1972-06-27

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-170, to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Before calling motion No. 1 as it appears on the order paper the Chair might refer to the procedural aspects of the motions. After examining the motions proposed by hon. members I would like to suggest that motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 appear to be acceptable on procedural grounds, unless hon. members want to suggest that for one reason or another they are not.
Motions Nos. 5 and 7 appear to present some difficulty. I think that the hon. member who has moved them might agree that they have financial implications. However, it might be said that motion No. 5 to some extent covers the same ground as motion No. 6 which is sponsored by the minister, and of course motion No. 6 is covered by a recommendation. In these circumstances it may be that the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe would feel that the purpose which he seeks to achieve through his motion No. 5 would be realized under the terms of motion No. 6. But I would suggest, subject to any arguments that might be submitted by hon. members, that motions Nos. 5 and 7, because they have financial implications, could not be moved.
Motions Nos. 8 and 9 appear to be acceptable from a procedural point of view.
I might also add that it might be difficult to have any of these motions considered together. In the circumstances, because there is no clear link between any of these motions except perhaps Nos. 5 and 6, I would think we might proceed with them one at a time, with the Chair putting motion No. 1 so as to launch the debate on the motions. I would be pleased to hear the advice and obtain the guidance of hon. members on these several points.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, do I understand you to say that we can reserve the right to make some comments on what Your Honour has said? It may be, now that the minister has accepted the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), that it would not be necessary to proceed with the hon. member's motion. Depending on the progress
that the government makes, and how it jumps around from bill to bill, we might argue the point with respect to his other motion later this week or next week.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we see nothing wrong with your suggestions.


Mr. Speaker:: In other words, my understanding is that the hon. member for Peace River has suggested that my interpretation of motions Nos. 5 and 6 is correct, that they are essentially the same motion, and that if the House debates, considers and votes on motion No. 6 this would be deemed to cover motion No. 5. The only motion which would remain to be considered from a procedural standpoint would be motion No. 7, which we might consider from that standpoint when it is reached.


Mr. lack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe) moved:: That Bill C-170, An Act to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, be amended by deleting the definition of "parent" in subclause 2(1), lines 16 to 18 on page 2, and substituting the following:
""parent" in relation to a child means an individual who has, in fact, the custody and control of the child and, where a family relationship exists, means for the purpose of paragraph 5(l)(a) the female parent except in any case where the female parent may be considered disqualified by reason of infirmity, ill health, improvidence or other reasonable cause or in any case where other special circumstances or reasonable cause of any kind may so require."
He said: Mr. Speaker, as there seems to be some evidence of a willingness to co-operate I will be very brief in my explanation. The bill provides that the benefits may be paid to the father or mother in the discretion of the government. The amendment would provide for the benefit to be payable to the mother, as is now the case under the Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act, and that the government would only have discretion to pay the benefit to someone other than the mother when there were good and sufficient reasons so to do as stipulated in the amendment.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly not arguing about the acceptability of this motion. I do point out to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), however, that I believe it presents more problems than it solves. Under the present family allowances policy we prescribe under the regulations that, where a child is in the custody of both parents in a normal setting, payment will be made to the mother. This would be continued under the present legislation and the House has the assurance that, as has been the case for years under family allowances, the regulations would continue to provide for this.

June 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
I take it that in putting this motion the hon. member is endeavouring to obtain some assurance that in fact the mother will receive payment. For the reasons I have stated, I do not believe this is necessary. I also think it raises some difficulty because as I understand the hon. member's motion the payment would be made to "the female parent except in any case where the female parent may be considered disqualified by reason of infirmity, ill health, improvidence or other reasonable cause or in any case where other special circumstances or reasonable cause of any kind may so require."
This is a very subjective kind of criteria. It is difficult to determine when a mother would be disqualified in such circumstances. For instance, the word "improvident" could cover a very wide area, depending on the attitude of the person who made the decision. We prefer the present wording because of the basic underlying assurance that the regulations will provide for payment to the mother. Of course, in circumstances where the child may not be with the natural parents but is with relatives, adoptive parents or somebody else who is responsible for the care and custody of the child, then the payment can be made to that particular person. The present wording permits a degree of flexibility.
I hope the hon. member will reconsider his motion in view of what I have said and in view of the high degree of flexibility required in order to permit the plan's administration to substitute for the mother, even for a temporary period, the person who has the actual care and custody of the child. For these reasons, I feel that this motion is not necessary and creates difficulty which I am sure the hon. member would not find desirable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when this point was raised in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs one of the responses that we were given was that the wording of the act was neutral. The question was put to us whether it would not be better to be neutral than to discriminate in favour of a person of either sex. To underline what I mean, the phrase in the bill before us reads as follows: "parent" in relation to a child means an individual who has, in fact, the custody and control of the child.
That, I submit, Sir, is a very plausible argument in this day of equality between the sexes. We were also assured in the committee, as we have been assured now, that the normal practice will be for the cheque to be made out to the mother. Not only were we given the assurance that this would be done but we were told that as with respect to the present Family Allowances Act it would be covered by regulation. We all know that regulations passed under statutes are just as much law as the statutes themselves. Therefore, at some point it is going to become part of the law that the normal course will be for FISP cheques to be made out to the mother. I therefore support the contention of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). This same point was made in committee by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), that the act itself is the place where it should be said that the cheque should normally go to the mother.
I appreciate the point that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) made about the subjec-

tive judgments that might have to be made because of the wording of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. I suggest that the answer to that would be to propose an amendment to the motion and I suggest that the minister propose it. He has a staff with him this morning and they could draft it fairly quickly. All that is needed is a very simple statement that the cheque will normally go to the female parent, perhaps with a proviso that, where special circumstances or reasonable cause of any kind require another course to be taken, that other course will be followed.
There is no point in my trying to move the amendment and getting us locked into procedural difficulties. This kind of thing gets through only if the minister is prepared to accept it. I would hope he would consider it. Instead of just asking the hon. member who moved the motion to withdraw it, I would hope he would propose an alternative wording, perhaps the very wording that is already in mind for the regulations. All the hon. member is asking, and we support him, is that the provision that these cheques should normally go to the mother be in the act itself rather than just in the regulations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for Simcoe North.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) a question. He says that payment might go to relatives or to someone else-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that we are not in committee. Perhaps the House might allow the hon. member to ask the question of the minister and assume that the minister still has the floor. I think all hon. members have to be reminded that we are not in committee. The minister can speak only once but we might assume that the minister still has the floor. The hon. member might ask the question and the minister might reply, but certainly there has to be order and we have to follow the rules to some extent.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about how these allowances would be paid in cases where both parents are either gone or disabled and unable to look after the child and the child is in the care of an uncle, aunt, or other relative. Why was the public trustee not specifically mentioned in this bill as one who might look after such a child?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister will be recognized with the consent of the House. Hon. members should bear in mind that we are not in committee. Hon. members ought to ask these questions before the minister finishes, because he cannot speak a second time.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member's point but I would wish to check into it further. I believe the situation is as I explained it. Under the present wording of the bill there is, in certain circumstances, a good deal of flexibility with respect to the care and control of the child, if that care and control is in the hands of a relative or some other person. In other words, if a relative or some
June 27, 1972

other person has the care and control of that child, we can substitute that particular person for the other and make the cheques payable to that person.
The hon. member asked about the public trustee. It may well be that if there is an order of a court placing the care and control of the child in the hands of the public trustee, which I do not think is usual, the regulations would empower us to make payments to the public trustee. This is one of the reasons why I am arguing fairly strongly for the present wording and for the power to enable us to do this by regulation. In light of all the variations in circumstances that are possible, I submit that if we were to insert such provisions in the legislation there would be an inevitable tendency for a high degree of rigidity to result which otherwise would be unnecessary and which could cause hardship in some cases.


Gerald William Baldwin: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, in my comments I should like to return to an old argument I have raised in the House time after time. I accept the minister's view that a large degree of flexibility in the regulations is needed. However, I think the government has been lax in not taking the action it ought to have taken to establish the scrutiny committee under the Statutory Instruments Act. That committee could have dealt with this issue.
I agree that the power to act by regulation and by Order in Council is a very essential and flexible power which in most circumstances ought to be granted. However, the granting of such powers to this government ought to be approached with grave caution in view of the government's failure to do what it said it would do. The former Minister of Justice over and over again said that he would establish the committee to which I have referred and make it work. The committee is there, of course, but it is not working. It has not been called together. I do not blame the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) for this. I understand his position, but I urge him to use his influence with his colleagues to see that this committee comes to life and operates. If the minister were to do that, the argument he has presented in favour of such regulations would be far more acceptable than it is at present.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Marshall) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next motion is No. 2, standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


John Carr Munro: That Bill C-170, an act to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, be amended by striking out lines 7 to 10 on page 3 and substituting the following:
(i) by a department or agency of the government of Canada or of a province that, by order of any court or by the consent of the parents of that person, has the custody and control of that person, or
Family Income Security Plan
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Munro) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The next motion is No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.


Jack Marshall: That Bill C-170, an act to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, be amended by deleting subclause 3(4), lines 1 to 4 on page 4.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the statute comes into effect as soon as possible and, in conjunction with proposed amendment No. 5, that benefits may be paid back to May 1, 1972. The provision that this amendment proposes to repeal can delay the coming into effect of the act until the government, in its discretion, ceases to pay the present type of family allowance.
The government proposal for a new family income security plan was first made at the beginning of December, 1970, in the white paper on income security for Canadians. Public criticism of several aspects of the bill led to an announcement of changes the following June. On September 3, 1971, Bill C-264 on FISP was tabled in the House of Commons with a promise that the first payments under the new plan would be made in May, 1972. Bill C-264, as we know, died on the order paper.
Bill C-170, a slightly modified version of its predecessor, Bill C-264, was given first reading in the House of Commons on March 15, 1972. This time, no commitment was made for implementation of the plan. During the committee proceedings after second reading of the bill the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) first of all estimated, on May 24, 1972, a lapse of six or seven months before the beginning of the new FISP payments. This would mean implementation of the bill during the Octo-ber-December 1972 period, assuming the bill was passed in June, 1972. However, by June 1, 1972, the picture had changed. The deputy minister testified before the committee and said, as reported at page 12:5 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs:
. . . since the previous bill was introduced and presented, we have carried out a number of further studies with a number of task forces on the administrative problems and we found that it will take longer than we had originally anticipated.
Actually, the deputy minister reported that the previous estimate of six or seven months had been doubled and that the new FISP cheques would not be out until the summer of 1973, if Bill C-170 were passed by the end of June. The four reasons he gave for the additional delay were, first, the need for eight months of computer time; second, the desire to co-ordinate the filling out of FISP application forms with income tax forms; third, the uncertainty with regard to possible provincial options; and fourth, the preference to have the peak FISP administrative load after the peak load for OAS and GIS has diminished and so to transfer trained staff from the OAS and GIS part to the FISP part of the operation.
None of these arguments offer very convincing reasons for the sudden revision in the time estimate for implementation of the FISP plan. Why did the deputy minister and
3536

June 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
the minister not have the same information the previous week when they told committee members that the delay would be six or seven months, and last September when they specified a May starting date less that eight months away? It is even more suspicious when paralleled with the assistant deputy minister's statement that the time estimate was reached, according to his statement on page 12:7 of the committee's proceedings; "after a very realistic and completely detailed approach with the advice of experts, consultants, from the outside who were hired for this purpose." If such expert help was contracted by the department, why did its most senior officials not know about it?
Another feeble excuse offered by the staff of the assistant deputy minister for the delay was the recent unemployment insurance catastrophe. He expressed the need to allow more computer time in order to avoid the same type of situation. The question then arises as to why the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare took so long to learn their lesson. The unemployment insurance mess took place over the winter months, peaking around February. Why did the officials not then take note of the problem, institute a plan to avoid such a mess in the FISP cheques and set a reasonable target date for the implementation of the FISP bill in line with such a goal?
At best, the government is guilty of a lack of foresight. At worst, they are guilty of being insincere in introducing Bill C-264 with no intention of implementing it in the foreseeable future and therefore ignoring the administrative details.
From the time FISP was originally announced in December, 1970, up to May, 1972, the consumer price index rose by 6.5 per cent. By the summer of 1973, the increase may well reach the 10 per cent mark. Therefore, by the time FISP is operational Canada's families will be deprived of the buying power of the family allowance dollar whose levels were set two and a half years previously. And who is to say how many families will have been made ineligible for family allowances because inflation has priced them out of the FISP levels, even though their buying power may be unchanged?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly the hon. member is aware that during the course of the deliberations on this bill it was necessary to undertake discussions with the provinces with respect to how this concept fitted in with their priorities. They had many suggestions to make. They wished time to consider the bill and some of its provisions and to make suggestions for changes. Quebec, to single out that province in particular, had many suggestions to make which involved detailed discussions. It was impossible to forecast how long those discussions would take. This is a partial explanation for some of the delays involved. To this we should add House time itself.
In terms of the time necessary to provide for the administrative arrangements, I believe it well behooves us to err, if anything, on the side of caution in this effort inasmuch as we have listened to some of the admonitions of the opposition with respect to what has happened with

regard to administrative foul-ups. Many of the opposition members gave us some very excited speeches about what they fear in this regard, and we will certainly take every precaution necessary to ensure that, administratively, this program is run in a smooth, effective and efficient way. When Dr. Willard described what would be necessary in terms of lead time in the committee I believe that his explanations were perfectly justified.
I should like to refer now to the acceptability or otherwise of this motion. I believe, Sir, that you have indicated that it is acceptable on procedural grounds. I would argue that it is unacceptable because it would mean that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is a little late.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is now arguing on a point of order when the motion is already before the House. He will appreciate that this cannot be done. He can consider only the substance of the motion, not its procedural acceptability.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that I am belated on the procedural point but it seems to us that it would be impossible to pay FISP benefits immediately on Royal Assent. In view of the time required to analyse the statements of income and the administrative procedures necessary, I am sure it is readily apparent to all hon. members just how impossible this situation would be. For these reasons and from a common sense point of view I would argue the unacceptability of this motion.


An hon. Member:: How long would this take?


John Carr Munro: An hon. member has yelled, "How long would this take". I would point out to him-


Mr. Lewis:: He did not yell; he asked politely.


John Carr Munro: -that this was considered at great length in the standing committee. I indicated, and so did the deputy minister, that we would hope to submit application forms and information booklets to all those people wishing to apply for the new FISP benefits so they could fill these out in a considered fashion. Based on the requirements in the legislation, we would like them to submit the information on the previous year's income. We think this would fit in very well with the terms of their income tax statements which they will file during the first three months of next year. Thus they can avoid having to file different statements for different periods of time. This would be of considerable help in terms of the simplification of administration. The deputy minister indicated in the committee that he would expect the program to be under way during the course of the next summer. That is the explanation of why this number of months would be required for the implementation of this legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the point which has been made in the discussion of this amendment is a very important one. I rise once again to stress its seriousness and to make a plea to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) that
June 27, 1972

even now he take this bill back to the drawingboard. The minister has great confidence that the administration of this legislation can be simplified and can be made to run smoothly, but I suggest to him that the additional length of time the deputy minister has already indicated will elapse before the act can be put into force is an indication of what will obtain during the entire life of this legislation if it is put on the statute books. I used the phrase "entire life" as though the legislation might be on the statute books for a considerable period of time. I doubt that it will. I suspect that within two or three years whatever government is in power will be coming back to Parliament asking for drastic changes in this legislation.
When one considers the number of changes that take place in the experience of an average family in the course of a year, when one realizes that these changes have a bearing on the amount of benefits available to a family under this legislation, I suggest there is no possibility of the legislation operating on this simplified basis. Every time there is a change in the income of a family, a problem arises as to the amount of benefit. The income can change because the breadwinner's wages or salary go up or down. The income can change because there is unemployment and reliance on unemployment insurance, followed by employment. The income can change because the mother goes out to work for a while, then ceases to work, and then goes out to work again. True, there are some families whose incomes are more or less static the year round. There are people on salaries, people in the upper brackets, who have some continuity in that regard, but most of the working people and those who are not working at all who will be affected by this legislation live on incomes that fluctuate a great deal during the course of a year.
There is also, of course, the question of the number of children in the family-this can change-and then there is the change through the years in the ages of the children. Add to this the requirements in this legislation for reports, add to it the time factors, and I suggest it will require a tremendous amount of technology to build a computer that will cope with the situation, and even after the computer has been built there is the human problem of dealing with individuals,
I think the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) is quite right to point out that the original estimate as to how long it would take to get the program started had to be extended considerably a month or two ago. It is clear, now, that there will be no payment under this legislation until the summer of 1973; it will take that long to get started because of the complicated mess in this legislation. That mess will continue until whatever government is over there has the sense and courage to admit it has made a mistake and return to the simpler method which has existed under the Family Allowances Act. The government is putting the people of Canada into an unholy situation by trying to impose the conditions necessary to qualify for this benefit, especially considering the fact that we have handled this matter in a progressive way for 27 or 28 years. Even at this late stage I urge the minister to take this bill back to the drawing board.
25319-38i
*Family Income Security Plan


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to deal with this matter at great length. I would emphasize that this proposal began with a white paper in 1970. It took legislative form in 1971 at which time the government set an implementation date, which was to be May of this year. I cannot understand upon what basis the minister can now say, that certain factors had not been taken into consideration. It amounts to an admission of incompetence and lack of foresight.
The minister tried to put some of the blame on the opposition. I would remind him that the Official Opposition offered on a number of occasions to sit through the normal Christmas recess to ensure that this legislation was put through. But that offer was rejected. The government has an obligation to the people of Canada who have budgeted one way or another with this legislation in mind. The people who would have benefited have allowed for the benefits in their budgets and the people who would lose by it have also taken that eventuality into consideration. The amendment is well taken because it pinpoints the promise the government made to put this measure into effect by May. In my view the government has no alternative but to see that it is backdated to that date.
I can see only one reason for this vacillation. It is that the government wishes to get the best of both worlds. It does not want to offend the million or so families who will be cut out of this plan, yet it wants to continue to hold out a promise to those who will benefit. So it has decided to put the whole thing off until after the next election. I believe the government should show more courage and finally put this thing into pay through the people of Canada, and stand by their own legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe) moved:
That Bill C-170, an act to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, be amended by deleting from subclause (5)(1) lines 26 to 31 on page five, and substituting the following:
"(1.1) Benefits paid in respect of children and persons referred to in subsection (3)(1) shall be applied exclusively toward the maintenance, care, training, education or advancement of the children or persons in respect of whom they were paid."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to provide that the benefits are paid in trust to the parent for the maintenance, care, training, education or advancement of the child or person in respect of whom they are paid. Family allowances and youth allowances were paid on a trust basis. The government has removed this trust in favour of the child. The government has put in an amend-

June 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
ment to provide that where the benefit is paid in respect of a child or person who is wholly or substantially maintained by federal or provincial government money or by an institution, then the benefit must be spent for the care, maintenance, etc. of the child or person. This merely emphasizes that a benefit which is paid to parents is not in trust for the child.
The principle of Bill C-170 is not the principle of the Family Allowances Act; it is not the principle of its predecessor, Bill C-264 which was introduced in the last session on September 13, 1971. Between that date and March 15, 1972, when Bill C-170 was introduced, an entirely different principle, a totally different philosophy, a distinct legal concept, was silently substituted.
The Family Allowances Act, the Youth Allowances Act all have one principle in common. That principle is that the benefits are established, paid, administered and accounted for as a right that is vested in our children. The people of Canada, acting through their government, are the donors. The parents are the trustees and the children have been and are the beneficiaries. The government proposes to take away that right in Bill C-170.
Nowhere in his explanation of the bill on second reading did the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) confess to the purpose of Bill C-170. Indeed, he implied that the rights of Canadian children, as established by Parliament, will be maintained and even enhanced. As reported in Hansard at the top of page 1133, he said:
FISP benefits will provide a basic income for each child upon which can be built additional supports as deemed appropriate by provincial or municipal authorities. We know that unemployment insurance does not make any special provision for children. Neither do old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada Pension Plan retirement pension or war veterans allowances ...
He might have added that neither does FISP.
Section 5 of the Family Allowances Act provides:
The allowance shall be applied by the person receiving it exclusively toward the maintenance, care, training, education and advancement of the child ...
Section 5(1) of the Youth Allowances Act provides:
An allowance payable to a parent in respect of a dependent youth shall be applied exclusively for the care, maintenance, education or advancement of such youth.
Clause 5(2) of Bill C-264 introduced last session provided:
A benefit shall be applied
(a)	in the case of a child referred to in paragraph 3(l)(a), exclusively toward the maintenance, care, training, education, or advancement of the child in respect of whom it was paid, and
(b)	in the case of a person referred to in paragraph 3(lXb), exclusively toward the maintenance, care, training, education or advancement of the person in respect of whom it was paid ...
Those trust provisions for the benefit of the children of Canada do not appear in Bill C-170. Instead, that bill takes away the vested right of the children, a right which the minister said was the only such right they possessed. And what does Bill C-170 propose to substitute? Outright grants to adults. The children become part of a formula upon which the right of the adult is based and calculated.

