1967-11-24

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Fifth and sixth reports of standing committee on transport and communications-Mr. Macaluso.

Mr, H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, in which we are referring to the house Bill No. S-20, respecting the Co-operative Trust Company Limited. As usual, this report has been prepared in English and French.
[Editor's note: Text of the foregoing reports appear in today's Votes and Proceedings.]



SHIPPING


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26, in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the stoppage of activities in the port of Montreal, the consequences of which threatens to seriously affect our exports and to interfere with our economy, particularly in view of the dangerous situation brought about by the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), when he said that the government declines all responsibility concerning this very important matter.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a copy of the motion in French and in English.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot please comment on the urgency of the debate?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I placed this matter before the house today because we will not have the opportunity to discuss it in
the near future. I do not intend to dwell on the urgency of debate at any length, but I know it will not be difficult to win the consent of Your Honour to allow the matter to be discussed immediately.
Mr. Speaker, there are numerous reasons to justify a debate on the matter today. Right now, there are huge quantities of fruits and vegetables on the docks of Montreal harbour which are awaiting shipment to England, and unless immediate steps are taken, they will be a total loss. Their value is roughly the same, namely, $500,000, so that $1 million worth of fruits are now stocked in warehouses outside Montreal, there are also large quantities of fruits now in freight cars, and these are in serious danger of being utterly spoiled, apart from creating problems for the railways.
As I said a few moments ago, huge losses will surely result if this situation is allowed to continue even for a short while. Moreover, it should be considered that 3,000 workers, at least, are thus left without work for an indefinite period, and these people increase the already large number of unemployed in the Montreal area.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
It's also to be expected, Mr. Speaker, that the other ports on the St. Lawrence will, sooner or later, be affected by this situation, unless the present government and the Minister of Labour in particular decide to accept their responsibilities and take the necessary steps to remedy the situation.
In the long run, considerable damage may result. The reputation of Montreal harbour is sure to suffer abroad because of those delays. There are ships now being rerouted away from Montreal, because the shipping companies feel that they would stand to lose money and they cannot afford any further losses.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, and for many others, I think that we should immediately adjourn the business of the house to deal with this matter.
The government and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) certainly cannot plead that they were not aware of the facts because, for two weeks already, useless and futile discussions have been going on
November 24, 1967

Labour Dispute at Montreal between the two parties without any intervention whatsoever by the minister or the Acting Prime Minister. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. members opposite should assume their responsibilities and settle his matter once and for all.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has just made two statements that are not in accordance with the facts. He said the minister has not taken his responsibility and that the government has not shown any interest in this matter. Both these statements are erroneous. The government does take its responsibility seriously, and, in fact I have met with one of the parties. My officials have met with the other side, and I have offered to meet them. I welcomed the opportunity to do so. So when the statement is made that the government is not taking its responsibility seriously it is completely erroneous, and the record should be put straight.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I rise on the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I fail to see that there is any question of privilege in what the Minister of Labour just said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I agree with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centte):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say. Your Honour must be so familiar with all the citations regarding standing order 26 that you can rattle them off by heart. The members of the house must know them all by now as well, so I will not repeat them today. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there are times when it is obvious that the question which has been raised under standing order 26 is one that the house ought to discuss. I put it to you very simply. In view of the seriousness of this matter in the Montreal area, and in view of its repercussions across the country, is this not the kind of situation that standing order 26-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It it is of any help, may I make it clear that so far as the government are concerned we welcome the opportunity to have a debate on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister may have an opportunity of indicating this fact after I have heard the representations of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I had just about completed my remarks, Mr. Speaker. The only other thing I was going to say is that since the Minister of Labour has already entered the debate it might as well be continued. I do believe that this is the kind of matter for which standing order 26 was designed.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we may abbreviate the debate.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) was kind enough to give me notice of this motion so that I was able to consider it and to look into the circumstances mentioned. The only difficulty I encountered, and which still remains, is that, according to the information I obtained this morning before coming to the house, this litigation is now in a way and up to a certain point before the courts, because of an application for an injunction made this morning. This has created some difficulty.
I understand perfectly that there must be a distinction between an injunction and the procedure usually followed under the Indus-trail Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. However, in view of the particular circumstances which the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot brought to the attention of the house, I believe I must answer the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in the affirmative and accept the motion.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to add further remarks to those I have made already. I should like to thank-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will now have to introduce his motion.

We will attempt to be of assistance to the hon. member in a moment. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario moves that the house do now adjourn.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: All these crises, Mr. Speaker, have occurred as a result of the ineptness of this government in the performance of their duties. These are always laughing matters on that side of the house. Well, I say to them that they have to take their responsibilities more seriously than they have up to now.
November 24, 1967	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a very serious matter.


Michael Starr: Of course it is.


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps we should try to limit the debate to the substance of the matter brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.


Michael Starr: I agree with you entirely, Mr. Speaker. This is a very serious matter. I was only referring to the attitude of the government with regard to it.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know why my hon. friend should begin what I hope will be a constructive submission in this tone. The government are not opposed to this motion; we welcome it. We recognize that this is an important matter. That is the reason the Minister of Labour intervened. I would ask my hon. friend, for whom we all have the greatest regard, in view of the fact that his leader is now with him and that his leader wants to set a new tone in debate in this house, to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Remember what happened in 1960.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I now ask the co-operation of all hon. members so that, from now on, they try to deal only with the motion introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), that is the important matter of public urgency, the stoppage of activities in Montreal harbour.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter. Recognizing its seriousness, we on this side feel it should be discussed in the house at this time. We feel very strongly that the situation which now prevails on the Montreal docks has been brought about by the ineptness of this government in dealing with the matter.
I want to refer back to July of last year, specifically to July 14, 1966, when the government introduced Bill No. C-215, an act respecting certain conditions of employment of dock workers at the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec. This bill was discussed on that day and we pointed out to the
DEBATES	4651
Labour Dispute at Montreal government the error it was making in taking that step. We objected in particular to the preamble to the bill, part of which read as follows:
And whereas an industrial inquiry commission to inquire into those certain matters has been appointed under the said act, and it is in the national interest that the conclusions of the said commission with respect thereto be carried into effect without delay following receipt of the report of the said commission-
I pointed out during the debate on the bill, Mr. Speaker, that this was contrary to the collective bargaining arguments that the government has always hidden behind. As recorded at page 7674 of Hansard for July 14, 1966 I said:
A commissioner can be appointed. No one will object to that. The commissioner can go to work and eventually, upon hearing both sides and investigating the situation completely, he can make a report to the Minister of Labour who in turn should refer that report to the interested parties as a basis for collective bargaining.
The government ignored this suggestion, even though the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), the next speaker for the New Democratic party, agreed that this was the proper procedure to take.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what has happened? A report has been made by the commissioner of inquiry, Mr. Picard. This report was made to the Minister of Labour. Did the Minister of Labour feel there should be ample opportunity for the interested parties in the dispute to sit down with him or to consult amongst themselves before the report was implemented, to see whether they would interpret the report in the same way and agree on what should be done? No; the minister arbitrarily imposed the report on both parties without reference to them at all.
We now have a situation where the parties interpret the report differently. One party reads it one way and the other party reads it another way. Consequently there is a tie-up in the port of Montreal, where some 40 ships are standing idle waiting to be unloaded. Fruits, vegetables and other commodities of this country are being allowed to rot while the government sits quietly by contending that someone else should see that this national crisis is resolved.
I know the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin) has a tremendous responsibility and is trying to show his concern for the country. Surely in his wisdom he could prevail on the Minister of Labour and ask him to forgo his obstinate, arrogant attitude that the government is not responsible and that it is up to
4652	COMMONS
Labour Dispute at Montreal someone else to decide what is to be done. The government in this crisis surely has a responsibility to rectify the situation at once.
We said the legislation was based on an assumption; how were we to know what the report would be? How could we agree to that report being imposed as part of the collective bargaining agreement? We voted against this bill because of that. On page 7674 of Hansard for July 14, 1966 I am reported to have said:
This legislation is based on assumption. The government is assuming that the recommendations will be acceptable to both parties.
The recommendations are not acceptable to both parties, and we were right. Continuing:
What will be the situation if the recommendations are not acceptable?
We have that situation now. There is chaos on the Montreal docks, and that chaos will probably spread across the country to other docks. The union members will not sit idly by and see this type of recommendation imposed on their fellow members. Sympathetic gestures by other union members will be made, as the Minister of Manpower and Immigration well knows. Continuing to quote, I am reported to have said:
Will that tend to a happy and harmonious situation between these two parties for the duration of the present agreement?
There is no happy and harmonious situation which at that time the government thought there would be. Continuing:
This is almost prophetic legislation. We do not know what is going to be recommended but we are being asked to put unknown recommendations into effect.
After that warning the government, on receipt of the report, without consulting both sides as is the normal practice under collective agreements, imposed an arbitrary piece of legislation. Surely that was the most arbitrary decision that could have been taken. I say the present crisis on the Montreal waterfront arises directly from that legislation which the government passed on July 15. Consequently I and many others feel that the government has a responsibility in this situation, but the government does not accept that.
In the legislation the government imposed on unions and management the terms of the Picard report, which then had not been written. In July 1966, during the debate, we were assured by the Minister of Labour and the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration that the unwritten recommendations of

DEBATES	November 24, 1967
the Picard report, which were to be included sight unseen in Bill C-215, would be acceptable. That assurance was given in this house, but the fact is that those recommendations are not acceptable.
By its mismanagement the government in this instance has occasioned the spoilage of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of goods. I mention this because I wish to show the insubstantial and contradictory nature of the minister's position. He cannot be allowed his attitude of being almost a hundred light years away from what is taking place on the Montreal docks. Yesterday I asked him whether he would assume the responsibility of calling both parties to Ottawa at once to try to bring about some understanding and acceptance of this report. That is all that can be done in the circumstances. The government cannot sit idly by and allow events to develop without taking action. Calling the parties to Ottawa for consultation is the only reasonable and the only responsible approach the government should take at this time. After all, they introduced the bill and imposed the terms of the report.
At the time the bill was passed the union had never agreed to the incredible proposal of accepting something which was as then unwritten. Nevertheless the government went ahead, and it went ahead without the agreement of the union or management. The government shoved the bill through and we voted against it. The government have a responsibility to act, and they must exercise that responsibility.
I wish the Acting Prime Minister would not adopt a light hearted attitude and smile. The situation is most serious.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a question of privilege, the government is taking this matter very seriously. The government wants this matter discussed today. I was just exchanging friendly glances with the right hon. gentleman who sits to the hon. member's left.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: I thought when he was smiling the Acting Prime Minister was looking at me. Maybe I was wrong.
This is not only a matter for discussion, Mr. Speaker. There is a responsibility which lies upon the government and the purpose in drawing attention to the situation is to get them to take some action. It is not sufficient that we should discuss this matter for the
November 24, 1967

next two or three hours or for the balance of the day. The government must realize that it has a responsibility. Hon. gentlemen opposite must take action. They cannot allow this situation to drift as it is drifting at the present time, though it is true it has been the habit of this government in the past to allow strikes to drag on without making any attempt to bring about a settlement. They have sat week after week and month after month waiting for some miracle to take place because they had no solution to the problem with which they were faced.
The present situation at Montreal is another of the tie-ups which have occurred simply because hon. gentlemen opposite have failed to govern this country, have failed to accept their responsibilities. In view of the fact that the Picard report was made directly to the minister I suggest he should call both parties to Ottawa at once, sit down with them and try to bring about agreement on the terms of this report so it may be implemented in collective bargaining between the two parties and the port may resume operations as soon as possible.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: welcome this opportunity to discuss the important question now before the house. We believe the work stoppage will do incalculable harm to the whole of the Canadian economy. The immediate pressure arises in connection with the perishable merchandise to which the mover of the motion has already referred, but we are so close to the end of the shipping season in Montreal that the cost of this stoppage to the Canadian ecoonmy, if it continues, is something which cannot be calculated.
I say on behalf of our party that this stoppage cannot be permitted to continue. Yesterday, when he was asked about this situation, the minister said as reported on page 4598 of Hansard:
There is no authority under which the Minister of Labour can intervene in cases of this kind. The parties must learn they should try to work out their own differences.
I personally have always said that free collective bargaining means negotiation between labour and management, and that governments cannot and should not intervene in every dispute. But consider the circumstances in this case. Here is a stoppage which is taking place because the government of Canada did intervene at an earlier stage. Last year when there were problems and stoppages the government of Canada put
Labour Dispute at Montreal forward legislation with which many of us disagreed violently. It put forward legislation appointing an arbitrator and making it a condition of the law that the award of the arbitrator should be binding on both parties. It is as a result of that legislation and of an award by Mr. Picard, the wording of which is apparently unacceptable to either side, that we are faced with this stoppage.
It is not a sudden or an unexpected stoppage. For weeks the signs have been apparent. For weeks it has been obvious from press reports, messages and telegrams from the union to representatives of the various parties in this house, that all was not going well. I am sure the shipping federation has been in communication with the minister for some time. For weeks it has been obvious that the arbitration award was giving rise to difficulty, that the understanding of both parties as to its meaning was different. It was obvious that there would be trouble.
The union claims the companies are implementing only those portions of the award which suit them. I shall not go into details, but as I understand it one of the major sections of the arbitration decision provided that there should be a reduction in the number of people working in each gang. The arbitrator obviously based this part of the award on the fact that with the use of more modern equipment the work could be done by gangs containing fewer men than in the past. I believe the number of men was cut from 21 to 16. This is a sharp decrease but, as I understand it, the union and the men are not disputing this decision. They recognize that the advance of technology cannot and should not be stopped.
However, as I understand their case they take the position that in return for agreeing to this reduction in the size of the work force the award contained provision for certain guarantees in connection with the minimum hours for which the men would be paid each week, and so on. As I understand the position the companies have refused to implement this part of the arbitration award. Under these conditions, believing that the companies are unfairly using the law passed by parliament and using unfairly an award made by an arbitrator, and faced by the refusal of the companies to discuss these matters in any kind of amicable and open minded way, the union and the men have resorted to work stoppages.
To me it seems obvious that since the dispute has arisen as a result of differences of opinion as to the report of an arbitrator
4654	COMMONS
Labour Dispute at Montreal appointed by the government following a decision by this parliament, the position taken yesterday by the Minister of Labour that there is nothing he can do is completely untenable. After all, parliaments and governments have intervened in many labour disputes. We intervened in this dispute in 1966. We intervened in the railway strike and passed legislation imposing binding arbitration on the railway workers. I am sure the minister knows that the railway workers and their unions did not want that binding arbitration and are not happy with the awards the arbitrators made. We have intervened in such disputes in the past, and I suggest we have no alternative but to intervene now.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
What can the minister do? It may be that he is legally and technically correct in saying he has no legislative power to intervene, but I am sure if he asked representatives of the shipping federation and of the union to meet with him here in Ottawa or in Montreal, those representatives would not refuse to attend such a meeting. I suggest that at such a meeting the areas of disagreement could be discussed and clarified. If at that meeting agreement could not be reached between the two parties on what the arbitration award actually meant, then it seems to me further arbitration would be necessary immediately.
I suggest to the minister and the government that if we are to have labour-management relations which work, if we are not to be plagued with strikes, illegal stoppages or lock-outs, conciliation and arbitration must be performed by a person or persons acceptable to both sides. If either side believes the particular arbitrator or arbitrators are not fair and that that side will not get a just hearing, then when the award is made it will not be accepted.
I suggest to the minister that in Canada there are quite a number of people who are acceptable to both labour and management. If Mr. Picard is not acceptable to one side or the other-I pass no judgment on Mr. Picard; I do not know too much about him or his record-then I suggest to the minister that he appoint another arbitrator. Mr. Carl Golden-berg has acted as an arbitrator in a large number of disputes. There is also Mr. Justice Laskin, and a large number of other people acceptable to both sides.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the minister convene a meeting of the parties immediately. If agreement cannot be reached at a direct meeting between the union and

DEBATES	November 24, 1967
management in the presence of the minister and his officials, then the minister should immediately appoint an arbitrator acceptable to both the union and management to settle the issues which are still in doubt and which have caused this stoppage.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot for moving the adjournment motion. What we are engaged in is our annual exercise in attempting to free the flow of exports through our dock facilities. We have not quite landed on the anniversary of the last time the business of the house was adjourned to discuss a dock tie up, but we are only a week away from it. This means that an entire year has elapsed during which legislation could have been introduced to deal with this area of the economy, legislation which would have been more than a patchwork solution to an immediate problem and which would have provided some different means of settling this sort of dispute that would not involve the disruption of the flow of exports.
We can expect that if such legislation is not introduced during the coming year then in exactly one year's time, give or take a day or two, we shall be engaged in this same exercise. It seems that annually we pass legislation to deal with emergency situations, to get goods flowing again, but we do not compensate industries thousands of miles away from the work stoppages that suffer not only in the immediate year of the stoppage but in successive years, due to lost markets caused by lack of confidence in the ability of those industries to move their goods on time.
I would use the same example I used a year ago. I have received the same sort of telegram that I received a year ago. The only difference in this case is that the east coast ports are substituted for the west coast ports. I realize that the dispute itself is of a slightly different nature, but the effect on the particular industry in my province, my con-stituencey, is exactly the same. Such a situation as this produces in that industry, and I am sure in hundreds of others clear across the country, an absolutely scalding frustration at the inability of this parliament to move effectively to prevent this becoming the annual occurrence that we all know it has become.
Looking at the example of the fruit industry in British Columbia, I would point out
November 24, 1987	COMMONS
that this year import restrictions in the United Kingdom were eased for the first time in many years. This meant a larger market than usual available to an industry whose export markets are absolutely vital. In this context we must look at the things which have happened in rapid confusion over the last few weeks.
The pound sterling has been devalued. While this may not have an immediate impact on the export market this year, the future implications are very serious. In addition a surcharge has been imposed on freight rates from the St. Lawrence ports, a very significant surcharge of 25 per cent clear across the board on all goods moving through those ports, because of the frustration of the shippers who have learned that they cannot move goods freely through those ports. On top of that we have had virtually a complete shutdown of the docks, as a result of which goods that have already moved to the port of Montreal for shipment are in danger of spoiling there before they reach market. The implications for the future are very great.
I sympathize with the minister in the statement he made yesterday, when he suggested that both sides to the dispute act responsibly and use the grievance procedure available to them and attempt to make it work. But we realize that by means of a great variety of legislation during the last several years we have been engaged in the process of chipping away at individual and private responsibility in many fields. We have now reached the point where we cannot expect a prompt and decisive result to spring from the minister's hopes, hopes with which I have every sympathy.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
The industry of which I have been speaking made a remarkable drive in recent years to bring its operations up to date. It did this with the full co-operation of the provincial and federal departments of agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture who is listening to this debate, knows the concern of the individual producers throughout the valley to modernize their operations, and he knows the measures this house has taken in areas such as crop insurance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe I should remind the hon. member and perhaps others that we are now debating an allegedly urgent situation at the port of Montreal. The hon. member does not seem to be dealing with that matter at all.
DEBATES	4655
Labour Dispute at Montreal


