealing with air traffic controllers and could isolate them, and if they were not public servants and had not over the years been related to other groups, perhaps this problem would not be a very difficult one to solve.


David Lewis: It is an artificial relationship though.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member has done most of his conciliation in what is called the private sector. He has not yet got the whole of our activities in this country into the public sector, despite his efforts over the years.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether to rise on a point of privilege to inform the minister that I have been involved in arbitrations in connection with the Civil Service Association of Ontario as well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has obviously served an apprenticeship. He is getting instructed. But seriously speaking, the private sector where all the employer has to do is answer to the shareholders is one thing; the public sector, where if we are to have a decent morale in the whole of the public service we must have the right kind of relationship between one group and another, is another thing.
In a case where we have appointed the civil service commission as an agency of parliament and not of the government, so that the government is not allowed to exercise favouritism over any appointments or any relativities, it would be a very dangerous thing if the government, or one minister or even parliament tried by themselves to disturb these relationships in an arbitrary way simply because the failure to disturb them was going to cause a crisis. The reason we are here and the reason we have a government and a parliament is to deal with these difficult problems; and we have to do our best to deal with them, as my hon. friend says, primarily in the interests of the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
December 14, 1966


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.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
And being returned:
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 respecting General Mortgage Service Corporation of Canada.
An Act to incorporate Income Life Insurance Company of Canada.
An Act to incorporate Income Disability and Reinsurance Company of Canada.
An Act respecting Canada Health and Accident Assurance Corporation.
Business of the House
An Act respecting the Boundary between the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
An Act respecting the Boundary between the province of Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories.
An Act to amend the Canada Lands Surveys Act.
An Act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.
An Act to incorporate Bank of British Columbia.
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1967.

Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, what is the order of business for tomorrow?


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, it is proposed to return to item No. Ill, house in committee of the whole on Bill C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act, and should that measure be passed we would then take up item No. 92, house in committee of the whole on Bill C-231, the transport bill.


[Stage Direction]
It being 16 minutes past six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
11149
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 15, 1968