Clause 5 provides that the recipient of the allowance shall be the parent or other authorized person. The definition of "family" and "parent" refers to the child as being in the custody and control of such person. Clause 3(1) on page 3 and clause 4(3)(a) and (b) on page 4 provide that a child be wholly or substantially maintained by such person. That is the sum total. There is no reference to the child being cared for, trained, educated or advanced.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I think this motion has considerable merit. The title of this bill is: "An act to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children". The governing words are "in respect of children". I humbly submit that at issue here are payments made for the benefit, maintenance, education and support of children.
What the hon. member is attempting to put before the House, I think quite forcefully, is that we are removing the trust aspect relating to these payments. It now appears that the money is going not for the benefit of the children, or in respect of children, but rather in respect of parents or those who have the control of or guardianship of children.
I am sure the government is aware of the principle that the hon. member is trying to put forward. Let me refer to clause 5(1.1), an amended provision which sets forth the thinking that should be behind the bill. It provides:
Benefits paid in respect of persons referred to in paragraph 3(l)(b)-
Paragraph 3(l)(b) refers to persons who are looked after or provided for by a department or agency of the government of Canada, or a province or institution. The money paid under FISP is to be used for, and shall be exclusively applied toward, the maintenance, care, training, education or advancement of the person in respect of whom the money is paid.
It is there that you have an anomaly. Where children are under the care of an institution or federal or provincial agency, the government has been extremely explicit in stating that the money is to be used for specific purposes. However, in the relationship that exists between parents and/or guardians and/or relatives and children the trust aspect is forgotten about and the parents are told that they can take the money and do what they want with it. And this is exactly what is happening.
It would not take too much research to look into this kind of relationship. I am not going to make a general statement in this regard, but too many parents do not use the money for the benefit of their children. Rather, it is used for the benefit of themselves. I do not want to illustrate cases where people wait for the cheques to arrive by mail and then take a taxicab to the local beer parlour or liquor store, or buy clothing for themselves. I do not know how that would benefit the children.
I suggest it does not take too much argument to make anybody realize that the hon. member has brought to the forefront a point that should be thoroughly considered by the government. If this money is to be used for the benefit of children, the act should specifically so provide. In fact, I am wondering whether this money will be so used.
June 27, 1972

Certainly I would question it. As long as money is paid out with no strings attached the money will be used for the benefit of the parents rather than for the benefit of the children to whom the money is directed.
I hope that in replying to the hon. member's remarks the minister will give us some assurance, though I do not know how he can, that the principle we are now discussing is whether we should pay these benefits to parents for the benefit of their children, or whether the money is paid to the parents for the benefit of the parents and their children. I can envisage this money being used to pay the rent or for the parents' medical expenses, for example, in which case the children would derive no benefit at all. Or is the money to be directed toward the maintenance, care, training, education or advancement of the person in respect of whom it is paid?
As I say, I should like the minister to underscore the principle of the bill so that the country can be advised. If the money is to be used for the benefit of the children, the act should so state and strings should be attached. In only one case are strings attached, and that is when children are in the care and control of an institution. No strings are attached when they are in the care and control of their parents. Therefore I support the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister has already spoken. He can only speak now with the consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the general philosophy behind family allowances is that the payment is an incremental income for a family with children to assist them with the additional responsibilities they have compared with a single person or a childless couple. The money goes into the general family income pot, so to speak, to assist families with a dependency factor, as opposed to the expenses incurred by a childless couple or a single person.
We all know that wage scales are based on the value of a service rendered by a person to a particular firm. However, such wages do not take into account this dependency factor, and this is one of the rationales of family allowances. In cases where family allowance is paid to children in the care of an institution, I think there should be a term in the legislation, in the absence of the natural parents, to provide that the money is to be used for the care and maintenance of the children.
The hon. member is now suggesting that we should ensure that each payment sent to a mother is used for the care and maintenance of her children. Let one just consider the number of cheques being sent out each year. There are well in excess of two million families in receipt of family allowance each month. Some hon. members opposite have been talking about the administrative difficulties created by the bill. The moving of a motion such as this illustrates just how terribly concerned they are about administrative difficulties. I would ask them whether they would want to see the creation of an horrendous federal bureaucracy, established at considerable cost to the taxpayers of this country, in order to police the action they suggest.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is not so.
Family Income Security Plan


John Carr Munro: I suggest it would be so. Or, may I ask, is this motion being put forward merely as a pious declaration of intent, with no consideration at all being given to its enforcement? I am in the hands of the hon. member, but in our previous discussion of family allowance we have never considered this kind of policing arrangement in regard to parents in receipt of family allowance. We were well aware that it was unenforceable and as of right they receive this money subject to the income test, so I would ask hon. members in terms of common sense to let the legislation go as it now stands and not include this type of requirement.
We are talking here in many cases of lower income families, and this money is for the general good of the family. It would be very difficult in any particular situation to say whether the parents had used the money for the care and maintenance of the child as opposed to providing better accommodation generally for the whole family. Could one not say that is indirectly a very tangible benefit to the child itself? You get into all of these problems of interpretation which would render such an addition invalid and unsuccessful. For those reasons I would ask hon. members to turn down this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: I want to make a speech if the House will let me, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Agreed, on division.


Gerald William Baldwin: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister misconceives the legal aspect. I am sure my hon. friend in whose name the motion stands is not suggesting that the government should engage or hire a large number of people to actively police every aspect of this. As I construe the motion, it constitutes a statutory responsibility of a contractual nature by which those people who are legally entitled to and do in fact receive these funds have a statutory duty upon them which can be properly accepted by them through this clause. Such a provision has been put in other statutes. It is in many provincial statutes, perhaps not in precisely the same form, but surely this is why we have statutes. In many instances it is necessary to spell out that there is a duty upon those receiving certain funds and that these are the conditions under which the funds are received. In the motion the conditions have been clearly and explicitly set forth. The money is to be applied toward the maintenance, care, training, education or advancement of the child.
If the government became aware that there was a breach obviously it might have some responsibility to do something about it, but as between the child who is the beneficiary and the person who receives the money there is a legal duty upon the parent or other person. That is the meaning of the motion.


John Carr Munro: Ask me a question so I can reply.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister wants to make another speech. I think we will wait until we get to third reading.

June 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan By that time so many questions will have been asked that he will probably be able to devote his entire speech on third reading to answering valid questions.


John Carr Munro: Okay, never mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in self-defence against my friends to the right may I point out that I was pleased to support the first two amendments put forward by the hon. member for Hum-ber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), but in this case I ask my friends to the right to take another look at the matter and consider the possibility they have misunderstood the legislation. I realize they have many distinguished legal counsel in that group who are used to looking at the law and are anxious to practise equity.


Gerald William Baldwin: And we give free advice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it is on that basis that the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe suggests we make this legislation the same right through the piece, applying the same terms to children as are applied to persons in clause 3(1) of the bill. I would ask him to look again at clause 3(l)(a), which is the standard provision for paying what we have called family allowances to parents across the years. We have not policed it over the last 25 or 27 years. Where there has been wrongdoing it may have been caught, but we have not policed every mother to see how she was spending that money.
Clause 3(l)(b) is a special provision that was put in to cover payments to agencies and institutions that may be caring for children. Incidentally, this was related to a point we discussed on second reading as to whether full payments would be made in such cases, and in the committee the government agreed that all the payments should be made in full. As a matter of fact, the original bill provided for only half payment on a certain basis, but that has been struck out. Now, where children are in institutions, the full amount of the allowance is paid on their behalf.
Surely it has become necessary, since we are going to make payments to institutions looking after children, to provide how those institutions shall use that money. It was also pointed out to us in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs that this has some relation to the funds these institutions receive under the Canada Assistance Plan.
At any rate, what 3(l)(b) refers to is simply the case of persons or children, if you will, who are in the care of institutions. I think it is appropriate for us to lay down in law that, where institutions receive this money, they shall use it exclusively for the maintenance, care, training, education or advancement of the children. They must not use it to offset some other cost and they must not use it in juggling their accounts under the Canada Assistance Plan. It must be used for the purpose suggested there. I think that to provide a requirement as to what must be done when the money gets into the hands of institutions is all right, but the laying down of a requirement that every mother in Canada who gets this money must meet certain conditions or be subject to policing is going a little too far.

I find myself uncomfortable in being on the minister's side on this point because he is making a big mistake with the bill as a whole.


Gerald William Baldwin: I don't blame you.


John Carr Munro: You have made that speech ten times.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that all? The minister says I have made the speech about the whole bill being a mistake ten times. There is no quota on this so there may be more to come. In all seriousness I ask my hon. friends in the Progressive Conservative party not to press this amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the hon. member accept a question? In view of the reactionary speech he has made I should like to ask him this question. I am pinning a lot of my argument on the word "advancement". As a result of many legal decisions and judicial interpretations the word "advancement" has the very widest meaning, and almost any expenditure would fall within it. I do not want to make a speech so I will ask the question.


Some hon. Members:: Thank God for that.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the hon. member not agree that almost any type of expenditure in respect of the household, the home or the benefits of the same is and must be covered by the word "advancement"? So there is quite a bit of flexibility there which should answer the objection of my hon. friend. I would ask him if he would not accept that the use of the word "advancement" would get rid of his objection?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my hon. friend is saying that the word "advancement" is so broad it has no meaning, then why bother?


Gerald William Baldwin: It has a wide meaning, but not too wide.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think I would rather trust the mothers of Canada than the lawyers in the Tory party.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much time on this motion, but I was prompted to rise by the use by the minister of the words "common sense" a couple of times in respect of this legislation. Anyone who can look at this legislation and say it has been created by the use of common sense has much to answer for because here we are speaking of an amendment to the bill which seeks to do something that has been done before. The minister says it would involve the necessity of policing the mothers of Canada. This is not a new proposal which is being suggested. It was contained in the old act. I cannot remember a single situation of a mother being harassed because she did not use the family allowance cheque in the proper manner. We all know there are probably cases in which a check should be made or in which some organization should be involved in the directing of the spending of the money so that the children involved will receive the benefit. I say that here is an arrangement for the protec-
June 27, 1972

tion of the children of Canada which would not in any way belittle the mothers.
All we need do is pick up the newspapers any day to become aware of cases of children not receiving the benefits. This provision is included to protect the children of Canada. I do not think the hon. member who placed this amendment on the order paper had any idea of belittling the mothers of Canada. He feels that from time to time cases may arise where children will need the protection of this amendment.
This minister is not one who is prone to accept amendments from anybody. We have had experience with him for a long time starting with the Canada Pension Plan when he was a parliamentary assistant. There are other ministers who are much more amenable than he is in respect of amendments. I remember when the legislation in respect of the Canadian Transport Commission was being put through the House. The minister piloting that legislation accepted amendment after amendment. Of course that bill never should have been passed. It was similar to this bill. Here we have an amendment the substance of which has been on the law books of Canada for 20 years. I do not know of any case in which it has been abused. It is there as an assurance in cases where there may be abuse created by the parents, that the children will receive the benefit of the legislation. I think the minister would do well to accept this amendment.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I think I would disagree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in respect of this amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: I am aware of the difficulties which arise-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are not a
Tory lawyer.


William Arnold Peters: -in supervising the use of the money. I would agree with those who say that money paid under family allowances no doubt in some cases has been substituted for money that should have come from other sources. However, I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that by the time this legislation is in effect the computers which will be developed to handle it will be complicated and advanced enough that they will also be able to make house calls. I think this can probably be supervised in the home by the computers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Family Income Security Plan


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Jack Marshall: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The motion is defeated on division.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Marshall) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. We have now reached motion No. 5 in the name of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe on which Mr. Speaker made some comment at the outset concerning its acceptability because of the financial implication. I wonder whether hon. members would be ready to accept the suggestion made by Mr. Speaker that because both motion No. 5 and motion No. 6 in the name of the minister have the same implications it might be simpler to consider motion No. 6 for which there is a royal recommendation and at the same time eliminate the difficulty with which we are faced in respect of motion No. 5. The Chair would welcome at this time a comment from the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, we are agreeable to proceeding with motion No. 6 in the name of the minister, and in the interest of getting on with the bill I withdraw motion No. 5.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to withdraw motion No. 5?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Marshall) withdrawn.


John Carr Munro: That Bill C-170, an act to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, be amended by striking out lines 18 to 30 of Clause 6 at page 6 and substituting the following:
"(l)(a) or (b), as the case may be."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to suggest that the minister might say a word or two on this motion so that what we are doing will be on the record. This is the change that would do away with the earlier arrangement which provided for only half the amount of the allowance being paid in certain circumstances. It is a welcome change, but I think the fact that the change is being made should be on the record.


John Carr Munro: I would be pleased to do that, Mr. Speaker. In the committee I indicated that the government would be pleased to consider an amendment of this kind when the appropriate stage arrived. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggests, the bill, prior to this amendment, provided that one-half the maximum benefit would be paid in cases where the care and custody of a child were in an institutional environment. This proposed amendment, together with that which has been made already in respect of clause 5 in the committee, will result in the maximum payment being made in respect of all children in the care of agencies and institutions when the benefit is used only for the good of the children. I believe this not only meets the objection

June 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
expressed by hon. members opposite but is also a positive response to many of the letters we have received from some of the welfare ministers in the provinces.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Munro) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: We will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 7 but, as previously mentioned, the Chair has reservations as to its procedural acceptability. If hon. members will look at the motion and at the bill, they will notice that in clause 2(1) on page 1 of the bill "benefit year" means any period after August, 1972, consisting of 12 consecutive months commencing with the first day of September. Motion No. 7 proposes to add a new clause No. 20, which would have the effect of suspending the provision relating to a benefit as defined in the bill and provide for payment for a period in advance of the defined benefit year. It is the conclusion of the Chair that this would have the effect of initiating payments in certain cases four months prior to the date which is provided for in the bill and in the recommendation. To my mind this represents a clear financial implication which could not be undertaken without a recommendation. Because of this the motion cannot now be considered.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I bow to the position taken by the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: We will now proceed to the consideration to motion No. 8.