Howard Earl Johnston: With all deference, Mr. Speaker, I think the relevance of my remarks will be clear in a moment.
The industry in the province of British Columbia has improved its operations to the point where it can compete with any in the world. It is on top of this particular competitive field at this time. However, the shipping industry in the ports of Canada is still in the dark ages. The frustration is compounded when any industry in this country which is competitive is impeded at the point where the goods leave this country. That is the relevance of my remarks, and I am sure they will be repeated by spokesmen using other industries as specific examples during this debate.
I would urge the minister to intervene in this debate. If the necessary legislation does not exist to solve this problem it should be brought in as emergency legislation, and brought in quickly. In addition, during the course of the next parliamentary year and prior to the month of November next we should have legislation sufficiently comprehensive and compelling to prevent this annual occurrence.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I think that I will just be making some brief remarks on this occasion.
I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacin-the Bagot (Mr. Ricard) for having moved this adjournement motion to discuss such a serious and important matter. Our group would have preferred it if the debate had originated on the other side of the house, and I think that the minister should have taken the opportunity yesterday or today to make an important statement on the present circumstances in the Montreal harbour.
I think that the minister should take the opportunity this afternoon to make a statement on what he intends to do to end this crisis which affects not only the longshoremen but also the export-based economy of the province of Quebec. We want to export our surplus products to give impetus to business in the area served by the port of Montreal, and if we cannot do so because of crises which are more and more frequent, the economy in this area will get worse and worse.
From the court injunction of this morning, it is obvious that one of the parties concerned has not respected important clauses of a contract. If it is so, I think that the minister
4655	COMMONS
Labour Dispute at Montreal should have seen to it that they are respected.
Had strong measures been taken, that crisis could have been avoided. Therefore, if the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) cannot have all the terms respected through adequate legislation, the government should consider a cabinet reshuffle as soon as possible without waiting for the next elections.
I hope that the minister will make an important statement which will reassure all the people who are more or less affected by the present crisis in the port of Montreal, telling them that it will be possible to solve it immediately. The minister should use all his influence to help both parties to come to an agreement and respect their contract.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief, but I should like to make use of the opportunity to speak during this adjournment motion on the point in question. I can indicate my interest in this subject because of the general transportation picture in eastern Canada. The ports of Halifax and Saint John, which are undergoing a difficult transformation period-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I
should not interrupt the hon. member immediately, but I must remind him as I have reminded others that the only reason this motion was granted was that there is an allegedly serious situation in the port of Montreal. Had the motion dealt with general transportation policy I assure the hon. member it would not have been allowed. The only term of reference the hon. member has is the motion itself.


Thomas Miller Bell: You are quite right of course, Mr. Speaker. I intended to indicate my general fear that this strike might spread to other ports. Reference was made to the fact that two or three days ago the effect of the strike had been felt in Three Rivers and Quebec. These effects are now moving substantially into these ports with dislocations there. I want to put on record my fear that these dislocations may occur in other ports. The ports of Halifax and Saint John are operating under old agreements and may not be affected, but we know that once these things get going they spread rapidly.
I want to express my hope that the minister will act in this regard. He admonished the different parties yesterday in respect of this matter, but this evidently had little or no
[Mr. Laprise.l
DEBATES	November 24, 1967
effect. We have received representation from the Montreal port council and from the Canadian Export Association through Mr. J. M. McAvity, who in no uncertain terms urged the minister to take action. It is my hope that the minister will not sit back any longer in the hope that by some miracle the court will find a solution, or action will be forthcoming that has not already become apparent.
I listened to the minister on the radio this morning when he suggested this strike was akin to another situation in Vancouver. He said that situation was waited out and finally resolved. I should like to remind him that there is great urgency at this time, with the Christmas season approaching and because of the perishable nature of many goods being transported at this time of the year. The minister cannot wait any longer to take action. As one who for many years has had fears about general transportation in eastern Canada I should like to express my hope that the minister does not let this situation continue.
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker I just have a few questions I should like to put to the minister. I hope he will be able to supply the answers. The core of this dispute seems to be related to the interpretation of the Picard report, as to what certain provisions mean. I see that the Montreal port council and others have suggested that if necessary these interpretations should be made by Commissioner Picard in order to clarify his own conclusions and recommendations. However, the unions have rejected any further clarifications by Mr. Picard because they say he is a party to the arbitration report, and therefore some other interpretation formula must be found. I have here a recommendation by Mr. Cutler, which is that another arbitrator should be appointed to interpret the differences in the report. a (12 noon)
I understood from the minister's reply yesterday that there were grievance and arbitration provisions in the collective agreement. I want to ask him this question. When he met with the parties on Friday did he suggest that they have these differences in interpretation worked out under the grievance provisions in the agreement; and if so, what was the response? Also, what has been the response of the unions to settling these differences in interpretation by the grievance and arbitration provisions in the agreement?
November 24, 1S67	COMMONS


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, just before the minister outlines the government's position I would appreciate the opportunity of saying a few words, partly by way of representation and partly by way of suggestion. I intervene at this stage and take advantage of the opportunity given by the adjournment motion primarily because of my concern, as a member from British Columbia, for the welfare of the fruit growing industry there, but also a number of other primary producers who are affected.
The position of the British Columbia fruit industry is, of course, that it has had an old and traditional market for its produce in the United Kingdom, that this produce customarily is moved through the port of Montreal, and that this time of year, approaching Christmas, is the height of that movement. Therefore any interruption or slowing down of the movement of this perishable commodity represents in itself a very serious set-back for the industry, the kind of set-back to which sensitive markets are accustomed to react rather badly.
Those who handle this kind of produce on the other side need the assurance that their trade requirements will be met, and if there are interruptions in the supply it gives the British Columbia fruit industry a bad mark. So there is an understandable sensitivity and concern on their part for an interruption such as that brought about by this slowdown. The concern is heightened now by the fact that the United Kingdom market, as a result of devaluation, is made a much more difficult market on that ground alone. That situation is difficult enough.
There are no alternative supplies of as good quality apples, but there are alternative sources of supply of apples. When you have the situation where because of devaluation our hazards in the United Kingdom market are increased, and you add to that the difficulty in transporting the goods, in other words in meeting the commitments, you realize that firm contracts are jeopardized by the situation in the port of Montreal. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree with me that the concern and urgency with which the British Columbia fruit industry regards this situation are entirely justified.
On that basis they feel, and I support them, that the minister can no longer refuse to intervene directly. After all, it was the government, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, that introduced into this parliament and had passed the bill setting up
27053-294}
DEBATES	4S57
Labour Dispute at Montreal the first arbitration process, so the government has an inescapable responsibility to see that the terms expressed and implied in that statute are carried out. We opposed the bill at the time. We said it would make difficulties. The hon. member for Ontario pointed out clearly the kind of difficulty it would create. But the government insisted and were successful in having the bill passed by the house.
The bill says the findings of the arbitrator shall be incorporated into the collective agreements. That is the expressed provision of the bill. I say this means by implication, and by necessary implication, that those findings must be carried out. I say the government cannot drop the matter at this stage and say "There is a dispute as to their terms and it would be really most improper for us to take any further action by way of intervention either directly or indirectly". I say the minister must bring the parties together and keep them together until they arrive at agreement as to the meaning of the terms.
The minister must impress upon the parties their national responsibility. I know he is reluctant to go further than what he thinks is the general guiding principle with regard to direct intervention in matters of this kind. I respect that principle and appreciate his reluctance, but I say that having picked up this hot potato, he cannot drop it now.
I appeal also to the Minister of Agriculture. I am quite certain he is aware of the seriousness of this situation for primary producers without the necessity of my further elaboration. I suggest he should join the Minister of Labour in meeting the parties to the dispute and impressing upon them that while they have understandable concerns, which are respected, nevertheless there is an overriding concern which they too must respect; and that is the concern for the national good and for the welfare of parties who are powerless to intervene directly. Those parties being powerless to intervene directly, they must be represented by and action must be taken on their behalf through the ministers of this government.
I know the government are concerned about this matter, and my suggestions are not made on the basis that they have not thought about it and expressed their concern. I believe the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture should form a team and meet with the parties to this dispute. They should meet with them without delay,
November 24, 1967

Labour Dispute at Montreal and insist upon their being called together and kept together until they have arrived at agreement, so that in the national interest the full measure and pace of the transportation of goods through the port of Montreal can be resumed.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish very briefly to support this motion of urgency. I support the remarks made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke and the hon. member for Kamloops as to the effect this situation is having on the fruit growers of British Columbia and on certain other primary producers. The ones who suffer immediately and to the greater extent are the fruit growers themselves, because they are not in a position to adjust to certain circumstances as are other large scale primary producers, particularly in industry.
Telegrams I have received indicate that this is a matter of increasing and growing concern to many of the people we have the honour to represent. In this connection I should like to place on record the text of a telegram I received, as did the other hon. members who have spoken. The telegram reads as follows:
Deteriorating slowdown St. Lawrence ports and 25 per cent surcharge imposed hy steamship companies on ocean freight rates threatens losses our growers disruption shipping schedules and serious additional financial burden United Kingdom importers already hard pressed by sterling devaluation.
Please confer ministers agriculture and labour for appropriate action as complete tie up St. Lawrence ports could result cancellation our firm orders and serious losses Canadian exporters. Eric W. Moore, general manager, B.C. Tree Fruits Ltd.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Since I have received that telegram they have become more concerned than ever. I have discussed this matter with the Minister of Labour and his officials, and with the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the more serious impact upon the agricultural producers, particularly at this time of the year, and the possibility of losing Christmas and winter markets which have been established throughout the years in Great Britain, I do urge that the ministers take action to bring these parties together and resolve this dispute in the national interest.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this subject because, as has been expressed previously by the hon. mmeber for Saint John-Albert, we do have some fears in Halifax and


Saint John about the course that is being followed here. I am afraid a rather big chicken has come home to roost on the shoulders of the government. We all recall that last June the house passed Bill C-215, which settled the dispute between the longshoremen and the shipping federation of Montreal. One of the provisions of the bill-and I suggest it is the one that is causing the difficulty, and indeed the crisis, on the Montreal waterfront and on other waterfronts on the St. Lawrence river-required the commissioner to report on certain problems. At that time the hon. member for Ontario pointed out that this was a rather grave departure from the established labour practice in that this was the imposition of a formula on the parties concerned rather than something that could be studied by both sides and on which agreement could be attained through the normal processes of collective bargaining.
My concern is that the Picard report obviously not only covers the situation in Montreal but will also affect other ports in Canada, including the one I have the honour to represent in parliament. We know only too well that our longshore operations have dwindled over the years, and that we are in a serious position with regard to these operations. I would not like to see them further affected or worsened by what we are going through as a nation in the port of Montreal.
I should like to say to the minister, with all due respect to his position and the statement he made yesterday, that he should now admit to the house that he is wrong and express a willingness to use the vast prestige of his office to get both sides together with him, instead of meeting with one or the other or having his officials meet with one or the other. I believe he should go over the situation to see whether it cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides.
The hon. member for Kamloops has suggested a ministerial team which should work on this problem. I do not believe he mentioned the Minister of Transport as a possible member of that team, yet transportation problems in large measure are at the heart of the difficulty, as well as the more immediate labour dispute with which we are seized.
Again I say that I hope the minister will be inclined to change his mind so that instead of having a bloody battle between employers and employees, over an issue in Montreal, any differences on the Picard report will be worked out; because sooner or later they are bound to affect every other port in Canada.
November 24, 1987	COMMONS


Mr, Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a very few, short remarks on this most serious problem. I think what has developed in Montreal highlights the growing problems and difficulties which our country and the house have had to face in the past two or three years. It is not my intention to recriminate against the government, the shipping federation in Montreal or the trade unions, but for a long time I have been feeling that something of a very specific nature must be said, whether it is popular or unpopular.
The fact that we are discussing an urgent motion to adjourn highlights the problems and brings me to my feet. We have reached the stage now where the economy of Canada is being increasingly endangered by the inability of companies and trade unions to come together, and the failure of the government to intervene to bring the two parties together. Our position as a trading nation is being endangered by an expression of selfish interest by the particular groups concerned.
I am afraid that in this most serious problem which is now before us somehow or other, whether from the viewpoint of the employers or that of the employees, it must be made clear to all Canadians that in the interests of our economy if certain groups cannot get together, eventually parliament will be forced to act, although in my opinion it does not wish to act in regard to the free collective agreements in Montreal, Vancouver or anywhere else. Speaking as a former trade unionist and as a member of the New Democratic party, it seems to me I would not be acting as a responsible member of parliament, at a time when our economy is being endangered by lockouts, strikes and disagreements on interpretation, were I not to say that now is the time to tell everyone in Canada individually and collectively that we have to think more as Canadians and less as individual groups expressing their selfish interests.
I feel very strongly about having to rise and make the statement that I would be a completely irresponsible member of parliament if I did not say that we have reached the point when something like this must be said. Therefore I appeal to the minister of Labour through you, Mr. Speaker, for heaven's sake to try to bring the opposing groups in Montreal together both in their interests and in the interests of our trading position. Let the port of Montreal be opened as speedily as possible. Then, once it is opened, we
DEBATES	4659
Labour Dispute at Montreal should immediately bring these groups together to see if we can bring to a halt this impeding of our Canadian economy.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the last speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East. When the hon. member referred to selfish interests, he neglected to name them. I do not know whether he meant the employers or the employees. Representing an agricultural constituency as I do, this situation does not concern me except that I should like the minister, in the course of his remarks, to say what effect it will have on the export of prairie grain, I am not so sure the effect on grain shipments is serious at the moment, but I recall the situation of a year ago which caused the loss of markets for prairie grain which meant so much to the economy of Canada.
I am quite sure the government, since they have no members from western Canada, will say they are not aware of this situation. However, it has been brought to their attention time and time again. I could almost repeat word for word the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops when he was referring to the problems of the fruit growers. There are certain times of the year when the fruit crop has to be moved, otherwise it will spoil. The situation is not quite that serious with regard to grain, but it is a serious matter to western farmers if this grain does not move.
If we do not take advantage of the markets which are available at certain times of the year, then we will have lost those markets. I suggest to the minister that at the present time Canada is in difficulty because we have lost grain markets. This fact does not concern the grain producer on the prairies alone but is of concern to the whole of Canada.
The hon. member for Vancouver East did say this situation presented a danger to the economy of Canada, and I certainly agree with him. In fact I would go further. I suggest that about a year ago, I believe on June 8, a bill was introduced by a member of the New Democratic party, and why it was withdrawn is beyond me. The bill introduced by the hon. member for Skeena was entitled "An act to provide for the resumption of loading and unloading at the ports of Three Rivers, Montreal and Quebec." For some reason or other this bill was withdrawn on June 14. The leader of that party appeared on
4660	COMMONS
Labour Dispute at Montreal television just before that; then the bill was withdrawn for reasons which are beyond me, unless there was pressure from some of the labour groups from whom that party gets support.
I have not very much to say about strikes. As I said before, I am from western Canada and I do not represent a high percentage of labour. I am opposed to strikes when they affect innocent people, and I am afraid this is one of those cases. If the longshoremen and the shipping companies have a dispute, then certainly there must be some means of settling that dispute. I believe the fact that this strike is affecting innocent persons is one of the most important reasons for the minister to step in and take some action. This is the only way these innocent people can be protected. I hope that in the course of his remarks the minister will say something about the effect of this strike on western grain shipments.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: As a western member and the representative of a grain growing area, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments at this point. I will be brief since the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek outlined the situation fairly well. However, there are a few more points I should like to make. I want to join with other speakers in urging a quick settlement of this dispute which is tying up shipping in the port of Montreal. The hon. member for Ontario posed some very important questions which I hope the minister will try to answer.
I wanted to mention the latest report of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I feel this is in order, Mr. Speaker, because the report refers to wheat shipments through the port of Montreal. Reference has been made already, of course, to the fact there has been a slump in grain exports this year. I am sorry the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not here because he always has a cheerful outlook on the situation. He says it is going to improve. Perhaps it will improve, but it cannot improve unless the dispute at the port of Montreal is settled, because a lot of grain does move through that port.
I should like to refer to this report by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for November 1, 1967. The period covered is from August 1 to November 1 of this year, during which time we shipped through St. Lawrence ports, that is Sorel, Trois-Rivieres, Quebec but mostly Montreal, and through other Canadian ports, just over 60 million bushels of wheat.