John Carr Munro: That Bill C-170, An Act to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, be amended by striking out lines 10 to 26 of Clause 23 at page 24 and substituting the following:
"(a) the aggregate of
(i)	the allowances that would have been paid under the Youth Allowances Act, as it read before being repealed by this Act, during that portion of that year that is before the repeal of the Youth Allowances Act, and
(ii)	the benefits that would have been paid under this Act with respect to persons described in subsection 3(3) during that portion of that year that is after the repeal of the Youth Allowances Act,
and during which that province provided for the payment of allowances or benefits described in paragraph 3(3)(a) or (fa), if allowances or benefits described in subparagraph (i) or (ii) had been payable to parents resident in that province; or (fa) the aggregate of allowances and benefits described in paragraphs 3(3)(a) and (fa) that were provided by that province in that taxation year, whichever is the lesser.
(2.1)	Where for any taxation year, with respect to any province, the amount of the aggregate determined in accordance with paragraph (2)(o) exceeds the amount of the aggregate determined in accordance with paragraph (2)(b), the amount of the excess shall stand to the credit of that province for the purpose of subsection (2.2).
(2.2)	Where for any taxation year, with respect to any province, the aggregate determined in accordance with paragraph (2)(b) exceeds the aggregate determined in accordance with paragraph (2)(a), the amount that may otherwise be recovered from the province for the year pursuant to section 6.1 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act, 1964 shall be reduced by the amount of the excess, except that such reduction shall not exceed the amount
standing to the credit of that province for the purpose of this subsection."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in essence what this amendment is designed to do has particular applicability to the province of Quebec. As hon. members are aware, we gave three tax abatement points to Quebec in lieu of that province raising its own taxes in order to finance its youth allowances. In view of the fact that they have already had their abatement points we are saying here: We will pay you what the FISP benefits would have amounted to if applied in the province of Quebec if you are going to carry on with your own youth allowances program.
Further, what we are now saying is that if they design their program in such a way that they spend in excess of what the federal payments would have been as applied in that province, they have to find that amount out of other revenues that they might have. If they do not spend the same amount as the federal payments would have been in that province, then the credit can be applied against other amounts that have been spent under the program in that province. This provides the province with the opportunity to get credits for underexpenditures that can be applied, on an averaging basis, to what may be overexpenditures in ensuing years. It provides for this type of adjustment on what we believe is a fairly reasonable basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does this proposed amendment have anything to do with relations between Ottawa and Quebec respecting the payments for persons under 16 years, in other words, who come under the provisions of the Family Allowances Act, under the new FISP, or do we understand that negotiations about such payments are still taking place and that there might have to be an amendment to the act later, depending on what agreement is reached between Ottawa and Quebec? I think this is a pretty important aspect of the matter upon which the minister should enlarge.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to try to answer the hon. member's question. The negotiations with Quebec on other features of the FISP legislation, particularly referring to those under 16 years, are still continuing. It is our hope that we will soon arrive at a reasonable settlement.
The Prime Minister's letter of June 9 to the premier of the province indicated that we felt that all outstanding issues in this area had been resolved and that we hoped we could now enter into an acceptable arrangement with Quebec, giving them the opportunity, within certain federal limits set out in an earlier letter, to design their program. My latest information is that the Quebec government is considering this and we are waiting to hear from them. If they should respond positively and indicate that they have arrived at a suitable solution to this question, then it might be necessary, as the hon. member implied, to bring forward an amendment to the legislation, probably in the next session of Parliament. I do not expect that all the "i's" will be dotted and the "t's" crossed by the end of this week and, as we all know, we hope to adjourn at that time.

June 27, 1972


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister one more question? I realize it is hypothetical but it is the only way I can put it. When this bill is passed, becomes law and the payments go into effect some time in 1973, if no agreement is reached with Quebec in the meantime do I understand that the payments provided in this bill would go forward to the individual families in Quebec?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, if no agreement were reached with Quebec and if no provincial option or amendment were made to this legislation and the act were proclaimed it would be applicable in Quebec and elsewhere precisely on the terms set out in the bill.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question? In addition to discussions with the province of Quebec regarding some flexibility in family allowances, has the minister had discussions with the other provinces and is it contemplated that any arrangements made would apply only to Quebec or would they be extended to all the provinces? Is there to be discussion with the other provinces before anything is settled?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with all the other provinces. As I indicated earlier, a letter went from the Prime Minister to Premier Bourassa on March 9, and it went as well to all other first ministers. This letter set out the terms of the suggested provincial option and was well received. The reaction from Quebec was fairly favourable and I am not aware of any unfavourable reaction from other provinces. Naturally they indicated that they wanted to study its terms and our officials have been available to explain any questions raised with regard to provincial options. To my knowledge there has been no objection from the other provinces. I do not know whether that answers the question of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us whether the amendments before the House are a result of his talks with the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs and, if so, does he think that they meet with the Quebec government requirements?


John Carr Munro: If I understand the hon. member's question correctly, Mr. Speaker, the amendments that we have been considering today do not have any direct relationship to the discussion we have been having with Quebec except perhaps in a peripheral sense, when I talked about the arrangement for calculating youth allowances. The main theme of our discussion with Quebec is the proposals put forward in the Prime Minister's letter to the premiers of March 9. This went into considerable detail about giving the provinces the right to design the benefit level of the program within certain federal minimum standards.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is quite complicated and I do not want to confuse the issue further but I am concerned about whether it may result in a lack of uniformity in family allowance payments in Quebec compared with the other provinces. If that is the case it is very serious and I am concerned about it. If this results in a
Family Income Security Plan
difference in payments of family allowances for youngsters in Quebec compared with payments for children in other provinces, then surely the minister cannot justify this amendment.


John Carr Munro: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, the benefits for 16 and 17 year-olds under the Quebec schooling allowances are the same as the federal youth allowances so there is no problem there. A decision was taken earlier that Quebec would be given tax abatement points and through them could raise their own taxes to pay for their youth allowances program. The tax abatement points were valued at what was calculated to be the gross youth allowances paid out in that particular province. This is possible for the province of Quebec within the ambit of their own jurisdiction, which in this particular case we concede. In other words, they took advantage of the offer at that time but if my recollection is correct other provinces did not. Quebec may set the benefit levels at its own discretion. All this clause does is calculate what would happen if, for example, their benefit levels should be reduced to such an extent that the tax abatement points are worth more. In that case there is an adjustment through a refund to the federal government. If their youth allowances should be worth more than the federal government's value of tax abatement points, then they would have to raise this out of their own resources. That was passed several years ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if the questioning of the minister is completed I should like to say a few words on this amendment. All it does is keep alive the arrangement already made between Ottawa and Quebec with respect to youth allowances. It may alter the terms slightly but in effect it keeps that arrangement alive. It does nothing about the payment of what are now known as family allowances or what will be known as family income security benefits for those under age 16. The minister has made clear that if any change in that respect is to be made, it will have to follow an agreement between Ottawa and Quebec and will have to be achieved through an amendment to the act.
I am not at all scandalized by the idea of letting a province like Quebec have some say about the formula to be applied to family allowances in respect of that province, if there is to be a formula. Hon. members must surely be aware that I favour the principle of universality as opposed to that of selectivity in these payments, but if there is to be selectivity I do not find it offensive to think that a special arrangement might be made with Quebec. I hope, Sir, that you will allow me to speak for a moment or two before you question whether I am in order in my remarks.
I regard as very serious and deplore the way in which old age security programs, family allowances and the Canada Pension Plan are being traded against each other in the negotiations that are taking place.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was particularly concerned when I learned-and I asked questions about

June 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
this yesterday-that in the Quebec National Assembly a bill has been tabled that would amend the Quebec Pension Plan in such a way as to put it out of line with the Canada Pension Plan. I think the Canada Pension Plan was a particularly good piece of legislation and I think the arrangement under which the Quebec Pension Plan was passed at the same time was an outstanding example of co-operation between the federal regime and the Quebec provincial government. It was an outstanding example because that plan works in full co-operation with the federal plan and there is full synchronization. The Quebec government has full control over the Quebec Pension Plan. Individuals can leave Quebec, go to other provinces of Canada and move back again without any harm being done.
I see you are becoming somewhat agitated, Mr. Speaker. Let me say why my remarks are relevant. I do not think it is good for the political health of this country when some people threaten: If you do not do this to family allowances or to the old age security program we, in Quebec, will change the Quebec Pension Plan and cause trouble. The trouble would be very real because it would involve various employers and different arrangements would need to be made. I shall finish in a minute or two, Mr. Speaker.
It should not be inferred from what I have said that I am simply deploring that Quebec has done. I deplore the fact that this government, which gave notice in December, 1970, of the amendments it would bring in with respect to the Canada Pension Plan, has not moved more vigorously with respect to those amendments. If those amendments with respect to the Canada Pension Plan had been introduced, I think we would perhaps not be in our present trouble. The various programs I mentioned are being traded against each other. I think that this should come to an end. I hope the discussions that will take place between Ottawa and Quebec with respect to FISP-you see, Sir, my remarks are now in order-will be the kind of discussions in which there will be an attempt to bring about a harmonious understanding with respect to all these pieces of social legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Gilbert: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion No. 8 (Mr. Munro) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House will now proceed to Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: That Bill C-170, an act to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, be amended by deleting therefrom Clause 24, being lines 31 to 37 on page 24 of the said bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wonder if I could make a deal with the minister and with the House. If I must speak until one o'clock so that we do not mess up the

lunch hour with a vote or two, of course I can do so. On the other hand, if there could be an understanding that any deferred votes will take place this afternoon after the question period, which I think is the course of common sense, I would be prepared to make my speech much briefer than might otherwise be the case.


An hon. Member:: You are on.


An hon. Member:: Blackmail.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am told this is blackmail, and I am also told this is a good idea.


John Carr Munro: I agree to the suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to thank the House, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bell:: This is a good sign for the rest of the week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some of the difficulties that might arise if this amendment were carried and if this bill were carried without clause 24. The result would be that the new FISP program would be in effect but the old Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act would also continue to be in effect. Some people would like that. They would not say it is ridiculous, because it would mean that people would get both payments.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Where would the money come from?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We should then be doing something similar to what is happening under the old age security program, under which all people are paid the basic $80 but under which some people get GIS as well. So, people would be getting family allowances under the old act and, in cases where they pass the means test, they would also get the new family income security plan payment under the new act.
My reason for moving this amendment, Mr. Speaker, was to provide a last opportunity for saying before we reach the third reading stage that I do not like to see the Family Allowances Act being repealed. I had the privilege of being in the House in 1944 when it was passed. I was one of those who voted for it. Incidentally, it was one of those recorded votes that was unanimous.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member voted for the BNA Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am talking about the Family Allowances Act, not the British North America Act which was passed at Westminster. I was never in that Parliament.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member was away that day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I say, that vote in 1944 was unanimous. There was one member who said he would vote against the bill but he was not present when the vote was called and the vote was unanimously in favour. I still think it was one of the better pieces of social legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada. I think
June 27, 1972

the two best pieces of legislation have been the Old Age Security Act, as it was passed in 1951, and the Family Allowances Act, as it was passed in 1944. I think legislation that accepts Canadians as Canadians and does not divide people according to their wealth or poverty is good Canadian legislation. I do not like to see this good legislation being wiped from the statute books and replaced by a piece of legislation brought in under the euphemistic term "selectivity" but under which the government, by applying a means test, will be dividing the people of this country into those who have and those who do not have. Therefore I want to vote against this proposal to wipe out the 1944 Family Allowances Act. I think it was a good piece of legislation and this Parliament should confirm the wisdom of those who were here in 1944.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, a while ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke about trusting the mothers of Canada rather than Tory lawyers. I want to say that I cannot trust him and I do not understand what he is attempting to do in moving a motion which in my view is legally impossible to accept. I think the hon. member was very fair in that he said that anyone interpreting his motion would appreciate that if it were adopted we would in effect have the Family Allowances Act, the Youth Allowances Act and also Bill C-170. What the hon. member is attempting to do is to show his disgust, if I may use the term, at the action of the government in removing the excellent plan that has been implemented over the years. But why we have to go through this manoeuver in order to prove that point is beyond me.
Let us suppose that by chance the amendment carried. We have to be responsible lawyers and responsible laymen within this chamber in bringing forward motions. I say that the bill will be an administrative nightmare in any event because of the criteria that are set down with respect to the number of children involved, the ages of the children and income. It has been pointed out time and time again that because of changing circumstances that affect each and every one of these criteria those who should be able to take advantage of this legislation will find themselves in a rather difficult position every month because even within that time span we can expect differences of age to become apparent, incomes to change or a child to be born. What it comes down to is whether in effect we can accept the motion of the hon. member. With all due respect to him I find that it is not feasible.
The hon. member did not say how much cost his motion would entail. I was not being facetious when I asked him about this. The hon. member appears to have thought that in order to register his profound objection to the way in which the government is now approaching the matter he should advocate that all these acts be operative at the same time. But if we are going to discuss this motion sensibly we should at least know what it means in terms of money. I have heard nothing about that. As a matter of fact, I know that the hon. member did not wish to pursue the matter further. What he wanted to do was to register his concern.
We have registered objections regarding the departure from the principle of universality and the adoption of
Family Income Security Plan
selectivity in the plan. We have all made pertinent points and questioned the sudden change of thinking in this regard. In a recent speech the minister said that the middle-income people-


Mr. MacEachen:: Order!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The government House leader says "order" because he knows what I am going to say. I think the minister revealed the government's position when he stated that the middle-income group will have to pay the shot in the future. Universality will disappear and as a result the middle-income group will have no incentive to continue paying.


John Carr Munro: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps in my reply later I can indicate specifically what I said because I do not want to be misquoted. The hon. member is guilty of gross distortion when he makes remarks of that kind. This is not at all what I said. If he would care to get a copy of my speech, which was sent to the leader of his party, he can read my remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he reads them he will have more criticisms.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker. It is my considered opinion that it is the position of the government that the middle-income group will have to pay the shot. I recall that the other day questions were asked of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about whether in fact this is the policy of the government. The answer given was certainly ambiguous and evasive. All indications can lead us to no other conclusion. If the minister takes exception to this, I will withdraw my remark as it applies to him personally and apply it to the government benches in general. That will bring them all into the boat, and if they want to rise on a question of personal privilege they are quite entitled to do so under the rules. All I wish to say is that people must be given incentives if they are to pay continually for a good program. Parliamentary democracy allows people to register their concern, and this concern will be made apparent if one particular group in society is continually made to pay. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege concerning the tabling of a report prepared by the National Harbours Board on Friday, June 23. I am rising at the earliest possible opportunity. My

June 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
question of privilege is that I believe the records of the House are incorrect. It is not a personal point of privilege but one that affects every member of the House.
The fact is that in tabling its report the National Harbours Board did not abide by the rules and regulations laid down by Parliament. There have been three breaches of the laws of this Parliament and an abuse of Standing Order 41(1). The following appears at page 424 of Votes and Proceedings for June 23 last:
The following papers having been deposited with the Clerk of the House were laid upon the Table pursuant to Standing Order 41(1), namely:
By Mr. Jamieson, a Member of the Queen's Privy Council,- Financial Statements of the National Harbours Board, for the year ended December 31, 1971, pursuant to section 32 of the National Harbours Board Act, chapter N-8, R.S.C. 1970-
Section 32 of the National Harbours Act provides:
The Board shall, as soon as possible but within three months after the termination of each calendar year, submit an annual report to the Minister in such form as he may prescribe-
In passing, I point out that the report was tabled six months, instead of three months, after the termination of the calendar year 1971. I also bring to Your Honour's attention that section 34 of the National Harbours Board Act provides:
The accounts and financial transactions of the Board shall be audited by the Auditor General of Canada.
The fact of the matter is that the report was tabled with a financial statement that was not audited or certified by the Auditor General of Canada, in violation of section 34 of the National Harbours Board Act. In addition to that, although it is not laid down by statute, it is a matter of courtesy for the board or any other government commission to table sufficient copies to enable all Members of Parliament to receive one. In this case, only one copy was tabled and, as I say, it was not audited by the Auditor General.
It appears to me that these very serious omissions on the part of the National Harbours Board must not be allowed to go unnoticed, not by me or by any member of the House. Certain rules and regulations are laid down and must be followed, and I submit they have not been followed. I therefore suggest that the House should not accept a report that does not meet the criteria laid down by Parliament.
I hope Your Honour will not rule I am raising a grievance because this is a matter of parliamentary procedure that affects all members, but if Your Honour feels I have made out a bona fide case, I shall move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House orders the Clerk of the House to expunge from Votes and Proceedings, No. 80, for Friday, the 23rd June 1972, under the heading, "Returns and Reports Deposited with the Clerk of the House", the following entry:
"By Mr. Jamieson, a Member of the Queen's Privy Council,- Financial statement of the National Harbours Board, for the year ended December 31, 1971, pursuant to section 32 of the National Harbours Board Act, chapter N-8, R.S.C. 1970 (English and French).-Sessional Paper No. 284-1/154".
and that the Clerk do return the Paper, improperly titled "Sessional Paper No. 284-1/154" to Mr. Jamieson, a member of the Queen's Privy Council.
I hope-
[Mr. Hales.l


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is prepared to indicate whether it feels that a prima facie case of privilege has been made. I really do not think that we should allow a debate on the matter. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) seems anxious to rise, but I do not think he should be allowed to rise unless the Chair rules that there is a prima facie case of privilege. Otherwise, as hon. members know, there is no reason why we should not have a full debate on the matter, and I do not think there should be a debate unless it is felt that there is a prima facie case of privilege established.
Certainly, I cannot make such a finding. The hon. member has given notice of his intention to raise this matter this afternoon by way of a question of privilege. I have had the opportunity to give the matter some thought in the meantime, and I have certainly given full attention to the submissions he has made for the consideration of the Chair. It seems to me that the hon. member has two grievances, the first in relation to what he considers to be an illegal procedure concerning the tabling of this report, and the second in relation to the distribution of the report. He says that only one copy has been tabled, whereas it is the general practice to table more copies for distribution to hon. members who want to see the report. I fail to see how this can be considered a breach of the privileges of the House.
The motion suggested by the hon. member is, in my view, a substantive motion. It is not a privileged motion but a submission that substantive action be taken by the House in relation to certain facts to which he has alluded. That, to my way of thinking, is a substantive motion which would have to be moved in the usual way, with the required notice given as provided by the Standing Orders.
While the hon. member may have a grievance in so far as the distribution of the document in question is concerned, if the Chair could be of assistance in this respect there is no doubt that I would be prepared, with the assistance of the Clerk and the gentlemen at the table, to satisfy this requirement for the hon. member. Otherwise I do not think the matter should be debated in the House by way of a question of privilege.



VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-Mr. Guay (St. Boniface) (for Mr. Foster).
[Stage Direction]
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) that all the necessary requirements have been met before presenting this report.
Some hon. Members:: Order, order.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
June 27, 1972



FINANCE


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to apologize to the House, but I wonder if I might just table a report in accordance with the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. minister the consent of the House to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling a document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: I want to thank the House for its courtesy. In accordance with Section 6, Chapter T-l of the Revised Statutes, I wish to table a copy in English and French of a report of the Tariff Board in respect of strawberries, reference No. 148, together with a transcript of the proceedings on the reference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: A typical Turner big deal.


An hon. Member:: How about blueberries?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to learn that the government is finally getting down to earth. I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday he indicated that his government was not taking any particular initiative with regard to the dollar. I should like to ask what the reason was for the apparently substantial intervention yesterday by the Bank of Canada in connection with the Canadian dollar?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the exchange fund did not intervene except to maintain an orderly, stable market in accordance with the policy the fund has maintained ever since the dollar was floated.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether the government of Canada and the Bank of Canada have any policy other than to simply maintain an orderly float? In other words, is it still the policy of the Bank of Canada and the government to allow the dollar to float freely, subject to levelling out from day to day fluctuations?


John Napier Turner: That is still the policy of the government, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry



GOVERNMENT POSITION ON SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES DOLLAR

Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a further supplementary question. Is it, therefore, the policy of the government of Canada not to join with European countries and European central banks in their policy of supporting the U.S. dollar? Is the government of Canada remaining apart from any international movement to support the United States dollar?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Neutral, as always.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if we find at any time there is a risk that the agreement arrived at in Washington would have to be revised, then of course Canada would take all appropriate initiatives. For the moment we are satisfied with the results which appear to have been achieved yesterday in Luxembourg. We will continue to watch the international monetary scene.



GOVERNMENT LIAISON WITH CONFERENCE ON EUROPEAN CURRENCIES

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. Does the government of Canada, itself or through the Bank of Canada, maintain a direct contact with the discussions which are taking place in Luxembourg as well as other discussions which obviously are taking place in a very desperate effort to save a very difficult situation with regard to European currencies?


John Napier Turner: Yes, we are in touch and so is the Governor of the Bank of Canada.



POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT ACTION AGAINST UNITED STATES SUBSIDIARIES DELAYING DIVIDEND PAYMENTS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if the government is contemplating taking any steps in respect of the actions of some United States owned subsidiaries in Canada which are delaying dividend payments to the parent firms in the United States, thus contributing to the problem which is now under study?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can accept the preamble to the hon. gentleman's question and therefore I do not know how relevant my answer would be.



INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY ON HOLDINGS OF GOLD AND UNITED STATES DOLLARS

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance could tell us why Canada in recent years has increased its holdings of depreciating assets, namely United States dollars, while decreasing its holdings of appreciating assets, namely gold. Does it intend to maintain this policy?


John Napier Turner: It is a little difficult for me to answer that unless the hon. member wants to have a debate about it.

June 27, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify the confusion that seems to exist in the minister's mind. In view of the very large holdings of United States dollars and the decreased holdings of gold, does the government or the Bank of Canada have any policy to diversify their holdings of reserves or does the government or the Bank of Canada have a guarantee on the exchange rate on the dollars we hold.


John Napier Turner: No; there is no guaranteed rate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of supplementar-ies are sought. Perhaps for the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Mr. Benjamin:: It is not a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate it is not. The hon. member is recognized so that we may finish the first round of questions, and then return to the supplementaries.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POUCE


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of his admission yesterday that he had not read the article by ex-Corporal Ramsay which appeared in Maclean's Magazine, and in view of the serious charges and other statements in the article, has he now read the article, and if not why not? If he has, what action does he intend to take by way of inquiry? Also, will he make a statement in the House?
Hon. ]ean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have not yet had the time to read that article. As for an inquiry into the RCMP, it would be untimely in view of the circumstances because no precise fact which could justify it was drawn to my attention.



ALLEGED PUBLICATION OF PART OF CONSULTANTS REPORT BY COMMISSIONER-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Commissioner Higgitt has made public statements in which he quoted certain portions of a consultants report which was submitted to the force and classified as an internal document, and since part of the report has now been made public by the Commissioner, will the minister table the entire report so that its entire contents may be known to this House and the public?


Mr. Goyer:: No, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member so well said, it is an internal document among others on which we are working.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Selkirk on a supplementary.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Selkirk.



ALLEGATIONS BY FORMER CORPORAL RAMSAY-POSSIBLE INVESTIGATION

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In light of the fact that the article referred to by my colleague makes serious charges and that those charges must either be true, in which case there are some problems in the RCMP or false in which case the reputation of the RCMP has been unnecessarily damaged, will the minister make an investigation of the charges referred to in the article so that they can be cleared up.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, some articles praise the work of the RCMP to the skies. I am as sceptical about them as I am of those that damn it to Hades.
My duty is to see that the RCMP meet the aspirations of Canadians, that it gives a truly honest and competent service.



ALLEGATIONS BY FORMER CORPORAL RAMSAY- REQUEST THAT MINISTER READ ARTICLE

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman has become a supporter of the RCMP and is no longer trying to remove the letters R.C. I ask him this: is there not some way in which he can find the time in which to read that very critical article. I know he is busy. We see him busily occupied all the time with other things. Can we hope that by tomorrow he will be able to secure the leisure time that will enable him, even without a reading course, to read this article which is so condemnatory of a police force which should not be attacked in that way.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have the highest respect for royalty, as the right hon. member knows, I do not besmirch it at every turn. Second, as far as-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Tell us another one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the hon. gentleman should have an opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. I am suggesting we should not have a debate. Perhaps the minister
June 27, 1972

could reply to the right hon. gentleman's question, and then there are supplementaries which we will hear.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to reading articles or documents I do not expect the right hon. gentleman to tell me what I should read, not anymore than he would accept to read what I would like to suggest to him.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister has given a sawdust Caesar type of answer to Parliament. I ask him this: does he intend to read this article that is so condemnatory of the Mounted Police, instead of pretending he has not read it?



POSSIBLE AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS OF ACT GOVERNING SERVICE COURT PROCEDURES

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answers about reading the article, may I ask him whether he has at least read the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that a question such as this one is entirely out of order. Perhaps he might want to ask a question that is acceptable from a procedural standpoint.


David Lewis: With respect, Your Honour stopped me a little soon. I hope the minister has read the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act because I want to ask him whether in view of the archaic, star chamber provisions in that act with respect to offences by members of the force, and the methods of tried of members of the force, he is giving consideration to amending it so as to make it more civilized than it is?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we are conducting a review of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries Standing Orders applying to discipline within these institutions because human rights are involved, which I consider to be fundamental. As for regulations governing conduct of members of the RCMP, that is fundamental and worthy of our attention because there also human rights are involved.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister points out that he deals with human rights, and in view of the fact that a member of the force may be charged by an officer, is then tried by an officer and his appeal is to an officer, and that he is not allowed any counsel except another member of the force-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask the question.


David Lewis: Can the minister assure the House that he is giving serious consideration to bringing amendments before Parliament to provide for a decent and modern
Inquiries of the Ministry
form of charge, trial and appeal for members of the force?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have already raised that issue with the Commissioner and it concerns me considerably. I have no ready solution, but I should certainly like to know the hon. member's opinion on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are still at least six members who desire to ask supplementaries, and we have to deal with the supplementary to the original question asked by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps we should recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition who has a supplementary on this subject, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Portneuf.



ALLEGATIONS BY FORMER CORPORAL RAMSAY- REQUEST THAT MINISTER READ ARTICLE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the matters involved, would he seriously consider requesting the Solicitor General to read this article so that he will know what it is all about and then can look after the force he is supposed to look after?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of National Defence.
Since workers of different trades at Valcartier military base receive some 30 per cent less in salaries than their opposite numbers in private industry in the province of Quebec, could the hon. minister tell us whether studies are now being conducted in this regard and whether he will be in a position to inform us of salary adjustments in the very near future?

Hon. E. ]. Benson (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, the salaries of civilian personnel working for the Department of National Defence are decided through collective bargaining in the same way as the salaries of the other employees in the public service.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. minister aware that six years ago the difference between the wages of the tradesmen and those of their colleagues in private industry was only 5 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Edmonton Centre has a supplementary to the first question.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
June 27, 1972



EDMONTON HUMP YARD-SUGGESTED LIMITATION ON HOURS OF OPERATION

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister see to it that the Canadian National hump yard in the Calder, Athlone, Lauderdale and the Elm Park areas of the city of Edmonton be prohibited from operating between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. because of the noise factor which unduly distresses the worthy residents of these areas?


Mr. Speaker:: That of course is representation. Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice of this question to the Minister of Transport, and I hoped to receive an answer for those poor senior citizens and residents in this area who would like to have this whole Calder yard transferred to the constituency of Edmonton Strathcona, where it would not do any harm.



FINANCE


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the par value of the dollar is having an adverse effect on grain prices, has the minister any plans to alleviate the very considerable crisis created because of the extremely low prices received by the Canadian farmer?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, prior to the new situation that arose when the pound was floated, the banks had taken action to lower their rate of interest on short-term money and certificates of deposit. That has had the effect of making short-term money rates less attractive in Canada and has affected the rate of exchange beneficially as it has gone down by one point. As I said to the House earlier, I will be talking to the provinces during the next few weeks to inquire about their foreign borrowing requirements and see if I can prevail upon them to orchestrate those requirements a little better.



SUGGESTED CANCELLATION OF CORPORATION AND PERSONAL INCOME TAXES TO STIMULATE BUSINESS

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since the increase in corporation and personal income taxes which were due to take place on January 1, next, would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the reduction in corporation tax as applied to the manufacturing industry, is the minister giving consideration to cancelling these two tax increases so that business in Canada will be encouraged as much as possible to expand its operations immediately?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the corporate tax relating to that part of the business community most affected and vulnerable to international competition, namely manufacturers and processors, was cut by 20 per cent effective January 1. That will be of immense value in achieving the results that I know the hon. member desires.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I agree, of course, with what the minister said. May I point out again that these tax increases greatly reduce the effect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member had the floor for that purpose, but he was making a speech. The hon. member should ask his supplementary.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is as follows: Has the minister's doctor not told him that it is dangerous to keep his head in the sand so much of the time these days?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question to the hon. Secretary of State but, as he is absent, I shall direct it to the Prime Minister.
Recently, Miss Bernadette Devlin, Member of Parliament for Northern Ireland, was invited by the French network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and she said she received high fees to give marxist opinions on the world revolution which would settle the problem of Ireland and Quebec, and this by violence.
As a taxpayer and as an hon. member, I should like to know when the government will ask the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from inviting undesirable persons from other countries who come to Canada to pollute our airwaves and preach revolution and violence.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State has indicated on several occasions that he was referring to the Crown corporation representations such as those made by the hon. member, but I think the Progressive Conservative party itself would object if the minister intervened too often and too directly in the internal decisions of the corporation.
June 27, 1972



ALLEGATION UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM INCREASES COMPETITION FOR CANADIAN COMPANIES

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. What steps has he taken to meet a situation which is now developing whereby some United States manufacturers are approaching Canadian merchandisers and saying that they now can compete with Canadian made goods as a consequence of receiving grants under the U.S. DISC program.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I said in the speech I made in the budget debate that we would look into particular situations. If my hon. friend can indicate one, I will look into it immediately.



PENSIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister yet in a position to make a progress report on his efforts to secure substantial improvements in railway pensions with respect to both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is my hope and intention that I will be able to make a statement on this subject before the end of the current week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will that statement apply to both railways, to the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can only, of course, as the minister through whom CNR responds to the House, assure the hon. member that it will cover the CNR situation. I cannot at the moment say whether it will extend to CP.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You could at least try.



POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF COVERAGE OF FRASER VALLEY DIKING AUTHORITY-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the great need for vastly improved diking in many parts of the river systems of British Columbia, can the
Inquiries of the Ministry
minister advise the House if he has received any representations from the government of British Columbia on this subject, especially with regard to extending the coverage of the Fraser Valley Diking Authority to other areas like Kamloops on the upper reaches of the system.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, not as yet.


Len Marchand: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister take the initiative and contact the government of British Columbia with a view to extending the authority of this diking corporation to cover any of the pressure spots and to prevent flooding in British Columbia.


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to restate our suggestions along those lines.



INDUSTRY


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Some time ago I asked him about an application for a PAIT grant for Dominion Aircraft. Perhaps one of the ministers' quiet answers slipped by when I was not paying attention. May I ask the minister if this application has been rejected.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The PAIT committee, which is an interdepartmental committee, found that it was not able to recommend support for this project. The two principal factors in influencing this decision were, first, lack of convincing evidence of financial viability of the company and, second, concentration of the development work in the U.S.A. The research and development programs of the Canadian government are for research and development in Canada.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since this decision appears to confirm the government's announced intention to concentrate government assistance on STOL projects in eastern Canada, would the minister facilitate the present announced intention of the government to seek American financing in order to proceed with this project.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I deny emphatically the postulate involved in the question, and I suggest that my hon. friend ought to be better informed on the project itself.


Gerald William Baldwin: I wonder if the minister could answer the other part of the question.
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE

June 27, 1972



EGANVILLE-REASON FOR BILINGUAL REQUIREMENT IN ADVERTISEMENT FOR POSITION

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Postmaster General and arises from strong protests from the people of Eganville, 99 per cent of whom are English speaking. Why does a current competition for position No. P.0.1349-21P, that being an area competition for a parttime job in Eganville Post Office, carry the requirement that proficiency in both official languages is essential?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether this question is not the type that might be considered at the time of adjournment. The hon. member might perhaps like to advise the House. It could more appropriately be considered at the time of adjournment.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
A few weeks ago I asked the minister whether he would make a statement in the House concerning the supply of feed grain for eastern farmers in order to grant them prices as high as those paid to western producers. Does the minister intend to make such statement before the end of the month?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. member some time ago, we intended to have the results of a number of studies that were going on, including representations from the livestock feed users in Eastern Canada. These studies have not been completed, although they have been expected before this date. I might advise the hon. member that the market has now changed in western Canada vis-a-vis prices in eastern Canada, so that there is really no disadvantage at the moment.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the reply the hon. minister has just given, may I ask him whether discussions on this issue are still being carried out with his Quebec counterpart even though the price of pork has improved?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have had some discussions with the Minister of Agriculture in Quebec on this subject. I think both he and I are waiting for the results of the study and the recommendations that we expect to get

from the representatives of the people who are directly involved.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. On June 13 my colleague, the hon. member for Huron, asked the parliamentary secretary to the minister a question about feed freight assistance and whether a decision had been made to include feed supplements in the feed freight assistance program. May I ask if this is also part of the study and if the minister will be in position to make a statement on this before the end of the week?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, some studies have been under way. Some pilot projects for shipping high protein supplements by a more economical means to the Maritime provinces have also taken place. Answering the first part of the question briefly, it is not included in the feed freight assistance program at the moment.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Prime Minister. He may perhaps recall that a couple of weeks ago I asked him some questions with regard to a crisis management centre and he informed us that there was no such centre, but that there was a post occupied by General Dare. He was also good enough to undertake that he would look into the matter of whether General Dare was assisted directly or indirectly by anyone else. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has made this inquiry and whether he can tell us exactly what staff, directly or indirectly, General Dare has for the purpose indicated.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did make the inquiries and, as the hon. member suggests, this was a few weeks ago. I think I am correct when I indicate that General Dare is the only person who is seconded to the Privy Council office to conduct this research study, but he is directly assisted by people who are seconded to him from their own departments. I believe there are four in number. They are not detached from their departments but seconded to General Dare. The terms of reference about which the hon. member also asked me have been made public since that time, and if the House so desires I will table a copy of them.


David Lewis: I should also like to ask him whether he has further information as to whether General Dare, Colonel Sutherland and the others who are working directly on this project have also engaged the services of people outside the public service, members of the university staffs, and so on, to do some of the studies? Would the Prime Minister at some point make a statement to the House as to the reason for the expenditures for these studies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe I can answer part of the question right now. I have found the memo indicating the names of the people who are seconded to General Dare and are on loan from various agencies. There is Colonel Sutherland, on loan from the Department of National Defence; Mr. White, on loan from the Emergency Measures Organization; Mr. Blackwell, on loan from the Emergency Measures Organizations, and Mr. Woodend on loan from the Defence Research Board. Two people have been retained on contracts for specific studies, namely Professor Jackson and Professor Van Loon.
As to the other part of the question, I believe the hon. member will see from the terms of reference the reasons they are working on these projects and what their terms of reference are.



ALLEGED CRISIS MANAGEMENT CENTRE-DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR EXPENDITURES

David Lewis: Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether the expenditures for this exercise come out of the Privy Council office or the Prime Minister's office? Precisely under what umbrella are these expenditures being made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe the expenditures come from the Privy Council office. If that is not correct, I will report to the House, but I am almost certain that it is so.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I put a question to the Solicitor General who was temporarily out of the House. Is the Solicitor General now in a position to reply to my specific question concerning the fact that members of the RCMP are sometimes instructed to work more than 300 hours a month?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, in any case the overtime payment question is being examined; it requires much time precisely because we wanted to consult the RCMP. The estimates approved by Parliament provide a sum of money that will be distributed one way or another this year until we arrive at a definite system.
Inquiries of the Ministry



FURTHER ALLEGATIONS BY FORMER CORPORAL RAMSAY-MINISTER'S POSITION

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. In view of the further statement made over the weekend by ex-Corporal Ramsay in Vancouver that what was contained in the article "isn't the half of it" and:
They wouldn't let me print all that I wanted because of libel laws.
Would the minister reconsider his position and at least talk to Corporal Ramsay and get all the evidence in the case?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I think I said yesterday that my door is open; if there are any specific cases upon which they want to call my attention and which really are worth examining, I shall do so without delay.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I have a question for the Solicitor General. It arises out of questions I asked the Minister of Justice the other day in relation to his temporary release program. The parole board, which has nothing to do with it, is getting blamed. I wish to ask him again what criteria are followed when temporary release is given to dangerous sex offenders, and particularly is a report from a psychiatrist demanded before they are released?