DEBATES	November 24, 1967
Last year was just an ordinary year, but during the same period from August 1 to November 1 we shipped nearly 156 million bushels. I do not blame the present dispute in the port of Montreal for this drop in exports;
I blame a lack of effort on the part of the government in getting out and selling our wheat.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce says he is going to sell wheat in the near future; that is the hope he holds out. If he does, then the operation of the port of Montreal will become very necessary in order that this wheat may be moved. I just wanted to emphasize the interest of western members in the settlement of this dispute. I hope the questions posed by the hon. member for Ontario will impress upon the government the seriousness of the situation.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the present crisis in the port of Montreal and mention especially that I am surprised at the attitude of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) concerning the conflict.
Indeed, the Minister of Labour seems to approach this problem in a rather surprising way. Yesterday, he stated in the house, and I quote his own words reported on page 4598 of Hansard of Thursday, November 23:
The parties must learn that they should try to work out their own differences.
That is what the minister said.
That is not a labour conflict that was created by the parties, it is rather a conflict that arose from the report of a commission appointed by the government and the Minister of Labour.
If there is a conflict at the present time in the port of Montreal, it is due to the report of a commission appointed by the government and the minister is trying to evade the responsibility by saying:
The parties must learn that they should try to work out their own differences.
A little further down the same page, the minister added:
The parties have their rights, but they have not attempted to exercise them in the manner agreed upon. They are looking to the government to impose a solution. I think it is about time they learned they must work out their own solutions.
The minister says: "It is high time the parties should learn they must work out their own solution."
November 24, 1967	COMMONS
Then why do we have a Minister of Labour? What is the minister doing? What is his role if it is not to solve problems? The minister simply says that it is about time the parties should learn they must work out their own solution. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour has nothing else to do here, the only thing he has to do is to resign and since he will no longer be available to help to settle disputes, the parties themselves will find their own solutions.
Why would the minister continue in office then? What else does he have to do? Mere red tape.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) asked the minister the following question:
Will the minister use the stature and importance of his office and summon both parties to Ottawa at once in order to help mediate an agreement on the understanding of the Picard report?
The minister answered:
No, Mr. Speaker.
So, the minister does not want to use the stature of his office and summon both parties in order to try to mediate an agreement on the understanding of the report.
What is the role of the minister in this case? Is he minister in name only and has nothing to do here? What is his role? The minister should give us an answer to that.
Mr. Speaker, if the Montreal harbour is at a complete standstill today and if everything is stopped, it is precisely because the minister did not take the matter seriously and preferred to tell the parties: I am non-existent, find your own solution yourselves, do not rely on me, I do not want to act in this case. Or, as he said yesterday: Both of you, management and labour try to settle your own differences alone, I do not want to assume the duties of a Minister of Labour any longer.
The results measure up to our expectations. Is the minister losing interest in the whole matter like he said himself yesterday, as shown clearly by the quotations I have just referred to.
Well, if the minister is completely disinterested in the matter, he has only one thing to do, that is to tender his resignation, since he is unwilling to play his role seriously.
I remember very well that last year, at the time of the strikes in British Columbia ports, the Minister of Labour had made a rousing appeal, asking everybody to settle that strike as quickly as possible, since the ships were loaded with perishables.
DEBATES	4661
Labour Dispute at Montreal
You remember, Mr. Speaker, that over a few hours delay, the minister had made charges of irresponsibility and called me irresponsible for refusing to accept one of his proposals with regard to the strike in British Columbia ports. He had called me irresponsible because those ships were loaded with perishable cargo, and the same situation prevails today. As the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) said so well, there is one million dollars' worth of perishables sitting there, and the hon. minister does not want to do anything.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am forced to turn on him the charge he levied against me last year and tell him in his turn that he is irresponsible in not wanting to do anything- since he used that expression last year- about the perishables which are piling up in the port of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister does not want to act; he remains idle. It must be recognized that he is the one who used the word "irresponsibility" which applies so well to him today.
In the light of those facts, I feel that we are justified in requesting the resignation of the minister. Mr. Speaker, might it be that the hon. minister was eager to solve the problem in the ports of British Columbia last year because he comes from that province? However, when it is a problem concerning Quebec, the minister is no longer in a hurry, he merely says: "Let the parties learn to work out solutions among themselves; as for me, I will not get involved". When British Columbia is involved, special measures, special bills are quickly introduced before anyone can turn around. But when Quebec is involved, there is nothing to be done, and the minister says so: "I have no intention to step in." He also stated yesterday, and I quote:
I think it is about time they learned they must work out their own solutions.
Quebec is treated differently than the province represented by the Minister of Labour.
Mr. Speaker, such an attitude is unthinkable and unwarranted, and in closing, I call for the resignation of the Minister of Labour, who cannot do his job and who prefers to let things go unchecked rather than try to find solutions to the problems within his department.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate, since quite a few members, from
4662	COMMONS
Labour Dispute at Montreal my party as well as others, have expressed their opinion.
However, I have been struck by something on which I particularly wish to insist. Up until now, not too many members from the island of Montreal have expressed their opinion in the course of this debate.
I have no ulterior motive in saying that, Mr. Speaker. However, those members are right on the spot and should be more familiar with the problem than we who are further away. For example, I would like to know the opinion of the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), to whose services the government constantly has recourse to settle certain problems or to get out of tough spots. I know that the hon. member for Verdun is a rather serious man, whose judgment can generally be trusted, and I think his opinion would be most appreciated at this time.

I hope the hon. member for Verdun will not hold it against me if I make this request of him. In the circumstances his participation in this debate as a member from an area close to the Montreal docks would be most helpful in view of his knowledge of the subject. It would help not only to get the government out of trouble but also to get some of his constituents out of trouble.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Megantic whether he has noticed that only three members from the island of Montreal are here today, for this important debate, and that the others are not interested at all-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Has the hon. member noticed that too?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I had indeed noticed it. I am not as blind as some hon. members opposite who do not see the importance of that problem as other hon. members do.
I know that the minister does not intend, according to the answer he gave yesterday to the hoh. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), to intervene in the conflict, and that he leaves it to the parties to work out a solution to their problem.
Mr. Speaker, I have noted a fact which is often distressing; before taking action to settle a dispute or a problem, the government

DEBATES	November 24, 1967
waits until it degenerates into a serious crisis and then, when there is practically no way to settle it, administrators, arbitrators, etc. have to be appointed. Why does the minister not intervene at this time to settle the dispute? Why is the minister afraid to become involved in this? It is his job, why does he not do it?
Mr. Speaker, what kind of occult forces are at play behind those strikes, those conflicts, particularly this one, to make the minister refuse to deal with it. He knows very well that the eoonomy cannot afford another strike. There have been enough, why wait until that conflict becomes worse before intervening directly?
What the minister said yesterday is true; we do not have time to deal with all those problems. But if parliament does not have time to consider them, it is the minister's duty and role to do so. It is up to the minister to act immediately so that parliament may not be compelled to take steps in the near future.
When the minister is discharging his duties off-handedly, the government is compelled afterwards to pass legislation to settle those problems. As those responsibilities are not discharged, because nobody cares about the matter a crisis breaks out. The house must then be adjourned to settle the problem.
Due to the problems which we are facing at the present time, such as credit restriction, the rise in the cost of living and all the other factors giving rise to inflation, the risks of a recession which are evident for those who have insight, the economic difficulties, especially in the eastern part of the country-it must not be forgotten that the dispute in the Montreal harbour does not only affect the province of Quebec, but also all Canadian producers who use the port of Montreal and the St. Lawrence seaway-I think that the minister cannot afford to ignore a problem and to let it develop into a national or serious crisis. If the house adjourned today under standing order 26, it is because this problem is of national concern, otherwise Mr. Speaker would not have accepted the motion. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I do not question your judgment, but that of the minister.
I readily believe that the minister does not have to worry about such matters ahead of time. However, the answer he gave yesterday to the effect that he had no intention to settle the problem or to intervene was rather clear. It would have been better for him to say: let
November 24, 1967
us wait a while and see how things develop. But it is absolutely false to tell us that he will have nothing to do with it, that it is none of his business.
I should like to ask the hon. minister to intervene, to summon the two parties and see where the trouble lies, where the problem or difficulty started. We had an arbitrator and a commission last year, in 1966, to do so: the Picard commission. Who has failed in applying the recommendations of the report? Who is responsible: The employees or the employer? We should know. Why should the minister, who endorsed the Picard report, now wash his hands of the whole matter, when it may well be that something is lacking in the report or in its implementation?
It is his duty as minister to look the situation over and to correct it. The minister is the only one who can solve it; I am quite familiar with problems of this type; quite a few of them have arisen in the past. Instead of ironing themselves out, they get progressively worse. We are reaching the point where nothing can be solved. The two parties take up their positions and, finally, parliament is compelled to step in through legislative action.
So, Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot afford to let the situation deteriorate in this economic area. Then, some people wonder why grumblings are being heard in some provinces, particularly in Quebec. We voice our concern over separatism, the fate of Canada, we discuss changes in the constitution, bilin-guism, anything you want. In the last analysis, it is simply-


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind the hon. member that we are now considering a motion concerning the port of Montreal. The hon. member is talking about separatism. It seems to me that we have wandered away from the question under consideration far enough for us to come back to it.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I readily accept your remarks and the point you have made. However, if some hon. members see no relation between separatism and the economic troubles we have in our part of the country, I must say frankly and sincerely that I do. Moreover, I believe it is my duty to express my opinions in the house. The minister may not express his, but I do mine, and in good faith. I am convinced that it is my duty to do so.
The Chair may hold a different view. I may perhaps hope that my views are not 27053-295
Labour Dispute at Montreal justified but complete work stoppage in the port of Montreal is something that the economy neither of Quebec nor of Canada can afford at this time.
I make the connection with separatism because that may be remote but it is effective and dangerous. And possibly if more strikes were settled and fewer problems arose, or if more security were available for Montreal longshoremen, as well as elsewhere in the country, because such a strike affects all producers, possibly there might be fewer problems in Canada, problems of separatism, independence and all you can wish for.
In closing, I should ask the minister to kindly reconsider his position and to intervene in the conflict, not to impose a solution, but at least to try and discuss with the parties involved so as to arrive at an agreement before it is too late and before parliament is forced to take the situation in hand.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I understand very well the reasons why the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) moved the adjournment of the house this morning to deal with the situation in the port of Montreal.
I am sure that everyone, and that is obvious from the views expressed here, is concerned about the long and short term repercussions that this situation might have. Hon. members from the various parts of the country are asking themselves questions. The newspapers have told us that the National Harbours Board has asked the government to intervene. The Canadian Exporters Association is worried. People worry about what is happening to the image of the port of Montreal throughout the world. But, in short, what is the problem? e (12:50 p.m.)
It is said that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) does not want to assume his responsibilities, but I can tell the house that we have in the person of the present Minister of Labour a man who, during the last few years, has done a great deal to settle disputes and has taken unusual steps to prevent situations such as the one we are facing today. I shall even congratulate him for everything he has accomplished in that area over the years.
In 1966, he took position on that question by way of ministerial action, an action in conjunction with the government; it was then found possible to give longshoremen a

4664	COMMONS
Labour Dispute at Montreal substantial wage increase and settle differences which went beyond monetary consideration.
Mr. Picard was appointed to help settle the various points at issue, and the situation prevailing at this time is no more and no less than a misunderstanding between both parties, the Montreal longshoreman and the Shipping Federation, as to the interpretation of the Picard report. What I find strange, Mr. Speaker, is that this report was accepted by both parties; yet, they failed to agree as to its interpretation. It is admitted practically by all that some recommendations or suggestions in the report are not very clear, and during the debate this morning, it seemed that all sorts of things were being added.
A few moments ago I heard the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) say that-I am sorry for bringing this up, but since this gentleman raised the matter first, I would like to make this point-in the case of the dispute involving the port of Vancouver, the minister shouldered his responsibilities, and if the present dispute involved any harbour other than Montreal, he would act much more quickly.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister and I approve his answer to the question which was put to him yesterday in this house. Words should not be misinterpreted. As is shown on page 4598 of the Hansard of November 23, this is the answer given by the minister to a first question asked by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston):
There is no authority under which the Minister of Labour can intervene in cases of this kind. The parties must learn that they should try to work out their own differences.
I agree with that in principle. It does not mean that there is not a little more to be done in the present case. However, I will read the answer given by the minister to a supplementary question put by hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), and I quote:
As I reported to the house yesterday, 1 have discussed this matter at length with one side last Friday and offered to do so with the other. Officers of my department have discussed it with that other party. It has even been suggested that if there is ambiguity in one or two passages of the Picard report or at least arising out of the fact that the Picard report supplements and amends the existing agreement, that Dr. Picard himself be asked to clarify ambiguities. One of the parties, the unions, will not accept that suggestion.
[Mr. Laniel.l
DEBATES	November 24, 1967
Nevertheless Mr. Speaker, I wonder to what extent the Minister of Labour, the government, will always be asked to intervene and dictate solutions?
Personally, as a taxpayer, as a citizen believing in democracy, when I hear labour unions and various organizations make demands on the authorities or secure the right to negotiate, I do not know what to believe because as soon as a conflict arises, we see what happens.
As a matter of fact, we have seen what happened in Montreal at the time of the Transport Commission conflict. At that time, the member for Lapointe did not make charges against the Johnson government as he did against the federal Minister of Labour, because it is not helpful to his cause of Quebec independence. Nevertheless, and as a citizen of the province of Quebec who sees people act and looks at the existing organizations and the means available to settle these differences, I consider that the reply of the minister is fair and that, on the whole, it represents a solution that was not accepted by one of the two parties.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the situation which prevails now cannot continue. However, nobody in this house can deny that Mr. Picard is away on holidays at the present time and that he will be back on Monday. I think that a solution may then be found, because if there is a man who can interpret the contents of the Picard report, I feel that it is not the federal Minister of Labour but Mr. Picard himself and if, following that interpretation, a practical solution cannot be found, then the minister might review his stand.
The minister wanted this debate and he can tell the house this morning to what extent his views may have changed. In the meantime, I trust him, and I am convinced that if the house continues to take positive action, we shall find a solution to this problem in a very near future.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief; it is getting close to one o'clock and I will try to conclude them before the break if possible.
First I should like to join with my hon. friend the senior member for Halifax and support the suggestion he made in furtherance of the remarks of my hon. friend from Kamloops with regard to a task force. I urge the minister to give serious consideration to uniting with the Minister of Manpower and
November 24, 1967

Immigration and bringing into that group the Minister of Transport in an attempt to overcome this problem.


Thomas Miller Bell: Where would you find the Minister of Transport?


J. Michael Forrestall: He has not been in the house, I grant you, but he must be afoot somewhere. In any event the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Kamloops is sound and should be pursued.
The second point I wish to raise is connected with the difficulties which seem to be arising in the interpretation of the Picard report. I would simply draw the minister's attention to the fact that for some two years the basic recommendations in this report have formed a very satisfactory working arrangement in the ports of Halifax and Saint John. In these circumstances, even if the minister is not legally able to intervene he can at least make clear through his actions in the House of Commons and through those of the officials of his department that on moral grounds there is an urgent necessity for the parties concerned to come together and stay together until the present difficulty has been resolved. It would be simple for me to stand up here and say don't do it. We welcome the business in the port of Halifax but, unlike Montreal, we do not welcome business at the expense of the other ports of Canada; we like to do business in other ways than that.
Third, I would be grateful if when he speaks later the minister would giv<* us some idea, as to what the situation is likely to be in view of the proceedings before the courts in Montreal today. Just what will be the repercussions of this in terms of disruption not only in Montreal but possibly throughout Canada, bearing in mind that there is an obligation on the part of the unions to support each other when, in their view, an issue is just?
In summary, I join with my senior colleague in urging the minister to bring under his wing the new Minister of Transport; it would do him good to get his feet wet. Then, as I say, for some two years the ingredients of the Picard report have formed the basis of working arrangements in Halifax and Saint John. We have experienced absolute stability there and we can tell the world, if it wants stability, to send its goods to Halifax and Saint John. And this stability has been achieved on this basis of the report which seems to be causing the difficulty.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
27053-295}
Labour Dispute at Montreal AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want briefly, to add my voice to those of members who have already spoken during this important debate. I feel I would be derelict in my duty if I did not take advantage of this opportunity to support my western colleagues in particular, and hon. members in general with respect to the emergency situation that has arisen in the port of Montreal. Various hon. members have mentioned the general effects of this emergency on our economy as a whole, but coming from Saskatchewan where our economy depends to a large extent on the welfare of agriculture I wish to say, as was said by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe) and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), that we in the west are naturally concerned about the loss of markets, slowdown of shipments of grain and the resulting loss to the economy as it affects the farmers of western Canada.
I must compliment the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) for introducing the adjournment motion and also you, Mr. Speaker, for your discernment in granting this debate under the rules. I would like to suggest to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) that he take a leaf out of the book of the former minister of labour, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), with respect to the way he handled similar emergencies during his term of office. If the minister would look over the record he would find that the former minister's record was an excellent one. The former minister adopted practices and policies that worked out very successfully, and I think this would be the logical thing to do in the present emergency.
I would also agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) that the setting up of a ministerial task force might be the best way to get us out of this altercation. It is said that two or three heads are better than one under circumstances such as the present, and having such a task force might influence both labour and management and help them to get together as soon as possible.
I know that members of parliament will receive strong representations about this matter. It has already been mentioned that the Canadian Association of Exporters, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Western wheat pools, the Federation of Agriculture, the National Farm Union and
4666	COMMONS
Labour Dispute at Montreal other organizations across Canada are going to be vitally interested and will be expressing their alarm with respect to this state of affairs if they have not already done so. It is interesting to note that the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, meeting in Regina last week adopted a resolution in these terms:
-that they should continue to seek changes in Canadian labour legislation to prevent disruption of unrelated economic activities through work stoppages in major industries.
It was suggested that some form of labour-management court might be required.
So, Mr. Speaker, with these very few remarks I would like to endorse what has already been said, namely, that we are in a state of emergency and that the government, which is responsible for alleviating it and solving the problem, should take the urgent steps that are being suggested.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, there was one remark made by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) with which I can agree. I may not agree with some of the extravagant language that he used when moving his motion, but when this matter was being put to the house I made it quite clear that I am in complete agreement with him that the situation is a serious one. It certainly is not one that can be passed over lightly and I would not want him or any other hon. members to think that it has not received serious, careful consideration and action over a period of several weeks not only from me and my department but from the government generally.
As I listened to the speeches this morning, Mr. Speaker, I felt that at least some of the hon. members who participated in the debate had short memories. There was not a single reference to the fact that the very first day this dispute was raised in the house I, as the minister, outlined a course which I thought was the sound and proper one to be followed.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), who participated in the debate this morning, did interest himself several days ago when he first asked about the dispute on the docks. He referred to it as a wildcat dispute. On that occasion I said that I had received certain representations in a telegram from the Montreal port council. As recorded on page 4181 of Hansard for November 13, some 11 days ago, the telegram which I sent in reply to one received from
[Mr. Southam.l
DEBATES	November 24, 1967
Mr. William Baatz, the president of the Montreal port council, read as follows:
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Referring your telegram tenth the collective agreements governing longshoring activities in the Saint Lawrence ports provide for arbitration of grievances. The fact that the agreements have been amended as a result of the Picard report does not affect said arbitration provisions. In view of this and of the urgency of the situation I have sent the following telegram to the Shipping Federation of Canada and the International Longshoremens' Association.
"I am proposing herein to the Shipping Federation of Canada and the International Longshoremens' Association that they agree to the appointment of an arbitrator to be chosen by me to make final and binding decisions with effect until December thirty-first nineteen sixty seven on the issues which have affected shipping operations at the port of Montreal.. . With the end of the active shipping season near and the year-end holiday season fast approaching, it is imperative that full waterfront operations resume at the earliest time. I would appreciate your immediate advice so that arbitration can proceed."
That telegram went out, as I have said, about 11 days ago to the interested parties. The reason I suggested arbitration will be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of collective bargaining procedure, several of whom I see in this house.