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps my hon. friend over there needs a psychiatrist. Is a report demanded from a psychiatrist indicating that the person is now rehabilitated and it is now safe to release him into society?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister replies to the question, I hope he will be brief because the first part of the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North would appear to invite a rather lengthy statement. However, the minister will be recognized for the purpose of replying briefly to the hon. member's question.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of guidelines given by the Commissioner of the Canadian Penitentiary Service which are used to determine whether a prisoner should be paroled or not. If the hon. member never was aware of that, I will be glad to send him a copy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate the minister's full answer. I have another short question, Mr. Speaker. Was there a psychiatrist's report approving the release of Mr. Head, who was given an indeterminate sentence as a dangerous

June 27, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
sex offender, before his temporary release in the light of the fact that the parole board refused his parole?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the prisoner involved had 94 interviews with various psychiatrists over a period of five years. In other words, that prisoner has been receiving intensive treatment from our department.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have one more question, Mr. Speaker. Did the particular person in question refuse to be interviewed by a psychiatrist, and was that the reason the parole board recently refused to release him? I ask the minister how he justifies the 90 interviews to which he referred when the parole board refused his release.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously an argument.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INCREASE IN CONSULTATION MECHANISMS-BRIEF OF QUEBEC CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE-RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT SECRETARIAT

Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Last week, at their annual conference, the delegates of the Chambers of Commerce sent Premier Bourassa a resolution asking him to establish mechanisms for consultation with the federal government and Mr. Bourassa replied that he felt it was essential to increase consultation mechanisms with Ottawa-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member could ask his question without such a long preamble.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, since the Quebec premier stated that he felt it was essential to increase consultation mechanisms with Ottawa in order to avoid unnecessary tensions within federalism, would the Prime Minister indicate whether he is prepared to favour the establishment of such mechanisms?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, consultation mechanisms already exist and are used a great deal in respect of relations between the federal government and all provinces. I would be prepared, if the Chambers of Commerce are interested, to indicate to them the number of consultation mechanisms already existing. I think the record would show that we have established more of those than any previous government.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
The province of Quebec having made known its wishes concerning reopening of constitutional negotiations, is the Prime Minister in a position to indicate whether he intends to re-establish the permanent secretariat responsible for federal-provincial conferences?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the secretariat is still in existence. Only, the staff has been reduced. If the province of Quebec really wants to submit specific proposals with a view to reopening the debate and recalling federal-provincial conferences, we will consider doing so.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the meeting which was held last Friday between the Humane Society, representatives of the railroad companies and officials of the Department of Agriculture in order to determine what progress is being made in new methods of shipping cattle from western Canada to eastern Canada which will avoid severe losses such as occurred last fall. Does the minister believe the situation will be better this fall?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Of course, we can never predict precisely what the weather will be like next winter. Last year there were some unfortunate coincidences involving severe weather, the difficulty of getting cars through certain railroad terminals, and so on. We hope all of these problems can be avoided.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister discussed with the Canadian Transport Commission and the Canadian Pacific Railway the difficulties which have arisen in connection with the shipment of products from Sudbury to Chapleau in areas served solely by the CPR?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If the
subject matter is the one the hon. member and I discussed the other day, may I say that I thank him for his letter, which I received over the weekend. I have passed it to the Canadian Transport Commission with a request for a full report which I will then pass on to the hon. member.



FISHERIES


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that the lobster fishermen in District 7B were delayed for
June 27, 1972

approximately two weeks because of ice conditions at the beginning of the season, is it the intention of the department to extend the season beyond the June 30 deadline?


John (Jack) Davis: The department is looking into this matter. I will give the hon. member an answer as soon as I have made inquiries.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It has to do with the federal program of fowl slaughter now under way to improve the egg prices paid to farmers. Will the minister be making a progress report on this program by way of a statement on motions before the House rises at the end of June?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to do so. However, I can advise the House that this program will be terminated today because we have reached the objective of reducing the flock by about one million birds.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Labour arising from the labour dispute in the Port of Montreal. Since the arbitration hearings have so far been boycotted by the union, what action does the government intend to take before the recess, if the boycott continues, in order to get the Port of Montreal back into operation?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Acting Minister of Labour):: understand the judge in question has announced that he will proceed with the arbitration hearing tomorrow, if necessary on an ex-parte basis.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture concerning the policy on slaughtering fowl.
Since on June 8 the minister announced that subsidies would vary in so far as the objective would be attained within a period of eight weeks or less and since many producers of my area have not been able to claim that subsidy-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a speech when he should ask a question.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, could the minister indicate how he can grant the same benefits to producers who have not yet applied for this subsidy?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I recognize that this is a problem, but we did announce at the time the program was initiated that when the total flock had been reduced by an appropriate amount it would be terminated whether that process took four weeks, six weeks, eight weeks, or any other period. There has been a very significant improvement in egg prices and now we have reached the point in numbers at which the objective of flock reduction has been attained.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of National Defence. It concerns the two tragic deaths in the Halifax dockyard the other day. Can the minister tell us whether the inquiry, which I know must be taking place, has produced any evidence of negligence to date?
Hon. E. ]. Benson (Minister of National Defence): No,
Mr. Speaker. I have received no report on the inquiry in this case.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. ]. Benson (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, I should like to call attention to the presence in the gallery of a distinguished parliamentarian, the Minister of Defence of Norway.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-170, to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs and Motion No. 9.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?

June 27, 1972
Division


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House Divided on Motion No. 3 (Mr. Marshall) which was negatived on the following Division:
(Division No. 43)
++YEAS
Messrs:
Alexander	Lundrigan
Alkenbrack	MacDonald (Egmont)
Asselin	Maclnnis (Cape Breton-
Baldwin	East Richmond)
Barnett	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Beaudoin	MacKay
Bell	MacLean
Benjamin	Macquarrie
Bigg	McCleave
Brewin	McCutcheon
Burton	McGrath
Cadieu	McIntosh
Carter	McKinley
Danforth	McQuaid
Diefenbaker	Marshall
Dionne	Monteith
Fairweather	Muir
Flemming	Murta
Forrestall	Nesbitt
Fortin	Noble
Gauthier	Nowlan
Gilbert	Nystrom
Godin	Orlikow
Grills	Paproski
Gundlock	Peddle
Hales	Peters
Harding	Ritchie
Harkness	Rock
Hees	Rodrigue
Howe	Rowland
Knight	Rynard
Knowles	Simpson
(Winnipeg North Centre)	Southam
Knowles (Norfolk-	Stanfield
Haldimand)	Stewart (Marquette)
Lambert (Bellechasse)	Tetrault
Lambert	Thomas (Moncton)
(Edmonton West)	Thomson (Battleford-
Laprise	Kindersley)
Latulippe	Winch
Lewis	Woolliams-77.

NAYS Messrs:
Allmand Andras Badanai Barrett Bechard Beer Benson Blair Blouin Borrie Breau Buchanan Caccia Cafik Chappell Chretien Clermont Cobbe Corbin Corriveau C6td (Longueuil)
Cullen Cyr Danson Davis Deachman Deakon De Bane Drury Dupras Duquet Forest Forget Francis Gendron Gervais Gibson Gillespie Goode Goyer Gray Guay
(St. Boniface)
Guay (L6vis)
Guilbault Hellyer Hopkins
Howard (Okanagan
Boundary)
Hymmen Jamieson Jerome Kaplan Kierans Lachance Langlois Laniel La Salle


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The division is now on motion No. 9.
The House divided on motion No. 9 (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre) which was negatived on the following division.
Leblanc (Laurier)
Lefebvre
Legault
Lessard (LaSalle)
Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Lind
Loiselle
MacEachen
Mackasey
McBride
McNulty
Mahoney
Major
Marceiau
Marchand (Langelier) Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Morison
Munro
Noel
O'Connell
Olson
Osier
Otto
Ouellet
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Portelance
Pringle
Prud'homme
Richard
Robinson
Rochon
Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval)
Serre
Sharp
Smerchanski Smith (Saint-Jean) Stafford
Stewart (Cochrane)
St. Pierre
Sullivan
Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Walker
Watson
Weatherhead
Whicher
Whiting-110.
June 27, 1972

(Division No. 44)
Barnett	YEAS Messrs: Lambert (Bellechasse)
Beaudoin	Laprise
Benjamin	Latulippe
Brerwin	Lewis
Burton	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Dionne	Ny strom
Fortin	Orlikow
Gauthier	Peters
Gilbert	Rodrigue
Godin	Rowland
Harding	Tetrault
Hellyer	Thomson (Battleford-
Knight	Kindersley)
Knowles	Winch-27.
(Winnipeg North	Centre)
Alexander	NAYS Messrs: Goyer
Alkenbrack	Gray
Allmand	Grills
Andras	Guay
Asselin	(St. Boniface)
Badanai	Guay (Lgvis)
Baldwin	Guilbault
Barrett	Gundlock
Bechard	Hales
Beer	Harkness
Bell	Hees
Benson	Hopkins
Bigg	Howard (Okanagan
Blair	Boundary)
Blouin	Howe
Borrie	Hymmen
Breau	Jamieson
Buchanan	Jerome
Caccia	Kaplan
Cadieu	Kierans
Cafik	Knowles (Norfolk-
Carter	Haldimand)
Chappell	Lachance
Chretien	Lambert
Clermont	(Edmonton West)
Cobbe	Langlois
Corbin	Laniel
Corriveau	La Salle
C3tg (Longueuil)	Leblanc (Laurier)
Cullen	Lefebvre
Cyr	Legault
Danforth	Lessard (LaSalle)
Danson	Lessard
Davis	(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Deachman	Lind
De Bang	Loiselle
Diefenbaker	Lundrigan
Drury	MacDonald (Egmont)
Dupras	MacEachen
Duquet	Maclnnis (Cape Breton-
Fairweather	East Richmond)
Flemming	Mackasey
Forest	MacKay
Forget	MacLean
Forrestall	Macquarrie
Francis	McBride
Gendron	McCleave
Gervais	McCutcheon
Gibson Gillespie	McGrath McIntosh
Goode	McKinley
Division
Messrs:
McNulty	Robinson
McQuaid	Rochon
Mahoney	Rock
Major	Roy (Timmins)
Marceau	Roy (Laval)
Marchand (Langelier)	Rynard
Marchand	Serre
(Kamloops-Cariboo)	Sharp
Marshall	Simpson
Monteith	Smerchanski
Morison	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Muir	Southam
Munro	Stafford
Murta	Stanfield
Nesbitt	Stewart (Cochrane)
Noble	Stewart (Marquette)
Noel	St. Pierre
Nowlan	Sullivan
O'Connell	Thomas
Olson	(Maisonneuve-
Osier	Rosemont)
Otto	Thomas (Moncton)
Ouellet	Tolmie
Paproski	Trudeau
Peddle	Trudel
Pelletier	Turner (London East)
Penner	Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Pepin	Walker
Portelance	Watson
Pringle	Weatherhead
Prud'homme	Whicher
Richard	Whiting
Ritchie	Woolliams-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


John Carr Munro: that Bill C-170, to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave now?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: It requires unanimous consent and since there is not unanimous consent, the bill cannot be given third reading now.
Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I understood that you put the request that, by leave, we move to third reading.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair did this and it required unanimous consent. There was one member who objected. Perhaps hon. members wish me to inquire again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?

June 27, 1972
Farm Credit Act


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the no as well as I did.



FARM CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House proceded to the consideration of Bill C-5, to amend the Farm Credit Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The discussions and conferences taking place should be held outside the curtains so that we may proceed with the work of the House.
I should point out that motion No. 1 would appear to be acceptable on procedural grounds. Motion No. 2 would appear to be defective in that it would seem to insert a financial provision in the main act that is not covered in the bill that is before the House. Of course, hon. members will be given the opportunity to offer their advice to the Chair on the procedural aspects of this motion.
Section 23 of the main act relates to the making of regulations with respect to the Farm Credit Act. However, it might be better if we do not go into this aspect of the matter now, and instead proceeded with motion No. 1. Whenever we reach motion No. 2 the Chair will hear hon. members on the procedural aspects of the motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move motion No. 1 on behalf of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I would point out, however, that because of the arrangements that were made, assuming we would be proceeding with the other bill hon. members who are keenly interested in this bill are presently involved in committee proceedings. We hope they will be here for the purpose of debating this motion, but at the moment I am prepared to move it on behalf of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Baldwin, for Mr. Mazankowski, seconded by Mr. Hees, moves motion No. 1 as follows:
That Bill C-5, an act to amend the Farm Credit Act, be amended by deleting lines 8 to 15 on page 1 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"(1.1) The corporation has all the powers necessary to carry out such duties or functions in relation to the administration of any agricultural program as is assigned to it pursuant to any other act of the Parliament of Canada."


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to make a statement of any kind on this bill?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, without repeating the substance of the argument that took place on an amendment which, if not identical certainly was similar to this one in its substantive parts, was moved in committee I would

point out that such an amendment was defeated in committee.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, at this short notice, not anticipating that the bill would come up until tomorrow, I would like to attempt to explain what this motion means. Clause 1 of the bill really does not have much to do with the Farm Credit Act as such, but simply gives the governor in council any authority necessary to carry out any provisions it may wish to have carried out with respect to the small farm development program announced by the government more than a year ago.
During the committee hearings we received representations from two provincial ministers of agriculture and from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union. All these representations expressed reservations at Parliament handing the government the type of power provided in clause 1 of the bill. They contended that it was not necessary for the Farm Credit Corporation to carry out additional duties as provided in this bill through amendments to the Farm Credit Act.
The amending bill increases the amount that an individual borrower may obtain from $40,000 to $100,000. We do not quarrel with that. Many farmers are waiting for this bill to be passed so they can make use of the additional funds available and we do not quarrel with the increase in the ceiling to $100,000. In fact, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture told the committee it would like to see the ceiling raised to $250,000.
We contend that it is entirely unnecessary to put in clause 1 sweeping power to carry into effect the small farm development program, particularly when the minister and his officials are unable to give us any indication of how that program will be carried out and which farmers will be eligible. The federal government has been negotiating with the provinces in an endeavour to reach agreement on the provincial departments of agriculture supplying all the personnel to administer the program. I point out that many of the provinces already have their own programs. Ontario makes very effective use of the ARDA program, the cost of which is shared 50 per cent by the province and 50 per cent by the federal government, and the administration is carried out by the province. Ontario has some concern that the small farms development program put on top of ARDA will mean a considerable mix-up.
Some of the western provinces have also initiated their own programs, and they have been completely unable to come to agreement with the federal government on the authority that clause 1 of the bill would give to the Farm Credit Corporation. Those are the principal reasons this motion has been moved, that is, to prevent giving the governor in council a great deal of power when it does not yet know what use will be made of it.
We feel that when the small farm development program is spelled out to Parliament, hon. members might be willing to go along with this additional power. However, we do not think the power should be granted without further
June 27, 1972

explanation. That is why this amendment is moved, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-as a matter of fact, probably two points of order, but I shall deal with them both at the same time. First of all, in view of the fact that this piece of legislation is before the House unexpectedly, I wonder if word has been communicated to members who are attending a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I suspect that there may be some members attending that meeting who will be surprised and who would want to be here.
My second point of order concerns the proceedings for the rest of the day. I know, of course, that I could speak personally with the government House leader about what would take place after this, but I believe all hon. members are entitled to know what the order of business will be when we finish dealing with the farm credit legislation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that information has gone to the committee advising members that this bill is now before the House. When this bill is cleared I shall call the Canada Labour Code.


Mr. Horner:: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is all very well to advise the committee on agriculture that this bill is being discussed, but there are amendments before the House on the bill which are the result of committee study. I think the government House leader (Mr. MacEachen) should either ask the agricultural committee to suspend its sitting while this bill is being discussed in the House, so that members can participate, or he should call the Canada Labour Code and stand this bill until tomorrow.
It was my understanding that the Canadian Wheat Board would appear before the committee for today only. I might add that it was the practice in the past to study the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board each year, but today the committee must study four annual reports. I am not in any way linking the four annual reports to the term of office of the present government. I am sure it is not necessary to mention to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), who knows the prominent part that the Canadian Wheat Board plays in the welfare of Canadian farmers generally, that he might use his good offices to ask that this bill stand so that the annual reports of the Canadian Wheat Board can be dealt with.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the government whip has indicated to the chairman of the agricultural committee that this bill is now before the House. While I have no authority to suggest or demand that they suspend their hearings in order to attend in the House for the consideration of Bill C-5,1 did suggest that they could consider suspending their sitting while these two amendments were being dealt with.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, we were told this morning that the Wheat Board would stay today in Ottawa, meet with representatives of the other place tomorrow morning and then return to Winnipeg, I imagine tomorrow afternoon. If the committee proceedings this afternoon were suspended, I believe the four
Farm Credit Act
annual reports would not be adequately scrutinized. I do not think that the government House leader or the Minister of Agriculture would like to shoulder the responsibility for that important body not being fully examined, particularly when wheat, barley and oats are selling at the lowest price in history.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I agree with the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) on this point, though I seldom do agree with him. The Wheat Board report was brought before the committee and we went only once around the table for a ten-minute discussion and three or four members did not have the opportunity to ask questions. Many of us wished to put further questions to the Wheat Board this afternoon.
As the hon. member for Crowfoot pointed out, this is the first opportunity we have to look at the four reports of the Canadian Wheat Board, a body which affects every farmer in western Canada. If we are to deal with this matter in the House at a time when the committee is sitting, we should consider whether we are limiting the very important discussion that should be going on in committee with the Canadian Wheat Board as well as the very important discussion that should be going on in this House on the Farm Credit Act.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if the committee now in session wished to suspend its sittings, it could resume at five o'clock and make up the hour that would be taken of the hour and ten minutes from now until private members' hour, so both objectives could go forward at the same time without prejudice to the wheat farmer.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that we are getting into the area of diminishing returns because in the atmosphere which now prevails it is most unlikely that consent would be given to third reading of the farm credit bill today, and amendments which are not now being discussed as actively as they might be could be the subject of third reading amendments. The minister is well aware of this. The result would be the same. I am sure the minister, with that flare for compromise which marks his presence here today, would be quite prepared to agree to suspend these proceedings and go on with the Canada Labour Code.


Some hon. Members:: Why not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are not adamant about remaining on this item, but it was my understanding that we would move to it when we had completed third reading of the Family Income Security Plan. That possibility was removed by the failure of one member of the House to give unanimous consent-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On your side.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and we were obliged to move to this item. I would be quite happy to call the Canada Labour Code, but hon. members opposite may not be ready to cope with it at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: We are ready.

June 27, 1972
Farm Credit Act


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not want to create any difficulty by calling that item, but if it is agreeable and if the mover of the first amendment is ready, then I would call it and hope the minister would return to the House as quickly as possible. In the meantime, his parliamentary secretary would stand in for him.


Gerald William Baldwin: We are prepared to do that, Mr. Speaker. The member of our party who has moved the amendment is here, as would other hon. members have been had it not been for this very important meeting. I think it would be conducive to good management and would facilitate the business of the House if we were to move to the Canada Labour Code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to talk on either the farm credit bill or the Canada Labour Code, but if the switch is made to the latter I should like to reserve some rights about the order of the amendments, in view of the fact that one or two of our members are not in the chamber at this point because of the change of plan effected by a certain member on the other side of the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we could consider the Canada Labour Code.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is there unanimous consent that we not continue at this time with Bill C-5.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if the other parties are ready to proceed with the Canada Labour Code, we could proceed with it. Apparently there is some willingness to consider the Canada Labour Code. If not, we could possibly ask for third reading of the Family Income Security Plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the minister is not present.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the House is now faced with problems. I have listened most carefully to all the points of order and to the questions of procedure that have been raised.
I can understand perfectly the stand taken by the members of the committee on agriculture, especially by those interested in the Canadian Wheat Board. It is abundantly clear that the House is anxious to deal with Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Farm Credit Act, and also with the proposed amendment to that bill.
So far as we are concerned, we are willing to vote in favour of the motion to adjourn our proceedings on Bill C-5, and to revert to consideration of bill C-183, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code.
I express the hope that the last motion introduced will carry unanimously, and we are willing to vote for it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to adjourn this debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since it has been decided that we are not at present to continue consideration of the farm credit bill in view of difficulties occasioned by hon. members having to attend the agricultural committee, may I on behalf of my party ask the government House leader to assure us that after the Canada Labour Code has been dealt with the farm credit bill will be brought back to the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to give the farm credit bill high priority.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-183, to amend the Canada Labour Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: motion No. 1 as follows:
That Bill C-183, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 29 on page 1 thereof and striking out the words "Now Therefore," where they appear in line 1 on page 2 thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, one can see what happens when the government backs down from an original position and attempts to bring in legislation at the last minute. The government has had a whole year-


An hon. Member:: No, four years.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -in which to bring in this particular piece of legislation. That is irresponsible, since hon. members who may wish to debate this bill have not been given sufficient notice. Notwithstanding these difficulties, we will debate the bill since we on this side can face almost any situation. We are certainly prepared to proceed.
The purpose of this amendment is quite obvious, I think. It seeks to remove from the bill the preamble as printed. If we reflect for a moment upon the entire collective bargaining process, we will have valid reason for thinking that many people, those covered by union-management arrangements and those not so covered, question the efficacy of the collective bargaining process. I say that because the port of Montreal, in Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City no one seems to be concerned about the provisions of the Canada Labour Code as now in effect. The law, apparently, is being flouted and collective agreements are being flouted.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Apparently the government does not know what to do even though the public interest is being
June 27, 1972

adversely affected to the tune of $1 million a day. This is a conservative figure and applies to the city of Montreal. When we consider all the categories of goods and materials that must move across this country, including wheat from our western provinces, we recognize, I submit, that this type of preamble is not one that we can accept. I respectfully suggest for my party that we cannot accept the premises embodied in this preamble.
I shall read the second paragraph of the preamble. I object to sentences or words which lead to an improper conclusion with regard to the entire area of labour-management relations. The paragraph I refer to reads:
And Whereas Canadian workers, trade unions and employers recognize and support freedom of association and free collective bargaining as the bases of effective industrial relations for the determination of good working conditions and sound labour-management relations-
I take issue with the idea that freedom of association and free collective bargaining are the bases of effective industrial relations. This idea, to me, is wrong in principle. Surely it would not take one long to find an example showing that freedom of association and collective bargaining did not play any role whatever in good industrial relations and in industrial peace. I am referring specifically to Dominion Foundries and the Steel Company of Canada.
In addition, reflecting on the total problem we will realize, I submit, that this bill affects only about 538,000 employees who come under federal jurisdiction. If my memory serves me right, approximately one-third of this country's work force is involved with freedom of association clauses and collective bargaining. In other words, two-thirds of the workers of this nation are not involved with unions or with management; neither unions nor management are involved in decisions regarding industrial peace.
We take exception to this preamble. We have tried to make the bill more meaningful by indicating that freedom of association and collective bargaining in total are merely one of the facets, one of the bases, to use the language of the preamble, underlying effective industrial relations. Why could the government not say, "Although we are most zealous with respect to the entire collective bargaining process, we admit that factors other than collective bargaining can lead to industrial enlightenment and peace." Management and labour together can work together for the benefit of the entire work force. Together, unselfishly, they could work for the benefit of the entire economy of the country, bring about security of tenure under the wage structure and deal with the whole gamut of matters in which management and labour are usually involved.
For some reason, however, the government says, "We cannot allow this sort of thing because freedom of association and collective bargaining are the bases of good industrial relations." Surely upon quick reflection, and much more so on profound reflection, one cannot admit that. We say that if we are to be responsible and attempt to bring about industrial peace, which is the basis of this bill, we must start on the proper premise, and the proper premise does not allow a preamble such as this.
25319-39J
Canada Labour Code
Another objection I have to the preamble is that those who will have to deliberate, who will come before the conciliation board, the arbitration board or the Canada labour board will invariably look to the preamble for guidance. I say that this is wrong. I say that the bill should speak for itself and I see no reason for a preamble such as we have here. I know why the preamble was put in. An agreement was made between the government and the union as the result of a compromise and it was decided to put in clause 149.1 respect the action of the government in that regard. But I say, give us a break and put in a preamble indicating the worth of the collective bargaining process and freedom of association leading to industrial peace.
Let us consider where the preamble is placed. As I see it now, it is in part V of the Canada Labour Code which is the part which deals with industrial relations. I do not know whether this preamble will be in the middle or at the front of the Canada Labour Code. This will mean that when one peruses such legislation one will have to look for the preamble in order to ascertain what it is all about and the principle behind it.
I say that we must question the collective bargaining process; it does not seem to be working because labour and management have not been bargaining in good faith. Secondly, they have taken inflexible positions. Thirdly, they should make full and complete disclosure. It seems to me that the whole process should be built upon these three criteria, which at present it is not. I see the hon. member across the way smiling. I could not reach him in committee and I do not know whether I am reaching him now.
I say that so long as the collective bargaining process is as it is today-it is under severe questioning in regard to the postal strikes, the Montreal port strikes and the NABET strike-it leaves much to be desired. It is questioned to such an extent that many people are asking the government to accept public responsibility and to become involved because the collective bargaining process is breaking down. I know that the minister will have much to say about this matter, but the position of the government is that even though the collective bargaining process is breaking down, freedom of association and collective bargaining are the bases of effective industrial relations. I say they are not, because other things are involved which this preamble does not recognize.
To go further would be repetitious, Mr. Speaker, but I hope I have given sufficient reasons for the House to reach the conclusion that this type of manoeuver should be questioned because, as has been said, it is doing neither harm nor good and since this is the case it should be wiped out. I hope that when other hon. members have commented on this motion the minister will give us the reason for the preamble being included, why it is so lengthy and what he hopes to accomplish by it. Will this preamble in fact make the collective bargaining process useful? Will it improve it? I say that it will not.
I hope that hon. members understand what I say and will give credit where credit is due. This bill wipes out two-thirds of the work force, the non-unionized work force, by referring specifically to those who are unionized.

June 27, 1972
Canada Labour Code
This is supposed to be the basis for reaching industrial peace. This I refute.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) regarding the preamble of this bill. On reading it, I find that it is like motherhood: I cannot see anything wrong with it, but I agree that it does not carry much weight. It appears to be just a reiteration of what is generally accepted as being the requirement of collective bargaining and the right to free association. Therefore, I wonder if the hon. member would not be prepared to accept an amendment which would put this into clause 1 instead of removing the preamble. I have been unable to understand why the hon. member wishes to remove it.
One of the problems we have in Canada today is that the government is involved in this legislation to the extent of about half a million employees out of a total of five million organized workers in the country who are involved in collective bargaining. This means that 10 per cent are in government service. One of the difficulties we are having, not only in terms of what is happening in the federal government but in provincial and municipal governments, is that in most cases a new principle must be stated in the preamble which would allow collective bargaining in the government services, because to all intents and purposes it is non-existent on the municipal, provincial or federal level.
In any negotiation the two parties should bargain in good faith, eyeball to eyeball. Certainly no negotiations carried on with the federal Treasury Board are eyeball to eyeball. In most cases when difficulties arise, in the final analysis the cabinet intervenes and makes a decision which in the first place should have been reached through the collective bargaining process. This is true also in the municipal field, and one of the charges that is being levelled is that there has been a failure in negotiations between management and labour as a result of which there have been many strikes, particularly in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver resulting, in some cases, in garbage piling up higher and higher day by day. In these cases negotiations have continued until a crisis situation has been reached and a strike has taken place.
We should strengthen the preamble of the bill and adapt it to modern needs. The power given to the minister to intervene, through a mediator, at an early stage in negotiations which involve the public interest will go some way toward meeting one of the problems which face us. So far, the public seems to have been left out; they appear to have no say in collective bargaining, though the result may affect them in many ways. My own view is that authority for the intervention of a mediator should be set out in one of the operative clauses of the bill.
I do not know why the committee decided to delete the preamble. The purpose would probably be better served if it were strengthened and if supplementary provisions were written into the body of the legislation. Lawyers, it has been said, have never found themselves able to interpret the preamble of a bill as having any legal force, anyway.

There should be contained in the legislation and referred to in the preamble a provision obliging both parties in dispute in the public service sector to negotiate in a meaningful way toward the compromise which is normally reached when two parties arrive at a contract. But the government has failed to negotiate in good faith with its employees in any of the major conflicts which have developed in recent years. They failed to negotiate honestly with the air traffic controllers, for example, or with the postal employees. Nor were negotiations in good faith carried out with the striking government employees in Quebec.
At yet another level, no meaningful bargaining took place between elected representatives and the strikers in major cities demanding a better reward for garbage collection. A similar situation has arisen in Ontario where the hydro dispute is still in progress. The workers are, in fact, not negotiating with anybody. It is true they have held meetings with officials, but those officials are not empowered to make decisions in the absence of further consultation.
In most cases it is only after a long and damaging strike that negotiations eventually take place between the workers and people who until then have not been involved in the negotiations in any way. It is not sufficient to deal with departmental heads. There are limits beyond which they cannot go, and as soon as they have made their counterproposals to union demands the negotiations have been completed as far as they are concerned.
I would be prepared to move that this preamble be included in clause 1 of the bill and that additional amendments be submitted to the minister, or by the minister to eliminate deficiencies in the negotiating process of which the hon. gentleman is surely aware. If the mediator who is appointed under this legislation to sit in on the negotiations is a man of any calibre at all, he will advise the minister that the heads of government departments and agencies are not carrying on meaningful negotiations and that changes must be made. The general public is aware that in most of the major strikes recently in the public service, the employees, whether municipal, provincial or federal, have not received an adequate response to their proposals and that meaningful negotiations have not, in fact, taken place.
I strongly urge the minister to make the changes which he, together with almost every Canadian who reads the newspapers, knows to be necessary. In the absence of such changes untold hardship is being caused both to workers and to the general public. The object should be to give a fair deal to the half-million citizens who must negotiate through the type of legislation which is before us and who give leadership to another four million who negotiate with boards, agencies and corporations in which the public has an indirect degree of ownership.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with one particular matter in speaking to the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I wish to encourage the Department of Labour and the government generally to broaden their vision and see that Canadian working conditions and standards are adhered to in the coastal waters of Canada. My reference will be to the Commonwealth Mer-
June 27, 1972

chant Shipping Agreement as it relates to collective bargaining and living conditions on vessels which operate in coastal waters. The ship I have in mind sails between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, but other ports are affected as well.
The British Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement received support from this chamber on June 8,1934, a day otherwise marked by the fact that one Mitchell Hepburn resigned from the chamber. Mr. Manion asked, "Where does he go from here?" and Mr. Hanbury replied, "He is going to be the next premier of Ontario". That forecast was an exact one. Then followed a couple of private bills, and then the debate on the Canada Shipping Act, which is found at page 3812 and subsequent pages of Hansard of that date.
The Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement was a replacement, thanks to the Statute of Westminster, of British statutes that formerly had some application in Canada. In other words, this was an important measure in the Canadian process of growing up as a nation. The Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement was signed by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland and laid down the main lines along which legislation should be enacted in the different dominions.
There are ten parts to the agreement, dealing with common statutes in ownerships, uniform standards of safety, extraterritorial operation of laws, equal treatment for all ships registered in the British Commonwealth, internal discipline, engagement and discharge of seamen, standards of qualification for officers, shipping inquiries and courts, relief and repatriation of seamen, offences on board ship, and general provisions related to the implementation of the agreement. The agreement also provided that changes could be made to it, but oddly enough only one change has been made to the agreement, and that at the instance of Canada about ten years ago. However, the change is not relevant to the argument that I should like to make. The library of Parliament has provided me with the information I have so far given the House.
On looking at the Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement one finds that under part III, which deals with the extraterritorial operation of laws, article 9 provides:
Save as otherwise specially provided in this agreement, the laws relating to merchant shipping in force in one part of the Commonwealth shall not be made to apply with extraterritorial effect to ships registered in another part unless the consent of that other part of the Commonwealth has been previously obtained:-
Provided that nothing contained in this article shall be deemed to restrict the power of each part of the Commonwealth to regulate the coasting trade, sea fisheries and fishing industry of that part.
What I have read so far is an enumeration of the matters covered by the Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement. One will readily note that, viewed from the standards applicable today, the agreement is remarkably silent in that nowhere does it mention wages and other benefits to which people working in Canada are accustomed nowadays. For example, workers are accustomed today to being paid reasonable amounts. They are accus-
Canada Labour Code
tomed to receiving reasonable holidays. They are accustomed to such reasonable fringe benefits as workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance in the event they are laid off, and so on. But those who drew up the Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement predated the present era and that agreement is remarkably silent on such matters.
My intervention in this debate will be a very brief but I think important one. It is to point out to the minister that there are ships in our waters manned by crews that are not used to the same standards of living as Canadian workers. I can supply the names of the countries from which these crews come, but I think that might give some colour to my speech that I certainly do not intend. What I am more interested in is to see that, wherever they come from, since these people, in effect, work in Canada and visit Canadian ports-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member whether he is able to satisfy the Chair that his remarks are relevant to motion No. 1 now before the chamber. If the hon. member would so indicate, I would be pleased to hear him.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I understand that motion No. 1 deals with the preamble to the bill, which lays out the entire purpose of this legislation. The point I am trying to make to the minister is that in envisaging how this measure will be applied, he stop not at the coastal boundaries of Canada but also consider how ships operating within the Canadian coastal trade are living up to Canadian labour law or, rather, through some technicality are trying to get around Canadian labour law.
If my remarks are considered in order, Mr. Speaker, I can put my argument very briefly. I was pointing out that under the Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement there is nothing to restrict the application by the Canadian Department of Labour of Canadian standards of wages and working conditions to those who man ships registered under the Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement, seamen who are paid wages vastly different from those that any Canadian seaman worth his salt would put up with. This is my request to the minister. I think I have founded my argument sufficiently, and when the minister replies would he say whether his department will look at this particular situation.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I think it is useful to include a preamble such as this in the bill. I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and I must confess that his reasoning with regard to why the preamble should be omitted from the bill escaped me. I think it is very useful to have in the preamble to the bill a reference to the past history of labour legislation in Canada.
There may be some dispute about the facts of the matter as stated in the first paragraph of the preamble. Whatever be the adequacy of legislation in terms of encouraging the free collective bargaining process and the constructive settlement of disputes, as the first paragraph states, there may be some argument whether this process has always been carried through. Nevertheless,

June 27, 1972
Canada Labour Code
there has been a history of attempts to make progress in this direction.
The second paragraph of the preamble states that Canadian workers, trade unions and employers recognize and support freedom of association and free collective bargaining as the bases of effective industrial relations for the determination of good working conditions and sound labour-management relations. I think it is useful to include that paragraph in the preamble. Again, there may be some argument about the facts of the matter; certainly some of the correspondence that I receive from employers indicates that that is not their point of view. Many employers do accept this principle, but I am sure the minister and hon. members will agree there are some who do not, which makes it all the more important that in enacting a piece of legislation such as this there be set forth very clearly the basic premise and principle upon which the legislation is based.
The third paragraph links the action we are taking through the vehicle of this bill with the conventions of the International Labour Organization, and I submit this recognition is very important. The fourth paragraph refers to the necessity of encouraging and developing further legislation toward the ends described. I think all this is very good and useful, but there are a couple of points which deserve further consideration. It is very useful to have this sort of statement set out in the bill. I do not question the motivation of those who want to remove it, but the only possible motivation that makes sense to me is a desire to weaken the legislation and the effectiveness of the labour code as it may be enacted by this Parliament.
The first point of concern to me is that in looking at the structure of this bill I find that the preamble is nothing more than that-a preamble to the bill. It does not establish clearly that it will be a preamble to the act or any part of the act. The operative portion of the bill commences at the end of the preamble, or after the portion which the amendment would delete. So there seems to be a very real question which the minister should clear up, that is, whether the preamble as contained in the bill will find its way into any consolidation of the act that is printed or into the revisions of the act when it is again revised. Will it be considered an integral part of the Canada Labour Code as amended by this bill? That is an important point for clarification.
There is another point which I think should be considered. It was raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) who pointed out that there have been discussions about the preamble and asked whether it is in fact to be part of the act. The suggestion has been made that a preamble in many instances is sort of a "motherhood" statement. I do not wish to trespass in the area of the law because that is not my field of expertise. I know the minister had the assistance of very competent and able draftsmen and other experts in preparing this bill. Certainly I do not want to take away from their skills in any way. Nevertheless, there are some questions that need answers.
When the foreign takeovers review bill was before the committee on finance, of which I am a member, there were some discussions about a particular clause. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am relating my remarks to the amendment now under consideration. In the foreign takeovers review bill clause 2 sets out the purposes of the legislation and it is nothing more nor less than a preamble which indicates what the bill is about and why it is being enacted. When the bill was before the committee there was some question as to why it was not a preamble. At that time the legal advisers who appeared before the committee stated that a preamble does not have any effect in law, and that there are a number of important cases which show that a preamble is not taken into account in deciding a case before the courts.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: But they look at them.