Michael Starr: Would the minister permit a question at this point? What replies did he receive from the parties to whom he sent the telegram?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will be dealing with that in the course of my remarks.


Michael Starr: I thought you might deal with them now to complete the picture.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will deal with them in an orderly way.


Michael Starr: It would be orderly to deal with them now.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The reason I suggested
arbitration should be perfectly obvious to anyone with any knowledge of how the collective bargaining process works in this country. My remarks will also make it clear why the position of the Minister of Labour differs in this dispute from his position in most disputes which attract headlines in newspapers and the news media in this country.
The ordinary dispute between labour and management usually comes about after a collective agreement has expired and there is no agreement in force. That was the situation we were dealing with in the spring or early
November 24, 1S67	COMMONS
summer of 1966. The collective agreements between the shipping federation and the longshoremen in the St. Lawrence ports had expired on December 31, 1965. The parties had some discussions and in April, 1966 they asked for the establishment of a conciliation board. The minister has not only the right but the duty to establish a conciliation board when such action is requested. Within a matter of hours of the time that request was received a conciliation board was established. On the very day that the representative of management and the representative of the workers asked for the appointment of a chairman I appointed a chairman. The hearings began but quickly broke down. Hon. members will recall that within a matter of hours of the breakdown of negotiations in early May of last year I was able to persuade the man I regarded as best equipped to mediate the situation to step in. I refer to Judge Lippe. He knew the problems and he had acted in a similar situation in 1963, at which time he had done an outstanding job.
Judge Lippe took this job on and after he had been at it a few days-this is of importance to those people who are so critical, and I am not referring to hon. members only but to the public generally-he said that the longshoremen had asked for a substantial increase in wages to be incorporated in the new agreement. He said that the employers seemed prepared to give them what they were asking for the year 1966 and that they would extend this into the year 1967 in return for an assurance of greater productivity during the second year.
Judge Lippe in his capacity as mediator worked on this dispute trying to bring about some assurance of increased productivity. When those efforts failed I, as minister, moved in again within a matter of hours of the time Judge Lippe asked me to do so. I invited the parties to come to Ottawa to see me. They met with me and others of my colleagues, and we were in session for several hours one afternoon extending into the early part of the following day. We met again on Sunday and again the matter was adjourned, but progress was made in narrowing the issues.
Let me indicate how difficult it is for a minister of labour, particularly a minister with my background-the only small bit of work I have done on the labour side was done when I was a lawyer acting for labour, and my association with labour-management negotiations was on the management side-to settle these matters. When I was reporting to
DEBATES	4667
Labour Dispute at Montreal the house that progress had been made we ran into great difficulty because someone during our talks said that the demands of the union without increased productivity were fantastic. I did not say they were fantastic, but this was the view taken by some responsible people.
The issues had been narrowed and some two weeks later along with three of my colleagues I met with representatives and we were in session with them at separate caucuses and jointly from nine o'clock in the morning on Saturday until nearly six o'clock the following morning, twenty and three-quarter hours without a break. We still were not able to bring about an agreement.
We held a further meeting the next day, on the Monday, when a proposal was made that if the parties could agree on the monetary points-wage increases and fringe benefits-there would be nothing left to settle except job security, which presented a difficulty, and we indicated that we would consider at a later date the introduction of legislation to appoint a commissioner who would take his time in inquiring into this whole matter thoroughly. He was to deal with job security and his findings might be binding and made part of the collective agreements.
When that settlement was reached the minutes drawn up in my office in this building made reference to the fact that collective agreements were to be drawn, which could be modified by agreement or otherwise. These facts came out during the lengthy debate last year. The interesting thing is that while objections were raised when this matter came before parliament in July of last year, and reference was made to this by the hon. member for Ontario and others this morning, the representatives of the unions concerned made it clear that they had not asked for what in effect would be compulsory arbitration. They had assured me and my colleagues in no uncertain terms, however, that being good citizens they would obey the law if such a law was passed.


Michael Starr: They always say that.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It should be borne in mind that these interim agreements were drawn up in June of last year and that just a few months ago, after the Picard commission had been working for the better part of a year, the minutes of the settlements were reduced to formal documents and signed by both parties. There is a whole series of collective
November 24, 1967

Labour Dispute at Montreal agreements signed by the unions as well as by the shipping federation. They were signed with the knowledge that the Picard report would be handed down, we hoped soon. They must have realized at that time that under the law passed by this parliament each of those agreements would be automatically and immediately modified to the extent of the conclusions in the Picard report.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The Picard report became available at the end of October. It was necessary to have copies of it prepared in English and in French because of the large number of people directly concerned and because I felt, as minister, that parliament having passed the legislation members should have copies of the report as soon as it became public.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. When the Minister of Labour claims that parliament passed the bill he should make it absolutely clear that it was the government members who in their majority approved the bill and the opposition voted against it.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: We certainly do not deny that.


Michael Starr: He is giving the wrong impression to the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Ontario knows there is no question of privilege here. He is making a speech.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has had his opportunity to speak on this motion and he made it perfectly clear this morning what he did at the time, as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow). I think it is to the government's credit that they introduced the legislation and it went through; otherwise the disastrous situation that had been going on for six or seven weeks might have continued for an indefinite period. But the significant thing, the important thing, is that parliament did pass that legislation, and when the agreements were solemnly signed earlier this year both sides knew that these findings would automatically be part of the collective agreements that had been signed earlier in the year.
When copies of the report became available they were forwarded to both sides on the evening of October 31. The next day, at the opening of this house, copies in English and in French were filed in the house. That was


November 1. It was not a case, as was suggested by the hon. member for Ontario this morning, where the Minister of Labour arbitrarily imposed any report on the parties. The parliament of Canada made it clear in July of last year that the findings of this commission would be part of the agreements-


Michael Starr: No, the Liberal party did.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Will the hon. member
please resume his seat and wait to ask his questions until I finish my remarks.


Michael Starr: No wonder the minister cannot settle arguments.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, may I say with deference that I was very patient with the hon. member. This is the third time he has risen to interrupt. I have attempted to answer his questions and when I am giving him the answers he should not interrupt me.


Michael Starr: We will not ask any more questions. Let the minister carry on.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a question of privilege. I suggest to hon. members that we are abusing the rules when we seek, on the basis of a question of privilege, to correct what we consider to be a misstatement by another hon. member who has the floor. This has never been and cannot be a question of privilege. Having said that, I will hear what the hon. member for Lapointe has to say.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, this is truly a question of privilege because it is based on the fact that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) has ascribed to me intentions I did not have and statements I did not make.
Mr. Speaker, the minister says that I raised objections and delayed consideration
November 24, 1967

Labour Dispute at Montreal of the longshoremen's strike in British Columbia, last year, but that is not at all what I did. I simply asked that we consider at the same time the opening of the ports on the St. Lawrence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: It most certainly is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
'[English]


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I did not interrupt the hon. member when he spoke this morning. He was referring to irresponsibility. I repeat that he was irresponsible on that occasion. Millions of dollars worth of perishable goods were being lost and he refused unanimous consent to enable the introduction of legislation which would have put an end to that .situation.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a question of privilege. I have just told the minister that I never did that. Yet, he still imputes to me motives I never had or [DOT]ascribes to me statements I never made, and I think that justifies me in raising the question of privilege. I told him that I did not delay that debate, that I simply asked that we consider at the same time the opening of the ports on the St. Lawrence. That is not the *same thing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister *of Labour.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I ask the minister a [DOT]question before he leaves this matter of perishable goods? As I mentioned before, I know very little about the dispute between management and labour. The minister just finished saying he never hesitated-


Mr. Byrne:: Would you know a rotten apple when you saw it?


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister has just said he never hesitated to move in when an innocent party was affected. I fail to see the difference between this dispute and the earlier dispute. Millions of dollars worth of perishable goods are being affected by this dispute, as the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) pointed out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are not in ^committee and the minister has the floor.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Perhaps he would explain that point.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would be glad to deal with it. I said I had no hesitation in moving in, and I did move in here. I have requested the persons involved in this dispute to give priority to perishable goods and commodities of value. I have been assured that priority has been given to the shipment of fruit and other perishable products. My colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) will be dealing with that phase of the subject later today. On one occasion I made a special trip to Montreal to plead with them for action on perishable and special goods.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What about wheat?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I do not believe we face the same problem in connection with wheat because wheat is handled in bulk quantities and not by longshoremen to any great extent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to bring to the attention of the house the fact that the minister's time has expired, unless he is given unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the members of the house. The Minister of Agriculture will deal with the wheat aspect in greater detail. However, I do appreciate the hon. member having raised the question. The Minister of Agriculture will deal also with the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for Kamloops.
A suggestion was made that the Picard report is not acceptable to either side. This statement was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I can only repeat that, according to public statements made by both sides, the Picard report is acceptable to them. It is a question of the interpretation of parts of the report and not the report itself. I am not saying that perhaps some of the actions of the companies have not been hasty because when tensions are high people do things for which they are sorry later. I am not holding a particular brief for one side or the other, but I am putting forward the reasons, in response to a question asked by the hon. member for Ontario why the shipping federation and the stevedoring companies would not agree to arbitration. I have had no direct answer to that, although the unions did say they would not agree to have Dr. Picard come forward and interpret the
November 24, 1967

report. Far from saying that the minister or the government are adverse to interfering, I say I am still prepared to appoint an arbitrator if both sides will agree.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
If there were no collective agreement in force and they were still in the course of negotiating, then I could act under the statute. I could move in arbitrarily without permission. I could appoint a conciliator. In this case I might even send in a mediator, but in view of the lines that have been drawn and the points that need clarification, unless he had some authority to make binding arbitrary decisions-and I did only suggest that his authority extend to December 31 of this year-there would be very little hope of finding a solution to the problem. The only other course I can think of would be to ask parliament to deal with the matter by legislation and then appoint an administrator to run the docks at Montreal in the same way as the former government appointed an administrator to run the ferry boats on the west coast six or seven years ago.
They are the courses that are open, Mr. Speaker. However, as I said yesterday, there are today in effect binding agreements between both parties. Both parties have not only provided remedies for grievances, settling them by arbitration according to the agreements, but they also have the right to resort to the courts. The employers have said-and again I am not saying whether they are right or wrong-that they are only getting 50 per cent productivity, that they want a dollar's worth of work for a dollar's pay, not 50 cents worth of work. They have also said that if they do not get the right type of personnel they will not accept them. After all, as they point out, they are management and have responsibilities as such.
If this is wrong, Mr. Speaker, then resort could have been had to the courts two weeks ago. But no resort to the courts was had until I made the statement yesterday that these people must learn to do something for themselves instead of asking parliament to intervene every time a situation of this kind develops. It is about time people realized this. We do have a responsibility as a government, yes. Members of parliament also have a responsibility. Knowing what this stoppage is doing to the future livelihood of these people and the reputation of the port of Montreal, and despite the imposition of surcharges to take care of added costs, no resort was had to the courts until after my statement yesterday
Labour Dispute at Montreal that they should rely on what they agreed upon themselves in solemn contract a few months ago.
Some questions were asked by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand). He said that an interpretation of the Picard report was needed, but I think I have dealt with that as fully as I need.
There may be some points which require clarification. In my opinion the best way to deal with these questions, if the parties do not want to take the time involved in going to the courts and embarking upon expensive litigation, is to accept my offer to appoint an arbitrator. I therefore repeat that offer now. I will appoint either a port controller or an arbitrator if the parties give him some tools to work with and not tie his hands before he commences.
The hon. member for Kamloops suggested that the government or the Minister of Labour-one or the other-has a particular responsibility to see that the conclusions reached by the Picard report are carried out. I agree that perhaps we have a greater responsibility here. But again I go back to what I said in my opening remarks namely, that the parties entered into these agreements and signed them only a few months ago some time after Professor Picard went to work. They therefore knew he would be submitting a report and they would be bound by it.
Why should not the parties be encouraged to use the remedies provided in the agreements they signed and go to the courts or proceed to arbitration? I will do everything I can to help them, but I do not think they should ask me to get down on my knees any more than I have already. I feel that I have gone about as far as I can. I have pleaded with them. Some reason must be shown, and I think the pressure should come from the people whose shipments are involved, such as the exporters, or the longshoremen and the shipping companies. Let the parties use some common sense. If they wish I will very gladly move in and do what I can but they must co-operate.
There is one point that I do not think-should go unanswered. The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) said there were no members on the government side from Montreal present during this debate. I should like to point out that throughout the whole debate my colleague the Minister of Industry (Mr. November 24, 1967

Labour Dispute at Montreal Drury) was here, and he represents a Montreal riding. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) was also here as well as my parliamentary secretary who is from Verdun, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, and the Registrar General (Mr. Turner). Also my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) was here. I have named about eight or nine members from Montreal who have been showing great interest in this debate, so I would suggest that instead of making careless statements of this kind some hon. members should be a little more reasonable and restrained in what they have to say about fellow members of the house.
I did indicate that after I had attempted to make it clear-whether or not I have succeeded remains to be seen-that the minister was not indifferent to the situation but on the contrary had been actively engaged in trying to find a solution in a reasonable and orderly way, not in a way which would encourage people to run to parliament every time they have a work stoppage, I would attempt to answer any questions hon. members wish to put, and I shall now be glad to do so.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any member could deny the seriousness of the problem that is involved here. Certainly the problem is serious from the point of view of the primary producers of the country, and this has already been pointed out.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that many members have spoken to me privately about the problem faced by the farmers in the country as a result of the tie-up at Montreal. The hon. members for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford), Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) and Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos) have been bringing this very serious problem to the attention not only of myself but the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing). I can assure them the matter has had our immediate attention, and today's debate has served to emphasize the importance and gravity of the situation to our primary producers.
I am sure all members are anxious to assess the situation and that no one seeks to use this very grievous state of affairs for political advantage. I am sure we are all anxious to get at the facts of the matter and


not engage in exaggeration or in putting the problem in a context that is not in accordance with the facts.
From the tenor of the debate in the house and from the representations I have received, there appear to be two areas in which the problem has serious consequences for the primary producers. I note that hon. members opposite feel that more should or could have been done by the Minister of Labour, but I think his presentation to the house this afternoon has clearly indicated he has done everything that is reasonably practicable or which in any way could be effective in this situation, e (3:30 p.m.)
I was somewhat taken by the words of the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) who indicated that if the methods of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) when he was minister of labour were adopted, we would have a panacea that would bring a solution to all our problems. Of course, such advice ought to be considered but we must also remember that labour problems of any kind, particularly critical labour problems similar to the one we are discussing, are much easier to solve when there are long lines of unemployed and there is much unemployment. Then there is not that critical sense of urgency in labour problems that we now see in this country. Labour problems such as the one here are problems of a hot economy and of full employment.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Not in Montreal, by any means.


John James Greene: I am sure that in the days when the hon. member for Ontario was the minister labour problems were much easier to solve by reason of the vast number of unemployed who were available to ease the pressure of labour problems.
I wish to touch on two areas of concern. First, I wish to deal with the question of wheat, which was drawn to my attention previously by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and by some speakers today. The situation with regard to wheat is as follows. The hon. member for Moose Mountain said that wheat sales this year were not as great as they had been up to this time last year.


An hon. Member:: Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


John James Greene: I beg your pardon. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre said that sales this year were not as great as up to this time last year, which undoubtedly has
November 24, 1967

somewhat alleviated the critical nature of the situation with respect to wheat. I was somewhat disturbed because he apparently felt that insufficient measures with respect to wheat sales were being taken.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: From my limited experience in this field, and I know my hon. friend has had more experience in this field than I have, the wheat board is an extremely efficient organization which is composed of dedicated and able men. They are doing an excellent job in selling wheat. I think that anyone who tries to kid the western farmer or anybody else that wheat can be sold merely by snapping your fingers, that wheat can be sold irrespective of price or production in other countries, will not get far. I do not think you can fool the farmer in the west or anywhere else with that nonsense.


James Ernest Pascoe: Would the minister permit a question?


John James Greene: After I have finished, Mr. Speaker. I think the wheat board is doing everything possible that can reasonably be done to sell wheat. In my view, certainly, all the wheat it has been possible to move has been moved and moved effectively.
With regard to the problem in Montreal harbour and wheat sales which have been affected, certainly we should not minimize this situation. Where wheat cannot be moved for some period of time a difficult situation could arise. At the present time the elevators are almost full with adequate supplies of export wheat and domestic feed grains. There are 18.6 million bushels in store at the present time and this is about all that the elevators can take. So from the standpoint of bringing in wheat and of unloading in the port of Montreal, no situation of difficulty at the present time exists in respect of wheat. Of this wheat to which I have referred, about 11 million bushels are export grain, about 6 million bushels are for domestic feed and the rest is United States grain in transit.