John Stratford Burton: They may look at them, but as I understand the situation a preamble does not have any bearing on the decision in a case. The judge looks at the sections of the act under consideration. That is what has to be taken into account. It was pointed out that when you have a statement in a clause of a bill which sets out the purpose of the legislation, then legal precedents support the argument for taking such statement into account. In fact, if a statement similar to the one contained in this preamble is set out in a section describing the purpose of the act, when a case comes before the courts the judge must take account of that section. It seems to me that this matter deserves further consideration.
The suggestion of the hon. member for Timiskaming, that in fact it would be desirable to amend this preamble in such a way that it would be included as a clause of the bill or as part of the act should be given further thought by the government. It should be included at a suitable place in order that it would have greater effect than would appear to be the case in the manner in which it has been incorporated in this bill. I hope these two points receive further consideration by the minister, and I hope he will comment on them.
One further reason for having a statement in the bill such as is contained in this preamble, either in the form it is now or in the form of a separate clause, is that it would be a reminder to the government that it needs to pull itself up by its own bootstraps in conducting labour relations in a more effective, open and efficient way than it has done to the present time. If we are to have free collective bargaining operating as it should, and as stated in this preamble, the government should set out something of an example rather than carrying on the kind of negotiations it conducts at this time.
When the government often makes completely meaningless offers, and in some cases no offers at all, to employers carrying on negotiations it cannot expect a piece of legislation such as this to operate in an effective manner across the country. If this bill is to mean anything, the government itself must show some leadership and create a better record than it has in carrying on relationships with public employees. I hope this point receives consideration by the government.
I have not entered the debate on amendments to the labour code up to this point, but I want to indicate very

June 27, 1972

clearly that I support the efforts made to improve the process of collective bargaining. I accept the principle of free collective bargaining in carrying on labour-management relations. In my own constituency of Regina East there exist many collective bargaining agreements, some of which come under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Labour and others under the jurisdiction of the department of labour of the province of Saskatchewan.
There has been a long history of peaceful and amicable relationships between employers and employees in Saskatchewan and negotiations have been carried on in good faith. It seems to me we must assure a greater degree of acceptance by the public of the principles stated in this preamble, by employers, members of trade unions and other workers. Certainly members of trade unions accept this principle, but we need greater acceptance by some employers.
As I indicated previously, many employers do not accept these principles and do not operate on the basis of good faith. If we are to experience an improvement in industrial relations in Canada we must move in the direction suggested by this bill. Surely the proposals and questions I have raised should receive consideration by the minister. I hope they will lead to further improvement in the legislation, resulting in a better labour code for Canada.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly of the proposed amendment. When Bill C-183 first made its appearance as the successor of Bill C-253, one of the most noticeable differences was that the new bill contained a preamble not found in the original bill. I immediately asked myself why there was this departure from normal procedure and what was the purpose of the preamble. After reading the preamble I still could not find a valid reason; I could not understand any purpose to be accomplished by the preamble. It began to become self-evident that the only reason for its inclusion was as a half-hearted response to the recommendations of the Woods task force that the government make some definite commitment on the side of the collective bargaining system.
It is interesting to note that the Woods Report certainly gives half-hearted endorsation to the bargaining process. The report stated, in effect, that while the present system has many limitations and shortcomings, it is necessary and the best thing available at the present time. In an interesting aside, however, the report indicated that the present system has already tended to complicate the attainment of some of the country's goals. I believe it is obvious that what the task force was referring to was that, even though there is a general acceptance that the collective bargaining process is good and probably the best system so far designed, there is a growing disenchantment with the process as used by management, labour and government. The fact is there is an increasing feeling in the country that what should probably be of primary concern, the public interest, is being completely overlooked in the collective bargaining process as we see it practised today.
Canada Labour Code
Previous speakers have referred to the delinquencies of bargaining agencies of the government, and the fact that many accusations have been hurled at the Treasury Board about their lack of good faith in bargaining. It seems to me, from the little I know of collective bargaining, that it breaks down completely unless there is good faith on the part of the parties involved. I would think, therefore, if the preamble was intended to strengthen the collective bargaining process there should have been something in the preamble or the bill itself to achieve this purpose. In reading through the many briefs the one which struck me particularly was that presented by Bell Canada. I thought the statement on the preamble was very good. I should like to read it into the record:
I find the preamble excessively positive when it proclaims the universal acceptance of freedom of association and free collective bargaining as the-
The word "the" is underlined.
-basis of industrial relations for the determination of good working conditions and sound labour-management relations. While this company and its employees are committed to collective bargaining, a very substantial portion of the work force is not so committed, and the public is becoming increasingly disenchanted with the impact of widespread strikes. I believe Canada's best interests would be better served if all concerned parties concentrated on improving an imperfect system rather than extending its scope.
One of the things that disturbed me and other members of the committee as we listened to the various presentations was that it became very evident that there is a growing distrust between labour and management. I felt we had been making considerable progress in the mechanics of labour-management relations and it was very upsetting to discover that the old cat-and-mouse game was still being played. Labour did not trust management, and vice versa.
The employers felt that the provisions in the bill regarding technical change were tough and would tend to handicap management in negotiations with employees. On the other hand, employees said these provisions should be tougher. In effect they said, "We don't trust the employer. He will not operate with the interests of his employees at heart." Therefore, it seems to me that if this preamble is to be of any use it must have something in it that will improve the present system of bargaining. The preamble presently refers to the act but it sets out something that really is not in the act. The last paragraph of the preamble reads:
And Whereas the Parliament of Canada desires to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their co-operative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices, and deems the development of good industrial relations to be in the best interests of Canada in ensuring a just share of the fruits of progress to all-
Then we go into the body of the bill. To me that paragraph would imply that this legislation is introducing something new to improve the collective bargaining process, and that that process should be sustained as the best method of settling disputes. But many of the people who appeared before the committee took the opposite viewpoint. They said that this bill, instead of improving relations between the two parties, would tend to worsen them. I have mentioned a couple of the provisions to which they

June 27, 1972
Canada Labour Code
referred, such as that dealing with technological change, the clause regarding supervision and the broadening of the legislation to include many more people.
They said that these provisions, instead of making it easier to bargain in good faith, would worsen the already deteriorating relations between employer and employee. Therefore I would say that the preamble, if it is intended as the government's wholehearted endorsation of the collective bargaining process, does not do what it is intended to do. Even though collective bargaining is probably the best means we have of settling disputes between the two sides, the process depends on the good faith of the negotiating parties. I believe that at the present stage of the game there is a third party which should be involved in collective bargaining but which in most cases is completely ignored.
So many strikes have such far reaching effects on the public that I believe the public must become a third party to the collective bargaining process. It should no longer simply be a matter of employer and employee trying to divide up the spoils between them. The public must be considered. Therefore I believe there should be something in the preamble, or in the body of the bill, setting out the government's position on how the public interest should be looked after in cases of employer and employee disputes.
I feel that the present preamble is unnecessary. It does not accomplish anything; in fact, the wording in certain parts of it may tend to worsen relations between employer and employee. Therefore I feel that the amendment should be supported and that the preamble should be deleted from the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, colleagues of mine who have preceded me have made it clear that we are not opposed to the language that is contained in the preamble. Granted, it is largely language, but like motherhood it has our support. However, we feel that if the declarations in the preamble to the bill are to have any value, they should be contained in the bill itself. Everyone present knows that we got catapulted into this debate rather unexpectedly, and instead of some roaming around in the library as I had hoped to be able to do in the next day or so, I had to do that rather hurriedly in the last half hour.
I find there are at least two interesting examples which I should draw to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) in the hope that he will find his way clear to follow them. Perhaps I had better do this before somebody else draws attention to it, Mr. Speaker. I should admit that these are pieces of legislation, one of which was brought in by the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, and the other by the Hon. Judy LaMarsh, but even those two former ministers had to be right once in a while.
In the case of the National Transportation Act which was brought in by the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill there was included what amounts to a preamble but which was cast in the form of a declaration of principles. If one looks at the annual statutes for 1966-67, chapter 69, he will find that section 1 starts:
It is hereby declared-

Then much wording follows, which is obviously the language of a preamble. The point I wish to make is that that was put in as section 1 of the act and is therefore in the act after the words:
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows-
In other words, it is legislation. I also looked into the Revised Statutes of 1970 to see what happened to this piece of legislation and I found that the only change that the revising officers made was to make what was section 1 of the act, as passed in the House, section 3 of the act as contained in the Revised Statutes.
In a moment I shall give another example. I point out now that in the other example the declaration also was transferred and made section 3. Without doing any great amount of research, I think the answer is quite clear, namely, that the revising officers sought to establish some consistency with respect to laws which they put into the Revised Statutes, and their pattern seems to be that section 1 is the title of the act, section 2 is the interpretation section which gives the various definitions and then, where there is a declaration of principles, it appears as section 3.
The other example is the Broadcasting Act which was passed in the 1967-68 session. There, again, one finds at that time as section 2, "It is hereby declared that..." Then there follow lettered paragraphs down to and including (j). Again, these were in the nature of a preamble, but they were section 2 of the act and therefore they are part of the legislation, with legislative effect. Again the change that was made by the revising officers was to make section 2 of the act, as passed by Parliament, section 3 in the Revised Statutes. Again I suggest that that is simply because of a consistent pattern obviously sought by the commissioners.
A while ago the Minister of Labour did not know the answer to a question put to him by one of my colleagues, but I think the answer is quite clear, that words which are just preamble will disappear when the act gets into the Statutes of Canada. After all, all we do when we pass an act is to enact what follows after the words "Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows."
I therefore suggest that if this bill stays as it is, the words that are there by way of preamble will disappear when the bill becomes an act in the Statutes of Canada. Certainly, if they do not disappear in the annual statutes they will disappear when they get into the next revision, whenever that takes place.
One is always wise, in this kind of presentation, to look for any exceptions that test the rule or any exceptions that the other side might throw at you. Accordingly, I looked up the Canadian Bill of Rights to see what had happened in that case. As hon. members will recall, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) was minister of justice and tabled the Revised Statutes of Canada for 1970, he pointed out that the Canadian Bill of Rights was being put in a special category. That means that it takes a little looking to find it. But at least I found it. And I now find it is five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
June 27, 1972



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the following questions will be raised tonight at the time of adjournment: the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-Textiles; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)- Consumer Affairs-Increase in Cost of Food; the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):-Pensions-Old Age Security.

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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond Delta) moved: that Bill C-12, to provide for the establishment of an environmental council of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
He said: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that during the third session of this Parliament I introduced a bill very similar to the one we Eire discussing today. That bill was debated in the House on December 10,1971.
The bill which I bring before you this afternoon has been strengthened and clarified as the result of some of the constructive criticism encountered in the previous debate. The principle, nevertheless, remains the same, an independent environmentEil council of Canada must be established. In general, it must advise and recommend the means by which Canada can achieve the highest standards of environmental quality Eind the lowest levels of pollution. In particular, it must assess the medium-term and long-term prospects for the Canadian environment. It must consider all means of improving our environment. It must advise government what policies will best help to attain and maintain a pollution free environment. It must study the economic impact of environmental policies and devise means of diminishing any negative aspects of this impact. It must encourage consultation eind co-operation on environmental matters between Eill segments and sectors of our society. Furthermore, and perhaps most important, it must have the authority to make its findings and recommendations public and let the chips fall where they may.
Some persons, Mr. Speaker, will ask why I proceeded with this bill when the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Environmental Council of Canada
Davis) has Eilready announced establishment of the Canadian EnvironmentEil Advisory Council, which held its first meeting on 10 May. The answer to that is simple. The advisory council is ultimately responsible to the minister. The members of the advisory council are appointed by him. No matter how much the minister may protest that the body he has set up is independent, there will always remain a lingering doubt about its objectivity. What is more, there is no provision for the minister's advisory body to make their recommendations public. They report to him and him alone.
Speaking in the House on March 21, 1972, the Minister of the Environment stated that he personally did not see the need for an independent environmental council "whose advice is not necessEirily practical under the circumstances". I recall, Mr. Speaker, that somewhat the same charge was levelled about a year ago at the Economic Council of Canada. It was suggested then that the council's goals were unreasonable or idealistic because the economy had not measured up to them. The reply at that time by the retiring chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, Mr. Arthur J. R. Smith, was this:
The council has deliberately refused to accept the view that poor actual progress toward higher standards of economic performance should per se be accepted as a reason for lowering its sights on the objectives toward which we should, as a nation, seek to strive over the medium term future-
Likewise, Mr. Speaker, I submit that too much emphasis on the so-called practicalities of the antipollution struggle could result in a tendency to lower our standards' when we should be raising them. It could, in fact, be used as an excuse for inaction.
In the House last December, I expressed my strongly held view as follows:
There is always a place for independent evaluation of existing governmental policies and practices. An over-all view is necessary because of the natural tendency of those who have been involved in the creation and administration of policy to lose the ability to assess objectively the effectiveness of those policies. They tend to become blind to the need for new departures. The Economic Council has sought to satisfy such a need in the area of economic policy. An environmental council would do the same in the field of ecology. Being independent, the environmental council would be in a position to freely criticize government policy, should this be necessary, and bring new views concerning general or particular policies and programs to the attention of those who must bear the ultimate political responsibility for them.
As the bulletin of the Canadian Wildlife Federation pointed out last yeEir, Mr. Speaker, no matter what merit the minister's Canadian Environmental Advisory Council might have:
-it would be no substitute for an independent environmental council studying issues much broader than the responsibilities of any one department of government and reporting publicly on its findings and recommendations.
The movement for the establishment of a truly independent environmental council of Canada has widespread support. Amongst the supporters are the Science Council of Canada, the New Democratic Party, the Progessive Conservative party and the Liberal party of Canada.
In its report entitled "This Land is Their Land", the Science Council called for the establishment of an environmental council of Canada to:
3568

June 27, 1972
Environmental Council of Canada
-conduct and publish studies and forecasts of environmental problems in Canada, and make analytical reviews of environmental questions which are the subject of public interest. It should strive to become a major source of informed opinion on environmental problems.
The New Democratic Party spokesman on environmental matters, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), has many times stated his party's support for the setting up of an environmental council of Canada. I believe the most recent occasion was in this House on March 21, 1972, when he said:
The function of the council would be to report on environmental affairs and to give guidance to both the government and the general public on all environmental problems. It would be a nonpolitical organization, with adequate facilities to do a thorough job in the whole field of the environment. The establishment of such a council is long overdue and would be welcomed by Canadians generally.
The Progressive Conservative party, too, supports the proposals. An official background paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada on December 5-7, 1971, states that such a council is needed:
-to advise the Canadian government and Parliament and the Canadian public about particular environmental matters and to recommend on a continuing basis both specific short term and long term measures for pollution abatement.
In taking this stand, the Conservatives were following the lead of the 1970 policy conference of the Liberal party of Canada which overwhelmingly voted for a resolution urging the government to:
-establish an independent National Council of Environmental Quality, representative of a broad spectrum of interests, to analyse environmental problems and the government's response, to recommend environmental objectives for Canada and policies necessary to achieve them and to report annually on the state of our environment.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation in which the measure which I am presenting today has the support of the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative party, and the Liberal party of Canada. It is difficult to see how opposition to this measure could arise this afternoon. The people of Canada will be watching closely. It is not enough to refer to the achievements of Stockholm, although they were many and the Canadian delegation played an outstanding role. It is not enough to list the antipollution measures enacted by this government, even though we have done more in four years than has been done in the past 100 years. We cannot-we must not- allow ourselves the luxury of basking in the glow of past accomplishments. We must continue to advance in the battle for an unpolluted environment. Mr. Speaker, the passage of this bill can provide one important step in that advance.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that he is not occupying his own seat. He would have to move a few feet closer to the chair if he wishes to continue his remarks.


William Marvin Howe: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but these seats in the front row are a little confusing. I congratulate the hon. member for bringing forward this matter. A great many experts and people knowledgeable in the field of the environment warn us that not much time is left unless we come to very serious grips with this problem.
I want to speak about two particular areas. I feel that an environmental council such as is proposed could have done much good last year when the government brought before this House the clean water bill. At that time we asked the government to retain the formula that had been included in the Navigable Waters Protection Act whereby dams and projects involving conservation areas were dealt with in a certain manner. The cost was split three ways.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Mar-chand) earlier today asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) if his department could assist in the building of further dams and dykes in order to prevent more flooding of rivers in the hon. member's constituency. If the former piece of legislation had been in force, the formula would have been available and could have been used. If an independent environmental council had been in existence last year when this House was considering the clean water bill, it could have given advice on matters such as that raised by the hon. member and it would not be necessary for every problem involving water to give rise to negotiations. We ought to have retained in the clean water legislation the formula included in the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Let me refer to the Grand River conservation program which is now in effect and has been for the past few years. A new program is coming forward which involves the Speed River that flows to Guelph. It is absolutely necessary for the program to be undertaken; however, the province and local municipalities must pay the total cost. Because the Grand River eventually flows to the St. Lawrence Seaway, I maintain that the federal government ought to pay 37.5 per cent of the cost of the new conservation program which is absolutely necessary on the Grand River.
I wish to raise another important point. I refer to the government's decision with regard to the second international airport at Toronto. If an environmental council of Canada had been established when the airport was first being considered, it could have advised the government. Being an independent body, it could have told the government that there is good farmland in the area of the proposed airport. It could have said that the airport would create only an asphalt desert, and there are too many such deserts particularly in southern Ontario.
An independent environmental council which both the province and the federal government could consult on problems of this kind might give rise to better decisions. Instead of suggesting that the airport be at Pickering, it might have suggested that it be built in Amaranth township, near Orangeville, where the farmland perhaps is not as good as in Pickering township. We talk about pollution and preach about anti-pollution measures yet, we do not


do as we say; we make decisions such as this which will affect the Toronto area.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East):: Mr. Speaker, in beginning my remarks on Bill C-12 I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) for bringing forward this matter. The explanatory note of the bill says that the purpose of the bill is the establishment of an environmental council of Canada which would be charged with the responsibility of advising and recommending the means by which Canada can achieve the highest possible standards of environmental quality and the lowest possible levels of pollution. When we think of pollution of the environment, we think of the air and emphasize forestry, land and water. The end result about which we are concerned is the quality of life of the people themselves.
About one year ago the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta introduced Bill C-25. That was during the third session of this Parliament. That bill sought to establish a Canadian environment week during October. The bill was considered by the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works which I chaired. It was indeed a pleasure to co-operate with the hon. member at that time.