An hon. Member:: What about production?


John James Greene: One lake vessel is unloading grain this afternoon and six are waiting to be unloaded. Of these, one is at berth and the other five are at anchorage. Three ocean vessels are waiting to load grain which is for export. The situation now is that virtually no more grain can be unloaded until space is
Labour Dispute at Montreal made available when ocean vessels begin loading.
The Canadian Livestock Feed Board advises that its estimate of winter requirements for feed grain in Montreal at the close of navigation would be from 10.5 to 11 million bushels. They anticipate that about 7 million bushels of this amount would be in elevators and about 3 to 4 million bushels on board winter storage vessels.
It is understood that the railways are continuing to offer agreed charges to feed merchants in Quebec for movement between Fort William and Quebec destinations. In many locations such rates are competitive with transportation by water and rail, particularly in the case of oats and barley. Should there be difficulty in getting sufficient supplies through the harbours board elevators it is very likely that more agreements will be made with the railways for these agreed charges. Certainly this would provide a way to protect the feed supply situation should it be impossible to provide sufficient grain in Montreal for the winter feeding season.
The worst feature in a situation like this is the harm that is done to the Canadian Wheat Board when overseas customers lose confidence in the board's ability to deliver. I think hon. members on the opposition side are well aware of how successful we have been with our sales of Canadian wheat. I concur wholeheartedly in the remarks that export sales of wheat have made a great contribution to the Canadian economy. Western farmers have made a great contribution to the economy of this country by their productivity.
Certainly the effectiveness of our wheat sales is in direct proportion to the quality of our wheat, which is unsurpassed, and to the reliability of wheat deliveries. With respect to reliability we have a proud record of performance in the past. I do not deny that there may be a great problem with regard to wheat though up to the present time the situation has been under control. No grievous harm has been done with respect to wheat or grain at the present time. As I indicated, the elevators are now full. Nevertheless we should not minimize the situation. If the strike should continue for such a time that the reliability of our deliveries pursuant to our commitments is in any way impaired, we would suffer grievous harm with respect to our international repute for dependability of delivery.
November 24, 1967

Labour Dispute at Montreal
With regard to the other major item which was referred to by members from British Columbia on both sides of the house and by hon. members from Quebec, the one area of concern is apples. The area generally, is that of fruit, though apples form the major area of the problem. I agree with the words of hon. members in respect of the great achievements of the fruit producing industry in British Columbia. Those in that industry have created a viable and efficient industry which, from the standpoint of production, marketing, sales techniques and knowledge, is without peer. That industry makes a great contribution to the Canadian economy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: It behooves all members of the house, including the government, to make certain that the profitability and effectiveness of that industry are not impaired by external factors which would interfere with its efficient operation.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
At the same time, the Quebec apple producers have a close concern with this area and it might be worthwhile to get the facts straight on the situation. I was very worried.
I do not believe there is any advantage in overstating the position or stating it in a partisan sense. I believe all hon. members are seriously concerned about the gravity of this problem and its effects upon not only the primary producers and the parties directly concerned but on the Canadian economy generally. They would like to be told the facts in order that their judgment might be based on actual facts rather than on some impression which is not in accord with the facts.
In this connection the hon. member for Ontario spoke-and I was careful to note his exact words-of fruit and vegetables being allowed to rot. He spoke of hundreds of millions of dollars of spoilage. I believe those were the exact words he used. I wrote them do\Vn at the time.
Let us consider the situation with respect to apples. At this time last year some 125,000 bushels of apples had gone to the United Kingdom market. The total sales to the United Kingdom market are now some 6,000 bushels less than this-about 119,000 bushels. But in the province of Quebec, where apple production this year has been nearly double what it was last year, exports to the United Kingdom market at this time last year amounted to 38,000 bushels while at this time
[Mr. Greened

they amount to some 46,000 bushels. So already there has been a larger exportation from Quebec than had taken place by this time last year.
The hon. member for Kamloops made some constructive and valuable suggestions and I can assure him these have already been followed. Action has already been taken with respect to his suggestion that the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and myself should work together on this problem in the interests of all concerned. But I believe the hon. member was under the impression that the majority of sales on the apple market take place prior to Christmas. According to the instructions I have, this is not the case. The majority of sales to the United Kingdom market take place after Christmas. Therefore in considering this question we should ask ourselves what are the probabilities with regard to future sales in this area.
I have cited these statistics with regard to sales. As to the question of availability and surplus at the present time and the statement that fruit and vegetables are being allowed to rot with hundreds of millions of dollars in spoilage, in the words used by the hon. member for Ontario, the situation is that total storage of apples in Canada has increased by only 3 per cent over last year. This, to my mind, does not suggest that hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted because of spoilage.
What are the prospects for sales? First, the quantity available for export in the United States, which last year amounted to some 54 million bushels, is at the present time only 48.6 million bushels. So competition from the United States for the United Kingdom market will be that much less. By the same token this government, through the good offices of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and some humble help on my part through meetings with the minister of agriculture of Great Britain, was able this year to increase the quotas substantially with respect to apple sales to the United Kingdom. These two factors taken together portend well for likely sales of apples in the United Kingdom market during the current year.
Granted, none of us is clairvoyant enough to discern at the present time what effect devaluation will have. We are hopeful from the information we have that this year it will not impair our apple sales to the United Kingdom. Despite the difficult situation
November 24, 1967

which now prevails I believe we can be reasonably sanguine about the prospects for our primary producers in connection with sales of apples to the U.K. in the current year.
Again, because I am sure that this debate will be much more useful to all hon. members if it is based on facts rather than on wild and extravagant hyperbole, I believe we should consider the words of the hon. member for Ontario when he told us that fruits and vegetables were being allowed to rot with hundreds of millions of dollars in spoilage. Naturally we on this side are much concerned about this problem and have been, as the Minister of Labour indicated, all along. He has unquestionably worked night and day in a valiant attempt to do everything possible to alleviate the situation.
At the same time, in the interests of the primary producers of this country, it was my responsibility to keep abreast of the situation and do what I could to alleviate any economic ill effect upon our farmers. The hon. member for Ontario is, I am sure, concerned about the facts. He has a great respect for this house and at no time would he attempt, I know, to mislead hon. members for the purpose of partisan advantage. I was concerned, therefore, when he said that fruit and vegetables have been allowed to rot and spoke of "hundreds of millions of dollars spoilage".
I had a check made this morning to find out whether in fact there was any spoilage or whether anything was rotting on the docks in Montreal. I checked again at noon to make sure of my facts so that in assessing the gravity of the situation hon. members could base their conclusions upon them in determining what ought to be done to solve this problem. As I say, I checked again at noon to find out about these hundreds of millions of dollars lost in spoilage of these fruits and vegetables which were being allowed to rot. I took down the exact words contained in the report of my inspectors in Montreal who have been on this job from the beginning. Their report was that on the docks in Montreal at noon today there were 900 bags of onions and these were the only items that could spoil which were on the docks. These bags were frost-damaged last week prior to the start of the current difficulty and have been left on the docks because of that damage.
This is the actual situation in connection with "fruit and vegetables being allowed to rot" resulting in "hundreds of millions of
Labour Dispute at Montreal
dollars spoilage", in the words of the hon. member for Ontario, and on the basis of this information he wished this house to reach sober conclusions on the serious problem which besets primary producers, the parties concerned and the nation as a whole. I hope these few remarks as to the actual nature of the situation will be of some help to the house in reaching a conclusion with regard to this very serious problem.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour a question? Before he sat down he said he would entertain a few questions. I remained in my seat, in view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture was about to speak, thinking that possibly he would answer some of our questions and it would not be necessary for me to ask them now. I do not mind telling the Minister of Labour that I listened with a very sympathetic ear to the problems that he has encountered in regard to this situation. However, I would suggest that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has already taken part in this debate. He can speak only once. He can ask a question if the minister will entertain one.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I said, Mr. Speaker, that I would gladly entertain any questions if by so doing I could throw any new light on the subject.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I had hoped that the minister would have spent less time on the hyperhole of the hon. member for Ontario and a little more time dealing with the problem in competitive markets caused by the surcharge. Will he join his efforts with those of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) to negotiate the removal of that surcharge as soon as possible, pending the settlement of the dispute?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, it is in the area of private enterprise in which the surcharge falls. I understand it is a charge imposed on shippers by virtue of the increased costs of transportation incurred as a result of this situation. I quite agree with the representation made earlier by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke to the effect that it is inequitable that so often third parties, who have contributed in no way to the strike or slowdown, have to bear the brunt of the cost of the situation that is created. In that repect
November 24, 1967

Labour Dispute at Montreal I agree with him most wholeheartedly that everything possible should be done to have this surcharge removed as soon as possible, and the hon. member can rest assured that in any negotiations on the matter we will do everything we can to make possible the removal of the surcharge as soon as possible.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun);: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested by various hon. members that the members from the Montreal area have been somewhat silent in this debate, but the minister has pointed out that there are 10 or 12 members from the Montreal area who have been following the debate with a great deal of attention. Of course, in view of the fact that this debate was granted at the request of the opposition it was only normal and natural that we should have permitted members of the opposition to use up as much time as they required, but frankly I am rather surprised that there has not been full participation on the part of members who have pointed out the tremendous urgency of the situation that exists at the moment.
The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), the former minister of labour, who is not in his seat at the moment, emphasized the fact that his party voted against Bill C-215 which was introduced and passed by the house a year or two ago. I think that is a rather sad commentary on the the former minister of labour because if ever there was a good piece of labour legislation introduced in the House of Commons it was Bill C-215. I do not want to spend too much time bringing back to memory the situation at that time, but hon. members will recall that the ports of Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec had been tied up by a devastating strike which threatened not only Expo and its starting date but also the very economic life of the nation.
Respecting, as this party has always done, the rights of labour in labour disputes and realizing that the public usually conceives at first that labour is to blame, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) bent over backwards to do nothing that could be interpreted by labour or by management as an infringement on their rights under the free collective bargaining process. But When it became apparent that a state of emergency did exist and that the economic life of the country was being affected, then and only then did the minister exert the type of pressure which under normal circumstances he would be reluctant to exert. This resulted in Bill C-215 which was passed by the house on division.


The only suggestion the former minister of labour had to offer was one which he makes on many occasions such as this, namely, bring all the parties together in Ottawa. I have heard this suggestion from the hon. member every time there has been labour dispute. However, I have looked at his record as minister of labour, and I may say it was an excellent one, and I found no hesitation on his part during the British Columbia ferry dispute to introduce legislation to bring that embarrassing strike to an end.
Nor did I find any reluctance on the part of the N.D.P. to bring the longshoremen's strike in Montreal to an end. As was pointed out by one of the members of the Conservative party today, a bill was introduced by the leader of the N.D.P., drafted by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), which, if it had been adopted, would have removed from labour their democratic privilege to strike. Regardless of what followed the longshoremen would have been forced back to work. But, as has been pointed out, the N.D.P. had second thoughts about the bill and withdrew it. Since there were no concrete and valid suggestions offered by the opposition, Bill C-215 came into existence and was discussed quite adequately in the house. It was the first breakthrough in the history of Canadian labour that faced up to the fact that the future of labour and management is bound up in a common cause, particularly in light of the fact that we are an exporting nation.
Strikes are rapidly becoming obsolete as a bargaining weapon. If labour is to share in the fruits of the wealth of this nation it must understand that wage increases and productivity go hand in hand. We can no longer afford the luxury of rising costs and lower productivity. This feeling is growing among responsible labour people. They know there is a direct relationship between productivity and labour, and the Picard report attempts to deal with this subject matter.
Without going into all the technicalities of the clauses, Bill C-215 was a piece of legislation which impressed on the ship owners, the shipping federation, that the men in the port of Montreal were entitled to an increase in pay, and impressed on the labour union that if the ship owners were to be able to afford increased wages, and at the same time Montreal was to remain competitive with other ports in North America, then the port of Montreal would have to produce more. There
November 24, 1967

would have to be increased productivity and labour would have to cease fighting modern technological methods. This was basically the problem at that time.
In order to establish properly what was the real cause of friction on the waterfront and what could be done to bring about increased productivity, under the authority of Bill C-215 the Minister of Labour established what is now known as the Picard commission or, more formally, the inquiry commission on the St. Lawrence ports. I think its report is a very significant document and I have read it not once but several times, as I hope most hon. members have.
I agree with labour that there are ambiguous sections in the report, and if they are ambiguous to labour I presume they must be ambiguous to management as well. If they are ambiguous to both sides in the dispute, then I think we have a moral duty to clarify the ambiguity. Therefore there should be no reluctance on the part of the minister or the government to make sure that Mr. Picard comes back and clarifies these ambiguous sections of his report. I think that by so doing he will in no way be infringing upon the collective agreement that is in existence between labour and management. If Mr. Picard clarifies what he meant in this report, then it would be up to labour and management to take advantage of the processes within the labour laws and the agreements should they not agree with his interpretation of the problems and the solutions.
I am speaking more as a Montrealer than as an assistant to the Minister of Labour. Unless labour and management in that port face up to realities the port of Montreal will dwindle into a second class port. There are too many alternate methods of shipping today for a port such as Montreal to be in a constant state of turmoil. In a country such as Canada which depends on export markets we cannot afford the luxury of management and labour wrangling every few months about wage agreements and working conditions.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
By the same token it is unfair of anyone to presume that the source of friction is entirely on the labour side. Those who have read the Picard report and are familiar with longshor-ing, or those who know anything about port facilities, will realize that the basic and essential problem that causes friction in the
Labour Dispute at Montreal port of Montreal is job security. Job insecurity in the Montreal port is a greater threat to labour and management relations than it is-in Vancouver because of climatic conditions.
Longshoremen might be considered as unskilled labour, and the men are drawn, from the labouring or working class whose educational levels are perhaps quite low. With the realization that the port of Montreal is only open seven or eight months a year these people engaged in longshoring must, face the fact that there is little or no employment for them in the winter months. Professor Picard recognized this fact, and one of the basic principles of his report relates to-job security and minimum income spread over 52 weeks. This is a major breakthrough which was never touched upon by the opposition in the actions it took in respect of this problem in the port of Montreal.
Governments have for too long been satisfied simply to get the parties together on some form of wage agreement that would keep them together and create a little peace for the greater part of the two year period between collective agreements. They have never before got at the root or source of the problem. The Picard report does, and if there are areas of ambiguity they should be clarified. I think there is a moral obligation on Mr. Picard to come back from his holiday and clarify these ambiguities. That is my opinion, and it is not expressed by me as one on the side of labour any more than I am on the side of management. We cannot afford the luxury of keeping the port of Montreal closed when any day now the river will begin to freeze, with an ensuing economic impact on fruit growers, exporters and importers in this nation. This is a luxury we can no longer afford.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Does the hon. member not realize that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) would not admit that a few minutes ago?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The Minister of Agriculture simply clarified a point, the point being that there are not tons of apples lying rotting on the wharves in the port of Montreal. This is the type of innuendo and false impression that unfortunately creeps into every debate involving labour. It is unfair to labour and in this case it is simply not true, as pointed out by the statistics presented by the Minister of Agriculture. I happen to think that if there is only one case of apples rotting in the port of Montreal that is one case too many.
4680	COMMONS
Labour Dispute at Montreal
The point I am trying to get at as a Montrealer is that the economy of the region, the province and the nation is such that we cannot afford the luxury of a work shutdown in the ports of Montreal, Vancouver, Three Rivers, Quebec or anywhere else in Canada. We must find ways and means to stabilize and continue peaceful negotiations between management and labour. The first practical, tangible and progressive step toward the eventual day when strikes will be obsolete and accepted as obsolete by both sides at the bargaining table is the Picard report, particularly when accepted by labour and management.
Labour must realize that Bill C-215 granted very substantial increases in wages. We have been criticized from all parts of the house and by private enterprise about the generosity of that settlement which has been erroneously interpreted as a forced settlement by the Prime Minister. That is not the case. An increase in the wages of employees on the waterfront of 35 per cent or 40 per cent would be insignificant to the ship owners provided the workers in turn would increase productivity in the port of Montreal, which is now far less than the productivity of other ports in Canada.
Labour must face up to these indisputable facts. If labour refuses to go along with the spirit of the Picard report because of a genuine misunderstanding of certain clauses, I suggest it would be better for them to carry on during the few remaining weeks until the port closes, under protest if necessary. Surely labour has a moral obligation to the port and the people using it who are not directly involved as management or labour in this dispute.
At the risk of being discourteous, Mr. Minister, I suggest that you should contact Mr. Picard and get him to cut his holiday short, come back and give us the benefit of his advice. That is my first suggestion.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The unions have said they will not agree to that course.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not care whether the unions accept it. Mr. Picard should make his report so clear that whether or not the unions accept it there would be no difference in the opinion of the parties as to what the report is all about. If the unions did not accept it then they would be failing the spirit of Bill C-215 and accepting a pay increase under false pretenses.

DEBATES	November 24, 1967
There is ambiguity in the report. Let me point to the one portion regarding slings and the size of slings. Mr. Picard uses the word "reasonable". What is reasonable to the unions might be one thing but yet another to management. Management may feel that "reasonable" means all the weight that the slings and cranes can carry, but labour may suggest that this would reach the point where the operation is no longer safe or the point at which management was asking labour to triple productivity rather than double it. In any event I think Professor Picard has an obligation to come back and clarify these points. Once these points are clarified I think labour and management have an obligation to sit down together and thrash out their differences under the provisions of the bill.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Unfortunately they do not look at it that way or agree-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not intend to become involved in a dispute with my minister, and that is why I said I was speaking as a member from the Montreal area who believes we cannot afford the luxury of shutting down the port of Montreal. That is my first point. The second point is that if the shutdown is the result of a genuine misunderstanding of certain parts of the Picard report, then Mr. Picard should clarify its contents and make very clear to labour and management precisely what he meant by words such as "reasonable". After that is done management and labour should show good faith and, under the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, should appeal to the minister's department for assistance in bringing their dispute to an end. If they do not they will wake up one day to the fact that the port of Montreal has become obsolete. Ship owners will find they have to go elsewhere to find facilities similar to those in Montreal, which I think are unmatched anywhere in the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Mr. Ricard, seconded by Mr. Starr, moves that the house do now adjourn. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 24, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: All those call back Mr. Picard so we may hope some-in favour will please say yea.	thing will be done along that line?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: In my
opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion negatived.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Labour.
In view of the discussion which has just ended and also in view of the situation which prevails in Montreal harbour, would the minister indicate to us what his policy will be and what measures he intends to take in order to correct that situation which is so harmful to the Canadian economy?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, one of the parties having taken steps that I intimated nearly two weeks ago they might have taken, and that matter being now before the courts, it is now partly sub judice. That is one difficulty. But I wouldl repeat what I said earlier today. I have indicated a willingness to appoint an arbitrator whom I am convinced could settle fairly quickly the points in dispute on an interim basis. I can appoint an arbitrator, however, only if the parties agree, because the collective agreements are now in effect. If they do not agree, my hands are tied. I certainly have been disposed, as I indicated on the 13th, to appoint an arbitrator-you might call him a port controller; I do not know what magic name you might give him-if the parties would only agree to such action on my part.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister not consider that the suggestion made by his parliamentary secretary is one that merits very careful consideration, and will he not accept the suggestion of his parliamentary secretary and


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I always give very careful consideration to suggestions which come from my parliamentary secretary. I have a very high opinion of him. But I would point out to hon. members-and those who have knowledge of the law will appreciate the significance of this-that once a judge has handed down his judgment and the judgment has been entered, the judge is what we refer to as functus officio. In this case Commissioner Picard is through, he is functus officio. I have been, and still am, perfectly willing to ask Professor Picard to do this, and would have been in touch with him before this if the parties had indicated a willingness or a desire to have him clarify the situation; but the unions have made it perfectly clear that they do not want Professor Picard to clarify the report. They have said so. They have said he is through. It puts the minister in a rather difficult position when, in law, he is through and one side has pointed out that he has no status at this time and they don't want further action by him.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do we now have to take for granted that there is nothing the minister can do, and the dispute has to settle itself?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that the hon. member is now asking an argumentative question which is a repiti-tion of the debate we have had since eleven o'clock this morning.


Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lambton-Kenf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Are the unions involved Canadian unions, or are they affiliates of American unions?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: They are, of course, Canadian locals-there are some eight of them involved-but they are affiliates of a larger union, the International Longshoremen's Association.


Mr. McCutcheon:: That being the case, is there any evidence of action here that might eventually direct the movement of exports to, say, certain American ports where the same union would be handling the products?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I do not profess to be an expert on transportation, Mr. Speaker, but if they do not go from the ports of Montreal,

November 24, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Trois-Rivieres and Quebec they would have to go from other ports. I would hope that some of the goods might go from Halifax or Saint John. But undoubtedly some exports that would normally go from Montreal over the next three or four weeks might go from American ports.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the adjournment debate ended awfully quickly, but I wonder whether anyone on the government side could tell us if the Acting Prime Minister will be in the house to answer questions, or will another minister be designated to answer questions on behalf of the Prime Minister?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister has unfortunately been called away and will not be here for the next couple of hours.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I am in a bit of a quandary, too, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Registrar General. I will ask it, anyway, because one of the other ministers may be able to answer it, and if not it will appear in Hansard. In view of the increase in the price of copper announced by Noranda and now followed by the Hudson's Bay Mining Company, will the minister take action to reconvene immediately the committee on consumer prices so that the effect of these price increases on the general level of prices throughout the economy may be investigated?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
fTranslation]



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of

Labour if he has been approached in any way by the authorities of the city of Montreal for some assistance by the C.M.H.C. in order to assist 150 families to be evicted by the Montreal Catholic School Board?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will have to take that queston as notice, Mr. Speaker. I have no knowledge of any such request, but will be glad to look into it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, whom I presume is the minister directly across from me. It is in reference to the very welcome news of the acceptance of Dr. Manlio Brosio as mediator in Cyprus. Does Dr. Brosio take on this important assignment as long range mediator to settle, hopefully, the dispute? Second, is he also working under the aegis and the good will of the Secretary General of the United Nations?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the terms of reference of Dr. Brosio and therefore cannot answer the first part of the question. I do know he will be working in close co-operation with the Secretary General.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the deputy acting prime minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -or the appropriate minister. Has the deputy acting prime minister or the appropriate minister anything to inform the house about the $12 million owed to the government of British Columbia with respect to the Duncan dam, and the interest related thereto?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, payment
November 24, 1967

of this sum of money was made a day or two ago. Arrangements are now being made for this money to be transferred to the government of British Columbia. Negotiations are still going on with respect to the interest on that money.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house of the date on which that sum of money was paid, and what was the rate of exchange?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that his question is not in order.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received representations from milk producers pointing out the fact that the government's dairy policy with regard to minimum quotas in creating grave economic hardship, especially among the smaller producers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not sufficient to ask whether certain representations have been received by the minister, to make the question urgent.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss this matter at the next ten o'clock adjournment.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him whether he could give the house any information with regard to the cost to agriculture generally, of the delay in shipments as a result of the labour problem in Montreal, either the direct costs such as surcharges for prolonged refrigeration of perishable goods or costs in terms of lost contracts.


John James Greene: To the best of my knowledge, there is no loss by reason of lost contracts as yet although, as
Inquiries of the Ministry I indicated earlier, if the strike continues for any length of time this would be a very grave danger and one which could do long term injury to the primary producers of this country. With regard to direct costs, such as added storage charges and additional transportation costs, etc., I do not have this information at present and I think it would be pretty hard to calculate the costs until the termination of the dispute.


John Angus MacLean: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister make some effort to at least get an estimate of the amount of perishable goods that are now in transit, and the delivery of which is being delayed on account of the strike?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this question was considered by the minister earlier today.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a very important and urgent question which I had intended to put to the Acting Prime Minister, but perhaps the Minister of Industry and Defence Production might answer it. It relates to the status of the Canadian forces in Cyprus. Is it the view of the government that this force can be required to withdraw on the request of either Turkey or Greece?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any specific provision for the withdrawal of the force on the request of either country. The hon. member will recall that this Canadian contingent forms part of the UN forces, and therefore withdrawal will be conditional on arrangements between Turkey, Greece and the United Nations.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is our force in Cyprus in the same or in a different position from that of our force in the Middle East, which was recently asked by Egypt to withdraw?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think the conditions are somewhat different.

November 24, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the Minister of Labour, who is in charge of housing. Has the government finalized the agenda of the forthcoming federal-provincial housing conference, and if so, would the minister make it public?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I hope that at the conclusion of orders of the day we will revert to motions. If so I will then table the proposed agenda as well as the background working papers of the conference.


John Gilbert: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the government to permit members of the House of Commons to attend the conference either as observers or as delegates?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I can only repeat the words of the Prime Minister the other day, when he said that this is a federal-provincial conference and the attendance of members of parliament or others as observers would depend upon the joint wishes of both levels of government. In the letter that is being written today by the Acting Prime Minister to the provincial premiers the suggestion is being made that at least the opening sessions of the conference, and perhaps some other meetings, might be open to members of this house.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to pose a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It is based on an undertaking made by the Prime Minister yesterday to assess and report to the house on the effect of the devaluation of the pound on imports to the United Kingdom of Canadian agricultural products. Will the minister endeavour to canvass the opinion of the British purchasers, especially those of tobacco, cheese and apples, as well as obtain the evaluation of our own Department of Agriculture?


John James Greene: As I indicated yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), my department is

taking every possible step to garner all the information available at both ends with respect to the likely effect of the devaluation of the pound, but this is a very dynamic situation. What will happen to the value of the pound in the United Kingdom is certainly not clear at the present time, and therefore all we can do is to try to keep the situation in hand, to collect all the necessary information available and to pass it on to producers, processors and exporters, and this we intend to do.


Harold Warren Danforth: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether it is his intention also to make a statement on motions dealing in some detail with the estimated effect on the shipment to the British market of such important commodities as I have outlined.


John James Greene: I had not intended to do so because I do not know of what benefit it would be, as I am sure everyone concerned in the industry is watching the situation. I do not think any advice from me would necessarily be more effective than that which the exporters themselves would have. But I will be glad to consider the suggestion of the hon. member, and if sufficient information which might not be readily available to the public is made available to me, so that a statement from me might be of use to producers, processors or exporters, then I will certainly consider making such a statement.



INQUIRY CONCERNING APPOINTMENT OF REPLACEMENT TO ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that one of the members of the royal commission on the status of women has tendered his resignation, is it the intention of the government to appoint a member to replace him?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this particular question is still under consideration.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a
November 24, 1967



question to the Minister of Agriculture. When will he be in a position to make an announcement with regard to a subsidy on the 1966 crop of sugarbeets?


John James Greene: I do not want to be too positive on this matter because these things sometimes have a way of getting side-tracked, but I hope to be able to make a statement next week.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. Member of the Administration?
In view of the fact that, to ensure the success of his campaign for restrictions, the Minister of Finance intends to consult a group of experts, can the minister tell us whether, as a result of their recommendations, a ceiling will be put on prices or salaries?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the question is much too general in nature to be put at this time.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Registrar General in his capacity as minister in charge of consumer affairs. Is it the intention of his department to appeal the judgment imposing fines on the ten companies in British Columbia convicted of conspiring to unduly lessen competition in the orange trade?


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: Mr. Speaker, I take it the hon. member is referring to the mandarin orange case. If so, we are awaiting advice from counsel, but it would be my feeling that the amount of the fines might be appealed.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Warren Danforth: I should like to direct another question to the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of Agriculture. It is based upon representations I am receiving with regard to the turkey industry. I know the government is quite aware of the problem with which turkey producers has been faced recently. I wonder if it has made a final decision about the effect of the tariff imposed on turkeys from the United States or whether the government will implement a quota system as well?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the value for duty provision implemented in order to protect the Canadian turkey industry against unfair competition from United States turkeys being delivered in Canada at less than their cost of production has not been in effect long enough to assess whether or not it is effective, and whether it will make the game fair and equitable. If this measure is not sufficient, in giving protection to the Canadian producer, to make the game equitable, then we will consider further action. At the moment, we do not have enough information to make such a decision.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the Minister of Finance to report to the house the results of his investigation with regard to the banks that overcharged on exchange between Canada and the United States, and who thereby violated the international monetary fund agreement?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Member of the Administration):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the question to the attention of the Minister of Finance and if he deems it necessary, I am sure he will report to the house.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Solicitor General. Did I understand him correctly last night that legislation to amend the Parole Act will be placed before

November 24, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry parliament at this session? If so, will this be .done at an early date?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. -Speaker, certain proposed amendments to the Parole Act are included in the omnibus Criminal Code amending bill which I hope will be on the order paper very shortly.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
*On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ian Watson (Chaleauguay-Hunting-
.don-Laprairie): I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the light of the attempt by the government of France to attack the United States dollar and indirectly the Canadian dollar on the gold imarket, with a view to forcing devaluation of these currencies, would the Canadian government consider any retaliatory moves, including sequestration of any natural resources owned by the French government or controlled by a French company in Canada?
Jean-Luc Pepin: It is well known that I only administer the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. The hon. member's question relates to monetary policy. I will gladly bring it to the attention of the Minister of Finance.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Member of the Administration who is, I think, the assistant to the Minister of Finance.
Is there really evidence that this run on gold is caused by the actions of France and that France seeks to reduce the price of gold? Could the minister tell us whether there is evidence that France has done this?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is an argument. I do not think the question is in order.


Gilles Grégoire: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order. It might be easier to accept the question. Is there a minister willing to answer the question of the hon. member for Lapointe?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is the situation. Of course, the international monetary question is very complex and often the value of gold may vary according to the demand on the market but, in my opinion, it would not be because of pressures by any country.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of the question period to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Could he tell us whether his department is taking remedial action with regard to the increasing layoffs by the C.N.R., and also whether it is true that this crown corporation is considering the layoff of 3,000 workers before next January 1?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which, I believe, should have been directed to either the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I shall be glad to pass it along.



HOUSING


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I know you have called orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, but I am wondering if the house would give unanimous consent to allow me to return to motions so I can table the documents that I mentioned earlier?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that we revert to motions to allow the Minister of Labour to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for agreeing to revert to motions so as to permit me to do this. I now wish to table two copies in English and two copies in French of the suggested or proposed agenda
November 24, 1967

for the federal-provincial conference on housing and related urban problems, as well as rural problems I might say, to be held on December 11 and also the background papers that were sent out today to the premiers of the ten provinces.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carlelon):: May I ask the
minister if these background papers will be made available to members of the house?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on
Monday I hope.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: the third reading of Bill No. C-164, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a very few words on the third reading of this bill. During the debate on second reading on November 13, there was a full and comprehensive discussion. At that time there was a censensus that the procedures of the Industrial Development Bank in processing loan applications were agonizing, slow, frustrating, security conscious and bureaucratic. The debate that took place was quoted in the press in most centres, mostly in the business sections of the newspapers. Following this, I received a number of communications from people because my name had been mentioned.
In view of the fact there has been an interval of a couple of weeks, I point out that the communications that were received were in support of what was said by most members during the second reading debate. One letter I received was from a professional engineer. It reads in part:
Having dealt with them on several occasions, I try as much as possible to steer people clear of their bureaucratic, laissez faire attitudes and their lack of recognition of the sense of urgency that would cause people to contact them in the first place. One negotiation in which I was involved lasted over a year.
Surely they are intended to provide a better service and were not proposed as a money making organization to start with.
Now, I should think I received half a dozen letters of this type from all across Canada; one from British Columbia, one from the east and two or three from Ontario and Quebec. These letters were concerned with,
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill first, the requirement to submit new applications during the course of negotiation of a loan; excessive requirements for security and collateral; long delays during legal investigations following tentative approval, and the fact the Industrial Development Bank seemed to be more concerned with paper work than with the viability of the enterprise. Most of these applications come from persons who urgently require assistance. A delay of six months or more results in some industries foundering before they are even granted the loan.
a (4:40 p.m.)
I rose, Mr. Speaker, merely to urge the minister to ask the Industrial Development Bank officials to look into this procedure and to see what can be done to improve it and prevent delay. The general operations are not criticized so much as the procedures that are involved.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, September 26, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-151, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system for a period from the 1st day of January, 1967 to the 30th day of June, 1968 and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company-Mr. Chretien (for the Minister of Finance)-Mr. Richard in the chair.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: When the committee rose on Tuesday, September 26, clause 3 of the bill was under consideration.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, there is a pretty good mood in the house, but I should like to ask someone why we deviated from the order of business that was suggested last night. We are not prepared to pass the C.N.R. bill, I might say, before five o'clock. I understood the Post Office Act was next.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We changed the order at the request of the house leader of the opposition party. First of all we were going to discuss the post office matter, but at the request, I believe, of the hon. member for Ontario we
4688	COMMONS
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill changed the order. That is why we are now dealing with this bill.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I was not at all aware that the order of the business of the house had been changed for today. You will recall that the last time we considered this bill concerning capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways, I had made objections on clause 3, and I was ready to present a motion.
Now I am taken completely unawares; I did not know that we would be considering this bill today. All my documents on that matter are in my office and if I leave the house to get them and all clauses are agreed to rapidly, I will have no other opportunity to discuss this.
That is why I would ask the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Chretien) to realize the situation in which I now find myself here, without notes of any kind, without the figures I had taken. Moreover, the last time we debated section 3, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) had the floor. I wonder whether the Minister without Portfolio was here at that time.
So I must admit that I am utterly taken by surprise on account of this change. Had I been given only five or ten minutes to go and get my notes, I would have accepted, but I was not given any notice at all.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that he is being unfair because yesterday, before the adjournment motion, the government house leader announced the business of the house and the opposition asked that this bill be given priority for a reason unknown to us. All that is reported in Hansard, and if the hon. member for Lapointe is not aware of it, it is because he does not follow the debates of the house.
As far as the other remark is concerned, it is true that the bill was introduced last September by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson). I was to sponsor it myself, but at that time I was attending the conference of the International Monetary Fund in Rio and that is why the Minister of National Revenue acted in my stead.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. minister cannot say that I am not keeping myself well informed. I had here the list that had been given yesterday and, naturally, when I noticed that the business was adjourned to allow for the

DEBATES	November 24, 1967
discussion of our problems and that there still was the bill on the Post Office Act, I could not know that legislation concerning the Canadian National Railways would be presented today.
I would ask the Minister without Portfolio -oh, I know now, it is written here, if the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) is kind enough to show me where it is-it is the second item: expenses of the C.N.R.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to the hon. member for Lapointe and to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert that they read Hansard a little further. After the house leader had suggested, as reported at the bottom of page 4644 of Hansard for last night, that the order would be the Post Office Act, then the Industrial Development Bank and then the C.N.R. bill plus some other matters, the hon. member for Ontario said this:
-may I suggest to the government house leader that instead of taking the first item that he listed, having to do with the post office, it would be more expeditious to consider the second and third items first, and then move into the post office resolution?
To which the government house leader replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is agreeable to us. I gather that hon. members feel they can deal with these items relatively quickly. We will agree to that, and will then continue with the post office resolution.
So, Mr. Chairman, it seems quite clear that the arrangement last night was that we take the Industrial Development Bank bill, then the C.N.R. bill, and then the Post Office Act. If the hon. member for Lapointe needs to go to his office to get his file, some of us can keep talking on the point of order until he gets back.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has stated the situation correctly. However, if it would help the house the government is prepared to go to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, if hon. members would give unanimous consent.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for the mistake I made and which has been pointed out. Although there are not too many members of my party present I think there would be agreement to go ahead with the suggestion made by the Solicitor General. Probably we could make very good progress with that item.
November 24, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	4689


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, in view of the rather peculiar circumstances, 1 think the house will be a little lost as to the consideration of any bill that might be introduced today. In view of the late hour, I wonder if we could not call it five o'clock, proceed to the consideration of the private members business and then adjourn at 5.50.


Gilles Grégoire: Agreed.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is the
committee agreeable to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Chapleau?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Let me try the post office resolution, Mr. Chairman. Is the committee prepared to accept this?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, we do not like that one.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, may I make an intervention in favour of my bill?
Mr. Chairman, I think we are all ready to pass this bill which is intended to extend the assistance to gold mines for a certain period of time. Indeed, I believe that the members in all sections of the house are ready to pass this bill. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to put the question to the house.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


Jean-Luc Pepin: the second reading of Bill No. C-155, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not making a statement?
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act


Mr. Barnett:: Should not the minister tell us why he thinks we should all be in favour of this bill?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that all hon. members have voted in favour of the renewal of subsidies to gold mining at the resolution stage. Some made at the time comments which were sometimes constructive and sometimes not quite right, but I think all felt the urgent need of extending the application of this act as soon as possible, since it was due to expire at the end of December.

So, with the agreement of the house, I shall confine my remarks to a summary of the reasons for seeking the authority of parliament to extend the application of the act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has seven
minutes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I wish to emphasize, again, that the mining of gold continues to be an important element in the mining industry of Canada. It is still fifth on our list with respect to revenue. It is true that its size and importance are declinning, because of circumstances beyond its control, and a change in these circumstances, such as an increase in the price of gold or a decrease in costs, does not appear eminent. I know that there has been discussion on that subject. One thing is sure; it is beyond the capacity of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to influence the price of gold at this time. As far as I can see, the operation of most of our gold mines in contingent on a continuation of the assistance which is provided under the act. Of course, if prices should change, that situation will affect the implementation of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
May I repeat that our concern, at this time, lies with the communities that are dependent on gold mining, and with the economic and social dislocation which would occur in them if most of the gold mines were forced to close through a withdrawal of assistance. It is evident that most members share the minister's concern and I suggest, therefore, that it may be possible to obtain agreement to pass Bill C-155 through the remaining stages at this sitting, and thus ensure continued support of the gold mining communities by gold mining operations.
4690	COMMONS
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I
ask a question? As I listened to the minister it appeared to me that his notes had been made before recent developments had come about. He is trying to suggest that there is another area of government responsibility. I wonder if he could tell the house something about the actual operation of the act in relation to what appears to be an entirely new and different market situation in the world's gold markets. Can he say under what circumstances the condition of the world gold markets may alter the operation of the act, which is facetiously called the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that his type of question ought to be reserved for the committee of the whole.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: wish to make a few remarks on this bill, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that we can pass it. The matter was extensively debated at the resolution stage and I do not intend to repeat what was said then. The official opposition does not oppose extending the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act for another three years. We regret, however, that the government has not devised a more fundamental plan to deal with the difficult state of affairs in gold mining communities, which arises because so many producing mines have been closed down.
Having expressed that regret, having previously put forward a number of suggestions and having heard other hon. members making suggestions to the minister which, as he said, had been considered and rejected, it seems apparent that at this time we cannot go further. We want passage of this bill, which extends the time for assistance, but we hope that the government will not feel it has nothing more to do in this area for another three years. They have assumed responsibility for the life of these gold mining communities, and we hope that they will do more in the next three years than merely consider renewing again the emergency legislation.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I did not participate in the debate on the resolution stage of this bill, though in years past when the matter has been before the house I have talked on it. I agree with the remarks which have been made; the title *of this act long ago ought to have been changed to the gold mining assistance act, and the word "emergency" ought to have

DEBATES	November 24, 1967
been dropped. If necessary, some sort of renewal clause could have been included.
We all agree that the gold mining industry of the country faces an emergency. Originally, as I understand, the legislation was enacted to stave off the disaster which threatened to engulf the industry after the second world war. At that time the gold mines were not able to operate and make a profit, with gold being sold at $35 an ounce. The Canadian government sold gold to the United States under a complicated formula, and emergency gold mining legislation was applied to keep the mines operating. The government, I think, has a responsibility to pay money under this legislation and to look at the world situation generally.
The conference in Rio de Janeiro shows us that changes in the International Monetary Fund are taking place. Really, the United States is behind the fund. Its existence is owing to the willingness of the United States government to do a favour to gold producers of the world. Because the government of the United States was willing to support the price of gold at $35 an ounce it was possible for the International Monetary Fund to use gold as an international currency. Gold has served its purpose. Recent events shows that this is so. France, because of a senile, tired old man who dislikes Anglo-Saxons in general and President Johnson in particular, decided to try to make the International Monetary Fund go broke. It was evident that the International Monetary Fund, which operated solely on the basis of gold backing, could not meet the threat. Much money had to be pumped into the fund to prevent the total depletion of its gold reserve.
Some at the conference in Rio de Janeiro tried, because of pressure from the United States, to have the United States dollar substituted for gold as the unit of international currency. I do not think that the world is prepared to accept the United States dollar as the unit of international currency. The conference decided that gold still has a role to play-a role which does not seem to be well understood by anyone, let alone by those who are buying gold at a panic rate in the United States. Since gold is being traded at the rate of 80 tons a day and since it is being bought by United States citizens and stashed away in Swiss banks, we may take it that the United States public regards gold as the stable medium of international currency, as opposed to the United States dollar.
November 24. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	4691
Inquiries Act Amendment
Devaluation in Britain has highlighted the Mr. Pennell: I can go this tar, that I think change in the thinking of many financiers in the chances are very strong that we shall be terms of gold. Canada is a country which doing so. That is as far as I can go at the exercises a great deal of influence throughout moment, in the absence of further consulta-the world currency market and it seems to tion with the leader of the house, me that as a major gold producer we should
consider playing a far more active role in Mr- McNultY= May we stand public bills 1 this field.	to 3 inclusive and take up bill No. 4?
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Perhaps we could continue this debate if there were a chance of concluding it within the next few minutes.


William Arnold Peters: I do not have very much more to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It is
past five o'clock, and unless we have unanimous consent to do otherwise we must proceed to private members business. Since there is no unanimous consent the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on the order paper, namely public bills.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lawrence T. Pennell: I am not in a position to give members business, I might perhaps be permitted to announce the business for Monday. It is proposed to call item 32, house in committee of the whole on Bill C-161, an act to establish a Department of Corporate and Consumer Affairs. Then we would take item
33,	the post office resolution, followed by item
34,	consideration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.


Richard Albert Bell: Will that be the order of business to be followed for Tuesday and later?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am not in a position to give that assurance. It is quite possible we shall return to the capital punishment bill-the amendments to the Criminal Code-on Tuesday.


Richard Albert Bell: Is the minister able to say definitely whether or not we shall return to that bill on Tuesday? I think it would be to the convenience of the house if he could say definitely one way or the other.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Bills Nos. 1 to 3 stand at the request of the government.



INQUIRIES ACT AMENDMENT


Richard Albert Bell: the second reading of Bill No. C-15, to amend the Inquiries Act.
He said: This bill, No. C-15, which would amend the Inquiries Act so as to restrict judges from acting as royal commissioners has two companion bills on the order paper, also introduced by me-C-16 to amend the Judges Act and C-89 to amend the Supreme Court Act. The three bills have a common purpose and in order to develop my argument it will be necessary to ask Your Honour's indulgence and that of the house to make brief reference to the other bills.
The basic purpose of the three bills is to uphold and strengthen the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. I believe Canada is uniquely fortunate in the calibre and integrity of those dedicated men, and regrettably too few women, who serve on the bench at all levels. Indeed, I assert with confidence that the quality of the Canadian judiciary is not surpassed by the judiciary of any other nation. None the less I believe and submit firmly to the house that the practice of appointing judges as royal commissioners, arbitrators, conciliators, referees, or to other such extra-judicial duties is detrimental to the best traditions of the bench, endangers the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and should now be stopped once and for all.
Companion Bill C-89 was drafted to achieve two purposes, first as an absolute prohibition against a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada serving as a commissioner under the Inquiries Act and, second, to prevent any such justice from undertaking any service of any nature-and I emphasize, any service of any nature-unrelated to his judicial duties, as a result of which he might become involved in political controversy.
4692	COMMONS
Inquiries Act Amendment
Companion Bill C-16 to amend the Judges Act would prevent judges from accepting any extra-judicial duties except when expressly authorized to do so by resolution of this house, or by resolution of a provincial legislature.
This Bill C-15 is designed to prevent a judge from being appointed a commissioner under the Inquiries Act without the express authority of a resolution of the House of Commons. Hon. members may wonder at this qualification. Provision for appointment of a judge as a commissioner with the express authority of a resolution of the House of Commons would enable the use of a judge in a very exceptional-and I repeat, very exceptional-case, where the Minister of Justice could satisfy the house that no damage to the judiciary could result.
Frankly, I would hope that this provision would seldom-perhaps never-be used, but I have inserted it as a precaution in case there might arise some emergency, or some other situation, where the duties of the proposed commissioner would be essentially judicial in character. I might use as illustrations, the Royal Commission on the Law of Insanity as a Defence in Criminal Cases, or the Royal Commission on Criminal Sexual Psychopaths.
The issue is not a new one. It has been debated many times in this chamber and I think it is only fair to say that hon. members, when they sit on this side of the house, seem to take a more jaundiced view of the practice than when they assume administrative responsibilities on the other side of the house. That distinguished and amiable scholar, Professor John C. Courtney, in a well documented article entitled "Judges as Royal Commissioners" in the winter issue, 1964-65, of the Dalhousie Review, pointed out that as early as 1872 a resolution was introduced into this house to the effect that payments received by judges for extra-judicial work "are calculated to impair the independence of the judiciary and are in contravention of the spirit of our laws designed to secure the independence of the judges". Ninety-five years later, I subscribe fully to those words.
A number of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada have in the past become embroiled in political controversy as a result of serving as royal commissioners. The greatest Canadian jurist of all time, Sir Lyman P. Duff, twice became the centre of partisan controversy as a result of his services, first as royal commissioner on transportation and second as royal commissioner on the Hong

DEBATES	November 24, 1967
Kong expedition. The violent attacks upon him were not, I submit, good for our highest court or for the status and prestige of our highest judicial office.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Similarly Mr. Justice Davis in the Bren gun affair, Mr. Justice Taschereau as he then was, and Mr. Justice Kellock in the soviet espionage affair, normally known as the Gouzenko affair, and more recently Mr. Justice Spence in the Munsinger affair, drew upon themselves and their high office bitter public controversy with, as well, I submit, detriment to the highest court in the land. I might express this perhaps more vigorously, except that I want to bury past follies.
The best statement of this problem may be found at page 445 of Norman Ward's edition of Dawson's "The Government of Canada", from which I would quote:
There would seem to be little purpose in taking elaborate care to separate the judge from politics and to render him quite independent of the executive, and then placing him in a position as a royal commissioner where his impartiality may be attacked and his findings-no matter how correct and judicial they may be-are liable to be interpreted as favouring one political party at the expense of the other. For many of the inquiries or boards place the judge in a position where he cannot escape controversy: he may be making decisions which at least touch on policy; he may be considering, or conciliating, or deciding disputes on labour questions; he may be investigating and interrogating by very questionable procedures persons suspected of treasonable activities; he may be conducting inquiries on definitely political matters such as the Hong Kong or Bren gun charges.
It has been proved time and again that in many of these cases the judge loses in dignity and in reputation, and his future usefulness is appreciably lessened thereby. Moreover, if the judge remains away from his regular duties for long periods, he is apt to lose his sense of balance and detachment; and he finds that the task of getting back to normal and of adjusting his outlook and habits of mind to purely judicial work is by no means easy.
Basically, sir, the objections as they are stated there to extra-judicial duties are threefold; first the possibility, and in many cases the probability of a judge becoming involved in public and oft-times partisan controversy; second, that judicial work suffers-no one can moonlight without affecting his regular work, and it is a truism that justice delayed is justice denied-and third, the receipt of extra pay for judicial moonlighting is an infringement upon the independence of the bench. I am not by any means certain that the legislation passed at the last session of this parliament has solved that latter problem.
November 24, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES
All these facts were clearly pointed out by the Chief Justice of Quebec, Hon. Lucien Tremblay, in a vigorous speech to the Conference of United States Chief Justices, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of August 5, 1966, from which I quote:
Quebec's Chief Justice, Lucien Tremblay, yesterday vigourously assailed government practice of appointing judges to commissions of inquiry and labour relations boards.
Chief Justice Tremblay charged that the practice-which he termed "bad as a general rule"- delayed the course of justice, resulted in violations of the law and often misled the public.
Then later on:
"The function of a judge is to hear cases and render judgment, but when a judge gives his opinion on any other than a legal question, his opinion is not worth more than that of any other citizen of equal standing", he said.
I think perhaps I should point out to the house that the former minister of justice, Hon. Lucien Cardin, wrote to all the chief justices across Canada in July, 1966, drawing attention to sections 37 and 38 of the Judges Act, and he added:
I should appreciate it if you would draw these provisions to the attention of the judges of your court, and point out that in all cases where they propose to undertake extra-judicial duties in labour matters for private persons the consent of the governor in council must be obtained. You might also indicate that I would not be prepared to recommend to the governor in council that such consent be granted unless I am assured by you that the duties can be undertaken without interfering with the administration of justice.
Now, sir, enforcement of the requirement that a judge must have the consent of his chief justice as well as the approval of the governor in council presumably will safeguard against court proceedings suffering due to judicial absenteeism, but it does not meet the problem of public controversy or infringement of the independence of the judiciary. I have very grave doubts whether the procedures outlined by the former minister of justice are in fact being adopted and enforced, and particularly at the county and district court level. I doubt if all the Ontario county judges who have engaged in labour relations work since July, 1966, have had the approval of the governor in council.
Moonlighting by judges in the field of industrial relations has been a very genuine problem in the province of Ontario. Until the legislation of a year ago there were a few county judges in Ontario to whom the regular judicial emoluments were mere bread and butter, whereas they earned their honey and jam by supplementing their judicial earnings
Inquiries Act Amendment two or three times over through fees charged in industrial relations conciliation and arbitration work. Has this been solved completely by the new legislation? I am not by any means sure. In fact I believe it has not.
Are these outside earnings a threat to judicial independence? Personally I am satisfied that they have that potential. Judges are only human; their lofty positions do not insulate them from the frailties and temptations which beset lesser mortals. I adopt the words of a very great Canadian, a man who was an outstanding parliamentarian, a great barrister and former President of the Canadian Bar Association, John T. Hackett, later Senator Hackett, spoken in this house on June 21, 1946, as reported in Hansard at page 2709 for that date:
To the extent that these tasks are paid for, they are subversive of the principle of independence which is the bedrock of our whole judicial system. If a judge is to receive remuneration in excess of his statutory compensation, which has been horribly inadequate for generations, he is beholden to the party paying him, be it the political party in power or be it a labour union or employer who commands his services. But if the practice in the form to which I have just alluded is reprehensible, it becomes more objectionable when judges undertake tasks highly pigmented by politics.
It is impolitic for a practising barrister to say anything which might be construed as criticism of the bench. It is most unfortunate that stem necessity imposes on me the duty of pointing out the dangers to the greatest of our institutions inherent in this practice. I do not accuse the government in power of being the sole offender, but circumstances have made it the most frequent and the most recent offender-
I say with sorrow that the reputation for impartiality, dignity and honour enjoyed by the bench has been exposed to criticism by this practice. All who believe in the law, who depend upon its fearless administration, and admit that the people at large must have complete faith in the integrity of the judiciary, must oppose the continuance of this practice.
Then Mr. Hackett, after referring to labour disputes, went on:
At the present time, in the clubs, in the marketplace, wherever men meet and discuss, one hears a judge classified as "favourable to labour," another as "favourable to the interests," another as "weak and not knowing exactly which side he is on".
Those words are as wise and as true today as they were 21 years ago when they were first uttered. Equally wise and pertinent quotations could be found in numerous speeches on this subject made by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), particularly when he was the hon. gentleman from Lake Centre.
November 24, 1967

Inquiries Act Amendment
There is a further aspect, namely the assumption by judges of administrative duties. In this I am thinking particularly of judges serving on police commissions. The constitution of police commissions is a matter for the provinces, but the duties of judges, I submit, are within the jurisdiction of this parliament, and I believe parliament should prohibit judges from undertaking police commission duty. To adopt the words of Chief Justice Tremblay, "The function of a judge is to hear cases and render judgment." He should not be closer to the police than to the criminal. He should be insulated equally from both. Personally I do not believe that any judge actually achieves any bias by reason of serving on a police commission, but I do know that members of the public suspect such bias. This is an instance, surely, where the old rule applies: that justice must not only be done, it must appear to be done.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I do not suggest for a moment that the need for the types of skills which judges are alleged to possess can be left in a vacuum. From time to time royal commissions are needed, though I confess to believing that the less often the better. Certainly adjudicators, arbitrators, conciliators and referees are an essential part of modern life, and not merely in the field of industrial relations. From what segment of the population may such persons be drawn if not from the judiciary? Personally I believe they must be drawn from the academic and the practising profession. I go further and suggest that a new and trained profession in this field is now a necessity. Perhaps we could learn from France.
A former attorney general of Ontario, A. Kelso Roberts, sought to meet this problem by legislation to establish a new group of scholarly people to be known as "approved impartial referees and arbitrators". Apart from the tongue-twisting name, the idea was a good one-the establishment of a panel of qualified, yet non-judicial, referees, arbitrators, conciliators and adjudicators. The panel would achieve their status through licensing by a board of supervisors and would be available for such duties as are now performed in this field by judges. The legislation, which is chapter 5 of the statutes of Ontario of 1962, received royal assent on April 18 of that year, but regrettably has never been proclaimed. What might have been a valuable experiment has never been tried. For myself, I accept the general principles of this Ontario legislation. A system of


qualifying a new group of conciliators, arbitrators and other such persons as an alternative to bringing judges down off their benches must in my view be worked out.
What I would ask the house to do now is to send the judges back to the high and lofty status to which they were summoned; to prevent them from becoming involved in political controversy; to stop some of them from competing with one another in a money grubbing operation to see who can land the most labour relations work, and to free them from administration and give them time and opportunity for scholarship and judicial meditation. In short, let judges be judges.
In my enthusiasm for reform I may perhaps have seemed to reflect upon our bench in Canada. My dear old friend, the late John T. Hackett, said as I quoted earlier that "it is impolitic for a practising barrister to say anything which might be construed as criticism of the bench". I think it is even more impolitic for one, who has been forced by parliamentary circumstances-to his great regret-to become a non-practising barrister to appear to so criticize. For that reason I close on the note upon which I began. My admiration for the scholarship, the integrity and the independence of our Canadian judiciary is genuine and sincere. I want them to be judges in the great traditions, both of the civil and common law, and to cease being as they now are, jacks-of-all trades.


Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I always marvel at the fluent and able way the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) introduces either a private members bill or anything else in this house. I agree with many of the allegations the hon. member has made, especially in respect of the quality of the Canadian judiciary. I know of no country anywhere in the world where the judiciary is held in higher esteem. Unlike my hon. friend, it is my feeling that inquiries under the Inquiries Act are as important as any case, and sometimes they involve matters of such serious public concern the decision of a judge is more readily accepted than a decision by anyone else, because of the independence and unbiased quality our judges possess.
The hon. member for Carleton made many objections and I do not intend now to cover them entirely. He referred to the possibility of a judge becoming involved in public controversy. I suppose a judge could always become involved in public controversy but, as I will suggest in a very few minutes, there
November 24, 1967	COMMONS
are other amendments which I feel are much more important to keep judges away from such controversy.
The hon. member also mentioned that justice is sometimes delayed. It is my submission that an inquiry can be just as important as any other case, and sometimes much more important. I do not intend to deal specifically with the hon. member's third objection, but I will refer to it indirectly in a few minutes. The hon. member suggested that when a judge gives his opinion in respect of any case, other than a legal case, his opinion is worth no more than that of anyone else. Let me refer him to his opening words which can be used to refute that statement, because it is the reputation for independence and impartiality that judges possess which makes their opinion much better in a particular field than that of an ordinary person.
The hon. member referred to moonlighting in respect of industrial relations. Certainly in labour arbitration I believe that the opinions of judges are usually accepted more readily by the parties involved than by any other group of people. The hon. member suggested the reputation of impartiality may be damaged because of added remuneration. I think that equally wise quotations could be obtained regarding the value of obtaining the services of an unbiased, impartial judge.
My hon. friend mentioned that justice must not only be done, but that it must manifestly appear to be done. I am in total agreement with that statement. This is a quotation that has long been used in reference to our system of British justice. The member speaks of a new and trained profession that is needed, namely the establishment of a panel of qualified arbitrators. I would be in complete agreement if that new profession were already established, but to date that is not the case. I can only ask the hon. member whether it might be better to pass legislation setting up such an alternative before leaving us in a vacuum by preventing judges from performing this very important task.
I support the hon. member in respect of two things, and I commend him for bringing this important matter to the attention of the house. This is something which has been discussed for some time by the members of the profession which the hon. member and I share outside this house. I share his feeling that the law should be amended, but the areas of amendment in my opinion are different.
DEBATES	4695
Inquiries Act Amendment
Let me make two points in this regard. Under the Inquiries Act the terms of reference for the commissioners should be submitted to this house. It is very important that the terms of reference be fair. In my short time in the house I have heard discussions on at least one, if not two occasions, about terms of reference, so far as certain members of this house were concerned, not being exactly fair. They should be fair and perhaps one way of making sure they are fair would be by submitting them to this house for approval.
My second point is that the commissioner should be restricted to findings of fact, and should not pass judgment on those facts. That responsibility should be left to the house. In other words, the facts found by the commissioner should be presented to the house, where any judgment on the basis of those facts should be made. I do not intend to deal with any of the commissions of late but would just give this example. Let us suppose it is alleged that a minister did not use good judgment in entering into a contract. Pursuant to the provisions of an order in council, a judge is appointed a commissioner under part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire into whether the minister used good judgment in entering into the contract. The commissioner should inquire into the facts, as for example whether other tenders were called and the circumstances surrounding the contract.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
When the judge, acting as a commissioner, makes a finding of fact, parliament should then make the judgment on those facts. In other words, it is for parliament to decide on the facts whether the conduct of the minister was open to censure. The judge should be relieved of passing judgment on a minister or member of parliament on any matter relating to the responsibilities of a member of this house. If a commissioner decides only on the facts, I submit he will not be exposed in the way in which the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has very carefully pointed out on so many occasions.
I should like to discuss for a moment only one of the examples put forward so ably by the hon. member for Carleton. I refer to the commission that was set up to report on the Hong Kong expedition. As the hon. member for Carleton said, Chief Justice Lyman Duff was appointed the royal commissioner in that
4696
November 24, 1967

Inquiries Act Amendment case to inquire into the organization, authorization and despatch of the Canadian expeditionary force to Hong Kong in October, 1941.
I quote from the report by the royal commissioner:
The order in council states that the purpose of the investigation is to determine whether there occurred any dereliction of duty or error in judgment by those whose duty it was to arrange for the authorization, organization and despatch of the force that resulted in detriment or injury to the expedition or its members.
I am not reading this out just for the sake of reading it. I would like to cite this case to the hon. member for Carleton as an example of how we can take the law as it exists today and use it by submitting only facts to the commissioner involved. In making a finding of fact the commissioner could not possibly, in my respectful submission, be exposed in the way put forward by the hon. member for Carleton. Later in his report the commissioner said:
My duty is to determine whether there occurred any dereliction of duty or error in judgment "on the part of any of the personnel or of any of the departments of the government whose duty it was to arrange for the authorization, organization and despatch of the expeditionary force"-
If a finger can be raised against the commissioner in this particular case, it is the terms of reference that are responsible and not the commissioner himself. The commissioner went on to say in the report:
-and whether, if such dereliction or error occurred, there resulted detriment or injury to the expedition or the troops comprising it.
Five points are set out by the commissioner in his report but I will summarize those which can be taken as factual matters. First, who authorized the expedition? That is fine as far as it goes. This refers to the expedition that left Canada on October 27, 1941.
On page 4 of the report the commissioner pointed out one thing that I should like to bring to the attention of the house. As far as I can see, this is the only time in the report when he expressed an opinion, but in my respectful submission this opinion was expressed because of the terms of reference themselves. He said:
It would perhaps be a possible view that the propriety of this decision by the government is exclusively a matter for consideration and discussion by parliament.
In expressing that view it would seem the commissioner felt he was making a finding of fact and it would be up to parliament to decide, on the facts, whether there had

occurred any dereliction of duty, rather than it being left to the commissioner to himself find that dereliction.
In this connection I should like to stress to the hon. member for Carleton that if the commissioner had to make up his mind only on matters of fact, all the objections upon which he based his bill and which he mentioned in his speech today would be completely superfluous. The commissioner went on to say:
Since, however, I am required to pass upon the question, it is my duty to say that I have no doubt the course taken by the government was the only course open to them in the circumstances.
Of course, there is one advantage in having it done that particular way. As I mentioned, there were certain secret documents and telegrams here that probably would not have been exposed to this house. Second, the commissioner had to deal with the question of the selection of the units for the expeditionary force. That was a factual matter. In that case the minister could easily have found on that point of fact without any criticism from anyone. Third, he had to consider the steps taken to bring the units up to strength, including first reinforcements; fourth, the general organization and despatch of the force, apart from the subject of mechanical transport; and fifth, mechanical transport-that is, the number of vehicles, and so on. If all those five matters were decided by the commissioner, I would say to the hon. member for Carleton that no criticism could be placed on him. Of course, I agree with the commissioner's findings in that case; but if the facts alone had been left to the commissioner, and those facts brought back to this house for judgment, it would have left the commissioner in a much better position.
It is often mentioned in the house that parliament is too busy to deal with matters of this kind. At no time has this been quite as obvious as it was in the last few days. I am not going to give all the examples that I could, but in the debate on capital punishment the other day the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) said, as reported in Hansard at page 4261:
There are also many very urgent matters which the house should be considering.
The hon. member for Prince Edward-Len-nox (Mr. Alkenbrack) said on the same day, as reported at page 4281 of Hansard:
-despite the serious economic ills which now beset our country and the need for useful and
November 24, 1967	COMMONS
beneficial legislation concerning economic matters, the government now wastes the time of parliament by sponsoring this bill dealing with the Criminal Code, which will be productive of nothing of benefit to Canada.
The next day the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) spoke of impending legislation and said there were other ways in which this house could be more gainfully and more usefully employed, and that it was no time to debate a bill that would bring about changes to the Criminal Code. It has been said on many occasions that parliament is so busy. I would ask the hon. member for Carleton whether parliament is not too busy to discuss and take up the time necessary in dealing with his bill.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is he advocating the abandonment of private members hour?


Harold Edwin Stafford: No, Mr. Speaker, I am merely pointing out what would happen if this amendment became law. Unless the governor in council were expressly authorized in a particular case to appoint a commissioner by resolution of the House of Commons, it would mean that every time a commissioner was appointed by resolution of the house the matter would have to be discussed.
I listened to a debate in this house not too long ago about terms of reference, and I hate to think of 265 members expressing their views about a particular judge or judges named in a resolution to do a job required by the government. I submit it would be a very lengthy discussion.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
It is obvious that if the names of judges are bandied about and if an extended discussion concerning judges is carried on in the house, this would not add to the dignity, unbiased nature and reputation which judges and courts possess in Canada at this time.
I should like to say a few words about judges. They have a great security of tenure in Canada. Their appointments last until they reach the age of 75 years. It is an established practice in Canada not to lower the salaries of judges; so their future is assured. The executive cannot say to a judge "If you do not do "a certain thing", your salary will be cut down to $1 a year", which, all in all, makes them very independent. Over the years they have built up a tradition of impartiality and objectivity. People in Canada respect their independence. What my hon.
DEBATES	4697
Inquiries Act Amendment friend said to sum up the reputation of judges in this country cannot be expressed in a better way. The reputation enjoyed by the judges also applies to the courts.
I have already covered one difficulty of appointing judges by a resolution, namely that it would take much time of parliament to discuss and criticize the personalities of the judges. The airing of this subject would destroy the respect which the public has for judges today. If that were to happen, we would also lose respect for the law. The judges themselves would be the subject of an inquiry before the inquiry ever took place, and after such a public inquiry in the house the public would not be prepared to accept the finding of the commissioner. In my respectful submission it would be a retrograde step which would undermine one of our most viable institutions, namely our judges and our courts.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, in my view the bill which the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has introduced, with his usual eloquence, undoubtedly points to a problem which exists and which is real. I am not at all certain, however, that the bill offers a solution, and perhaps that is the consideration which should be uppermost in our minds when we assess a proposal of this kind. If I heard the hon. member correctly, he was quoting another opinion when he argued that court proceedings were suffering from judicial absenteeism, and he spent some time discussing what he referred to as judicial moonlighting. For a while I hesitated in deciding whether or not I should inject myself into this discussion, because I do not have knowledge in the operation of the courts which is possessed by someone in the profession of the hon. member for Carleton. But on second thought I decided that I would take part in the discussion because perhaps the hon. member's search for a solution may be restricted and limited by the special knowledge he has in this field, and which I lack.
Both he and the hon. member who followed him expressed some concern that the integrity and the honour in which courts in this land are held should not in any way be impaired. The hon. member for Carleton argued that as a result of some of the activities in which members of the judiciary are called upon to engage there is a lowering of their reputation in the minds of the people of this country. In my view these activities,
November 24, 1967

Inquiries Act Amendment which tend to lower our faith in the integrity of the judiciary, which faith we all consider to be desirable, have not been activities under the Inquiries Act but have rather resulted from certain defects in the laws. I might as well say at once that I am referring to certain applications for injunctions which are becoming increasingly frequent in our society.
I think that probably most members of the house would agree that the fact that judges are being called upon to perform functions which are outside their traditional duties indicates that there is a need in our society for people to perform these tasks with the integrity and detachment which we traditionally associate with the judiciary. Therefore I suggest for the consideration of the house that instead of the proposal made by the hon. member for Carleton, which would in effect prohibit the use of judges under the Inquiries Act, except in some rare instances, and because of the very reasons that were advanced by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford) that no government will wish to have frequent debates in the house regarding the appointment of judges under the Inquiries Act, we should consider expanding our traditional view of the courts. It seems to me from a layman's point of view, that our judicial system and the decision as to the number of judges which we appoint, was established in the context of a much simpler society which, by and large, was rural. At that time the only need for people in such a detached position was in cases involving civil or criminal actions; whereas in our present society there is an increasing need for judges presiding over inquiries going far beyond the scope of the traditional courts. Perhaps we should therefore think of an expansion of the whole concept of what is involved in being a judge.
The hon. member for Carleton suggested that we should think of employing in this capacity academics and other professionals. I suggest to him that academics have knowledge in a special field, whereas there is a need for someone who is beyond and above any particular specialty and who is in a position to assess and to judge certain cases. In many instances the matters that are being dealt with are of such broad public interest that the persons appointed to deal with them must enjoy the prestige and impartiality normally required in carrying out the functions of a court.


[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
There have been of course many suggestions for the setting up of panels of arbitrators or referees. I have been wondering whether or not any action we might take in this parliament would be likely to attract or develop a group in our society which would have anything like the prestige traditionally associated in the minds of citizens with judges. I have been wondering whether or not we should take a different approach to certain appointments in order to provide panels of people on the bench from whom we could draw for this very important social purpose, rather than have these judges haggling over some civil action.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that I have the answer to this problem. However, I believe some such approach as I have suggested might be sounder than the bill proposed by the hon. member for Carleton which, in a sense, is going to restrict the availability of competent people, with the prestige that is required to do very necessary jobs in our society, without putting anyone else in their place. I suggest to the hon. member for Carleton that he put his fertile imagination to work on a proposal which might appeal to more of us, and bring about a desirable solution to the important problem we have in which our judges admittedly have been caught up in a rather unfortunate way.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: We
have had very learned addresses on this private bill from the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and from the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford). I think the hon. member for Elgin has successfully demolished the argument of the sponsor of the bill. There is one aspect of this subject that has not been dealt with, Mr. Speaker, and that is that if we are going effectively to limit judges from serving as royal commissioners, then we must of course ask where we can find others to do this work. The purpose of a royal commission is to get a number of different views. By appointing three, five or seven persons to a royal commission you would get these different views and then, by a process of distillation of opinion, the royal commissioners reach a consensus on some important social or economic problem which they have been asked to examine.
We must ask ourselves, who would replace the judges? The first group of people that come to mind would be the economists. It is said of economists that if you put three in a
November 24, 1967

room you get four opinions. If we made up a royal commission of economists, the taxpayers would get one opinion for nothing, so I think that would be a desirable saving to the taxpayers.
After giving the matter more thought, it seemed to me that if we were not going to allow judges to sit on royal commissions we should perhaps have royal commissions made up of newspaper publishers and editors. It seems to me there are a number of important benefits from this proposal. Of course if a royal commission were made up of newspaper publishers, we would be assured from the beginning that the royal commission would have the benefit of a wide range of views on any given subject into which the commission inquired. If one picks ten editorials on any given subject, he usually finds there are three editors in favour, three opposed, two editors usually have not decided on their position, and by the end of the editorial two more have managed not to declare themselves either for or against. Therefore, we have the advantage of being automatically guaranteed a wide range of opinion.
It seems to me therefore it would be very good for newspaper publishers and editors to be appointed royal commissioners. They would have to grapple with the problems of the nation, rather than sit in their offices and write editorials. This would be a good training for them. A more important benefit is that we would be automatically guaranteed editorial support for whatever recommendations the royal commission might make. As it is now, we have recommendations coming from royal commissions which cost us a great deal of money, and then the newspaper publishers across the country set about shooting down those recommendations in flames. If the recommendations were made by the publishers, then automatically when the royal commission report was made public it would receive the overwhelming support of the Canadian editorial writers. The recommendations would then be easily implemented by the government. I think we could solve the major issues of the nation in this way.
I suggest, for example, a royal commission on foreign ownership might be composed of the publishers of the Toronto Star, the Winnipeg Free Press and the Vancouver Sun. Perhaps the Edmonton Journal could be included. They would sit down and analyse this question, then come out with a royal commission report on foreign ownership
Inquiries Act Amendment which I am sure would solve the problem once and for all. Perhaps we could have a royal commission on French-English relations composed of the publisher of the Orillia Packet, the Vancouver Province and Le Devoir. I am sure they would solve this problem once and for all. When these commissioners made their recommendations they would have unanimous editorial support across the country, and we could implement their recommendations without further controversy. Then we could get on with the other problems of the nation.
We could have, for example, a royal commission on economic prospects and policy, composed of the publishers of the Halifax Chronicle, the Toronto Telegram and the Winnipeg Tribune. In this way, we could have a consensus on what we should be doing about inflation. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) could implement the report of the royal commission and receive newspaper support right across the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whom would you put on the status of women commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I suppose the publishers of the Ladies Home Journal and Chatelaine. Since we are not going to be allowed to have judges as the members of royal commissions if this bill passes, I think we must turn to other groups. I can think of no finer group than the newspaper publishers and editors in Canada. As I have pointed out, I believe there are definite benefits to limiting the appointment of royal commissioners to that group of people. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say again that I believe the hon. member for Elgin properly and effectively demolished the reasoning behind this bill, and clearly indicated why we should not proceed with it.
May I call it six o'clock.


Richard Albert Bell: There are two other bills standing in my name, Bill No. C-16, to amend the Judges Act and Bill No. C-89, to amend the Supreme Court Act, and I think it would be best if they took the same status on the order paper as this bill. I ask unanimous consent that they take the same status.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Does the house give the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 24, 1967

Inquiries Act Amendment The Acling Speaker (Mr. Tardif): The
suggestion is that order No. 5, second reading of Bill No. C-16, an act to amend the Judges Act, and order No. 78, second reading of Bill No. C-89, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act, both in the name of the hon. member for Carleton, be dropped to the bottom of the list of public bills; is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: The hour for the consideration of private members business has now expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 27, 1967