Robert Jardine McCleave: He is a good boy.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I enjoyed the co-operation of the opposition, including that of the hori. member who said the hon. member is a good boy. I must emphasize one thing when we talk about national parks and the cleaning up of the major water basins of this country. Some time ago this House passed the Canada Water Act. Mr. Speaker, I will continue speaking on this subject until we get some action.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: There must be additional funds for the cleaning up of our water basins. What the Canada Water Act says is good. It is one of our best pieces of legislation. However, something must be done in addition to what the act prescribes. The act says that the polluter must pay. As I said before, in many areas of this country the polluter no longer exist, but pollution remains. Therefore, it behooves the various levels of government of this country to come forward with funds to assist in the cleaning up of the environment and to allow the citizens of Canada to enjoy a better quality of life.
I wish to speak specifically of water basins which are covered by the Canada Water Act. This subject is pertinent in discussing the bill before us. There are, in many of the water basins of Canada, deadheads; they are leftovers from the old logging drives of the past 125 to 150 years. We are looking back in Canadian history. The Ottawa River is a perfect example of what I mean. Many hon. members of this House have asked questions about pollution of the Ottawa River emanating from the E. B. Eddy Company across the river. Yet I have not heard many questions or speeches in this House that deal with the hundreds of miles of river beyond Ottawa.
Few in this House have dealt with the hundreds of miles of waterways in this country which could be developed
Environmental Council of Canada
into excellent tourist areas. Some groups are interested in lifting logs out of our rivers. These logs could be used for commercial purposes. To back up my statement, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I know of a small group of people who lifted a birch log out of the river. Obviously, it was to have been used for the manufacture of birch veneer 86 years ago. It turned out to be a very profitable piece of timber for it produced, I think, 1,000 board feet of lumber. Normally about 20 logs would be needed for such a quantity.
This program is not being backed at the present time by any government department. I contend that funds ought to be allocated, either through the Department of the Environment and Fisheries or through the Department of Manpower and Immigration under its manpower programs, for assisting companies to begin operations on such waterways in order that we may clear them and promote the tourist and recreational industries of Canada.
Why should there be government assistance for such programs? The answer is very simple. It takes a large amount of capital to start a company which could operate in this area. First, it would need to buy equipment and hire men, and even though men might be paid $100 a week it would still take time to lift these large logs out of the water and transport them to sawmills or veneer plants and manufacture them into wood products. Then, these products are shipped to the market and the company has to wait 30 or 60 days to realize a return on its capital. During that time there are wage and operating costs to meet. This has proven to be a helpful measure, and once these companies are on their feet they can operate on their own.
If we are going to discuss the environment, we should give serious consideration to cleaning up our waterways. We talk a lot about pollutants from various chemical substances, but there are certainly more practical things that have to be done on our waterways. As well as improving the quality of life by cleaning up our waterways, we should create parks. Many people can get very emotional about this, but we must approach this idea rationally, without emotionalism. We must go about it in a factual and well-planned manner.
You will recall that about three years ago there was a Sunday night CBC program which alleged that Algonquin Park in the upper Ottawa valley was being raped and destroyed by the forest based operators in that area. I personally visited that area and the local people took me to the spot where the CBC had their cameras set up, which was in the bottom of an old gravel pit that J. R. Booth dug some time in the 1880's or 1890's to supply gravel for the bed of his railway line through Algonquin Park. I also found out that the producer of the program was the past president and director of the Audubon Society of Canada and a former employee of the CBC. The people of Canada deserve something better than this if they are to contribute to the costs of such programs. If we want to promote the improvement of the environment in Canada let us put the facts before the Canadian people, not our personal, biased views.
25319-40J

June 27, 1972
Environmental Council of Canada
During the past several months a group in the district of Nipissing, and in the county of Timiskaming on the Quebec side of the river, have been working strenuously toward creating Canada's first interprovincial national park. This park would be located between Mattawa, Ontario and Timiskaming, Quebec. Before the national parks people in the department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can complete this project they must have approval from both the provinces, Quebec and Ontario. We brought this idea into focus for another reason. As Canada's first interprovincial national park, it would be a unifying force between the two most populated regions in Canada. Since the park would be located on both sides of the border between the two provinces, it would automatically attract people from the large urban areas in the southern part of both Quebec and Ontario, as well as other people right across Canada. It would be a mistake to create a park on one side of the river only. I want to see this done on an interprovincial scale.
This park would be the first interprovincial park in Canada where people of various ethnic origins could meet together on camping grounds and recreational sites, thus getting to know one another in an atmosphere of leisure rather than in the atmosphere of confrontation which so frequently appears in newspapers, on television and through other media. A group of people rented a railway passenger car, attached it to the back of a freight train leaving Mattawa and invited both federal and provincial officials as well as people from Quebec to go to the town of Timiskaming. From there they went back by bus to the Ontario side, to Mattawa. This took place on Thursday, May 18. On May 19, we chartered two aircraft from the North Bay airport and gave these people a complete tour of the area on both sides of the Ottawa river where the park is to be located. Everyone agreed that this was an excellent project. Now, I call upon the provinces and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to get together and make this a reality. My remarks on this park project are very closely related to the remarks I was making at the beginning because the Ottawa river, which is one of the river basins listed under the regulations of the Canada Water Act, flows right through this proposed national park.
There is another aspect of this project which we should consider seriously if we are really interested in a good environment for our people, and it does not rest entirely on the shoulders of the federal government any more than does the creation of a national park. I have always felt that we have not made enough use of the ARDA program which involves local, provincial and federal governments. We have large areas of land in this country which are presently being farmed. The farms are marginal or less than marginal. It would be of far greater benefit to the future forest-based resources of this country if we could bring about ARDA agreements between the local, provincial and federal governments to start a massive reforestation program. This would also have an effect on the human environment in that area.
There are idealists who feel that you can take people off farms in this country, enroll them in adult training courses and train them to adapt to a new way of life in an urban, industrial society. I think it has been proven time and time again that this is impractical because it is very

difficult to convert these people, who are used to the great outdoors and to living in a clean environment, to an urban life and expect them to be contented. If this program were to be pushed to the limit, it would create social problems and injustices rather than be of advantage to these people. However, through ARDA programs we can bring about the rejuvenation of the areas in which these people live. I am referring to people who make perhaps $1,200 or $1,500 a year from their farms and barely exist. If we can reforest such areas through ARDA agreements and hire local people to do the work, we will not only be doing them a service but we will be doing the future generations in Canada a service by improving our forest-based resources for which Canada has become so famous.
Recently, I had occasion to visit the Black Forest area in Germany which is about 15 miles wide and 60 miles long. Here is a perfect example of the forest industry and tourist and recreation business living side by side. I do not agree that it is impossible for industry, recreation, tourism and conservation to be tied in together. With good planning this could be done.
We often hear it said that there ought to be no roadways through our parks. Well, there are 1.6 million old age pensioners in this country who have retired and who wish to enjoy their leisure. Is it fair to them to say, "I want to carry my canoe through this territory and I do not want any roads built there"? Is it fair to leave these 1.6 million people standing by, looking at a wonderful tourist area which they cannot enter? We could block out areas suitable for them. We could block out areas suitable for those who want untouched forest territory, completely deserted areas through which they could travel in their canoes if they wished. By approaching the question in a rational rather than an emotional manner we could learn to live together.
I read an interesting article on idealism the other day. It said, among other things, that ideally government exists solely to serve the people, and the civil service exists solely to advise the government. Some people say that basic political intelligence is relayed to the government by representatives of the people who have been elected to this House. It is not new, of course, for mass meetings to be held in constituencies across this country at which public figures, elected representatives, appear.
Moreover, this is a new age in communications and this is where the pressure of opinion originates and strengthens until finally things are done. For example, meetings have been held in both Ontario and Quebec on the interprovincial national park proposal I have discussed. This involves Members of Parliament being absent from the House if they are to contribute in this way to a better environment.
I hope the news media will, in all fairness, recognize that on many occasions such as this it is necessary for Members of Parliament to be absent from the House for legitimate reasons, trying to get programs off the ground in their constituencies, keeping in touch with constituents, and so on. In this way, public servants and Members of Parliament can get together and learn to know one another. It seems to me that discussion is one of the simplest
June 27, 1972

things, one of our cheapest products, yet it is often neglected.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-12, an act to provide for the establishment of an environmental council of Canada. Our party has been calling for such a council for a long time. On two occasions we have moved amendments in the House and in committee calling for such a council. In fact, going through my files I found an amendment of ours dated February 9, 1971, which was directed to Bill C-207 and the substance of it reads:
That the minister of the environment shall create an environmental council of Canada whose task will be to:
(a)	conduct and publish studies and forecasts of environmental problems in Canada
(b)	make analytical reviews of environmental questions which are of public interest
(c)	advise the federal and provincial governments in the area of pollution prevention and clean-up
(d)	advise particular ministries as to the interrelationship between resource development and environmental protection
(e)	advise as to the need for specific environmentally oriented research
That amendment was turned down by the government. I cannot recall much support being forthcoming from some of the members who are suggesting that the bill before us today should be passed. Frankly, I am very much in favour of it.
There is no doubt that Canada is in need of an environmental council. I am not thinking in terms of a council which is attached to a department or to the government. Such a body should be established along the lines of the Economic Council. It should be completely divorced from the political field. It should have power to check carefully into various environmental concerns which face our nation, and it should report regularly. It should have a strong research staff. It should report without fear or favour and recommend what action governments should take to ensure threats to the environment are dealt with.
Very often, members of this House and the general public do not possess the necessary background with which to evaluate the environmental issues which Eire brought to their attention. A body such as an environmental council could play an important role in such an evaluation. We just do not have the advantage of a non-political source of expertise, though such an organization is urgently required in this day and age. It was with these thoughts in mind that we urged the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) to accept our proposal that an environmental council be set up at the time the re-organization bill was going through the House.
I know that we have a council of some sort attached to the department, but here again it is under the control of the government and will not do the type of research or make the recommendations that one would expect from a completely independent council. For that reason I endorse
Environmental Council of Canada
the legislation currently before the House. I might add that there are several sections of the bill that perhaps should be altered. Nevertheless, the idea is good and I am pleased to see the hon. member at least interested enough to bring it before the House for debate.
I understand that two or three other members wish to speak on this very important matter, and though there are other things I should have liked to say, may I in closing reiterate that our group is in favour of the bill. If the bill is not acceptable to the government, the least the government can do is to give serious consideration to setting up an environmental council, if necessary by amending some existing legislation. In any event, let us move toward the establishment in Canada of an environmental council. We need it, and it is one of the best ways to get at the root of some of the major clean-up problems confronting the nation.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I too will shorten my speech since others want to speak in support of Bill C-12, to set up an environmental council. By coincidence, only yesterday I received 14 or 16 letters from a grade 5 science class in the village of Hillsborough in the constituency of Fundy-Royal. My hon. friend who proposed the bill anticipated for me very neatly a way in which to illustrate to the House the interest of young Canadians in the subject of pollution.
As is often the case, letters from youngsters are much more direct and succinct than those written by adults. As I say, these letters were written by a grade 5 science class, composed of Linda Smith, Patricia Lockhart, Jeffrey Wilson, Edward Jonah, Jeffrey Irving, Donna Milton, Dale Ryder, Kelvin Rose, Timothy Taylor, Kim Eagles, Sheldon Steeves, Lisa Hopper and Lloyd Branscombe.


Mr. Corbin:: Great Canadians.


Mr. Fairweather:: We may laugh at this, but each of these youngsters has an interest in the subject and then-views are equal to any others who are taking part in this debate today. I will see whether the House does not agree with me by quoting three of these letters.


Mr. Deachman:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just want the hon. member to know that members on this side of the House are not laughing at him but are thoroughly enjoying, with him, the pleasure of putting these youngsters' names on the record.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I do not hide the fact that I am putting these children's names on the record. I think children who are interested enough in the procedures of Parliament are entitled to the processes of Parliament. If the hon. member has any doubt about that, let him listen. Linda Smith writes:
Something should be done about the oceans and seas. They are full of pollution. Soon the marine life (animals) will die and we'll be sick. People do what they want because the sea is big and there is room for pollution in it. They are putting sewage, garbage and oil in it. Please do something about this or the same thing will happen to our beaches and lakes.
Very straightforward: no horsing around with that young Canadian. The next letter is from Jeffrey Wilson,

June 27, 1972
Environmental Council of Canada who incidentally sends his love, something not often sent to a Member of Parliament:
Will you please help me? Will you please stop pollution? Fish and other sea life are being killed. Try to find another way to drill for oil under water or stop. Thank you.
The whole statement is there and the minister and his staff could not find a more eloquent way of putting the problem. Lastly, a letter from Jeffrey Irving:
I know you are very busy but please try to find time to read my letter. Raw sewage is being dumped into our many lakes, rivers and oceans. This is not only polluting the water, it is killing our fish for eating. Not only for me but for many other people try to do something about it.
My hon. friend is trying to do something about it by proposing the establishment of an environmental council. I support his bill and commend him for bringing the matter to our attention.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the disastrous effects of pollution are no longer to be demonstrated and the insistence of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) to debate a second time the establishment of an Environmental Council of Canada shows the strong feelings of the hon. member about this issue which has become one of the world's major concerns.
The fact that this subject was raised by a member of this side of the House reveals how important this subject is to Liberal members. Besides, the leadership shown by Canada at the recent United Nations conference on environment in Stockholm certainly is proof that our country is at the forefront of the battle against pollution.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I would like most cordially to commend the leader of the Canadian delegation, the hon. Minister of Environment (Mr. Davis).
The success of our country during this conference is most encouraging for the survival on this planet of living beings threatened by more or less imminent extinction if manking does not realize once and for all that there are limits to the saturation of our atmosphere and waters with chemical products which are dangerous not only to man but to all living creatures on the globe.
The goal the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta has in mind in presenting his bill shows his desire to call the attention of the government on its responsibilities and tell the people that instead of merely shouting for help, merely begging the government to do something should act on their own, in their own environment, at work, on the farm and in various places.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian citizen must shoulder a heavy load in this area not only by paying yearly and daily taxes to all government levels, which must also, with that money, take upon themselves to fight pollution, but in trying himself to stem that modern calamity without the need to spend millions of dollars.
For instance, one can see on our Canadian highways, in Quebec, in the Gaspe peninsula, unscrupulous motorists throwing beer bottles, beverage cans, papers of all kinds out of the car windows onto the highway; those people should realize that this is also a form of pollution.

Somebody mentioned a while ago young people writing to their Parliament members to ask them what to do, what the government is doing in order to fight pollution. I should not like to rebuke all those young people, because they are not all alike, they do not all behave in the same way. Some of them for instance like to frolic on the beach late in the evening and the following day while strolling along we can see dozens and dozens of broken bottles and objects of all kinds polluting our beaches.
I believe we could ask the young people to do their share in the fight against such an enemy, pollution.
I am agreeable to the bill of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta for the establishment of an Environmental Council of Canada. However, among the many measures this government has taken in order to fight pollution, let us point to an existing council which came into being under the legislation creating the Department of the Environment and whose name I shall translate freely as Canadian Environmental Council.
The council so created reports to the minister. The benefits of such a council are the following: if need be, it can report daily to the minister because, according to its own structures, it is in daily contact with the department and the minister, whereas this worthwhile independent environmental Council of Canada, if created, would report to Parliament once a year.
So, we would learn only once a year what is going on as concerns pollution, whereas the already established council is in daily contact with the Department of Environment. And if by any chance one were questioning the seriousness of this council, I should like, before concluding my remarks, to read into the record the names of its members, whose status is quite impressive. They are Canadians who have given evidence of their distinction. Their total number is 15, as was announced by the Minister of the Environment on May 8, 1972.
Mr. Norbert Beaupre, member. Mr. Beaupre is chairman and president of Domtar Limited, and is chairman of the board, British Columbia Forest Products Limited. He is presently the chairman of the Canadian Forestry Advisory Council, established by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis). Mr. Beaupre held several executive positions with the federal government prior to his association with industry. Dr. Noah Carpenter is presently interning at the Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton and will study general surgery beginning in July 1972 at the University of Alberta. Dr. Donald A. Chant is presently Chairman, Department of Zoology, University of Toronto. He is a founder of Pollution Probe and author of more than 60 research papers on ecology as well as a number of books and reports. Dr. Chant has served on various boards and committees relating to ecology and the environment and has been active with radio and television programming in the environmental field.
Miss Moira Dunbar is a research scientist in the earth sciences division of Defence Research Establishment, Ottawa. She is actively involved in a program to study the growth, movement and decay of ice in northern waters. In 1972, she was awarded the Massey Medal of the Royal
June 27, 1972
Canadian Geographic Society. Mr. Louis-Edmond Hame-lin is currently the director, Centre of Northern Studies, University of Laval, Quebec City. Mr. Hamelin is the author of numerous publications in the area of Canadian geography, in particular of the north. He is a member of the Legislative Council, Northwest Territories. Yellowknife. Mr. Edward A. Horton is currently the mayor of the borough of Etobicoke. He holds a BA and MBA in business administration and is a member of the American Public Works Association, Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade and the Harvard Business School Club. Dr. Joseph H. Maclnnis is a Canadian scientist who has devoted the past ten years to the study of men living and working beneath the sea. Through his endeavours he has provided medical and technical support for some of the deepest and longest manned dives in history.
Dr. Ian McTaggart-Cowan is presently professor of zoology and dean of the faculty of graduate studies at the University of British Columbia and chairman of the Provincial Academic Board. Mr. Donovan Miller is president and director of the Canadian Fishing Company, Limited, Vancouver, B.C. Mr. Miller's involvement in the Canadian fishing industry during the past 35 years includes a five-year term on the executive committee of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada; the presidency of the Fisheries Council of Canada and chairman of the Fisheries Advisory Council established by the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Dr. Norman Morse is chairman of the Department of Economics, Dalhousie University, Halifax. For the past 27 years Dr. Morse has been associated with the economics departments of Acadia and Dalhousie Universities. Mr. Robert F. Shaw, Deputy Minister of the federal Department of the Environment, has had a distinguished career in the construction industry and as a public servant. Mr. Michel Slivitzky is presently director of the Centre quebecois des sciences de l'eau of the Institut national de la recherche scientifique of the University du Quebec. He is a specialist in hydrology of surface waters.
Mr. Foster Todd is President of the Mining Association of Canada. Prior to his retirement in March, 1971 he was executive vice-president of the International Nickel Company of Canada, Limited.

These, Mr. Speaker, are surely prominent Canadians who move about in various spheres of our society and who can render tremendous services to their fellow citizens within the council created to advise the minister on matters of pollution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time allotted for private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
_________________________________3573
Canada Labour Code


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-183, to amend the Canada Labour Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and motion No. 1 (Mr. Alexander).
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking just before five o'clock, and doing so on the basis of some rather hasty research, I made in the main two assertions. It may not enhance my reputation with my lawyer friends, but I rise now to say I must modify one of those assertions. In other words, I have been able to do a bit more research during the break between six o'clock and eight o'clock and I am happy to correct one of the statements I made just before five o'clock.
The first statement I made was that preambles in bills tended to disappear in the annual statutes, and particularly in the Revised Statutes of Canada. That is the statement I wish to amend. The other assertion I was making before five o'clock was that preambles which appear in legislation ahead of the enacting clause have no legislative effect. That is an assertion on which I wish to sfand, and in support of which I wish to quote one or two references.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think you should stand with that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I am standing with the second assertion. It is the first one which in all fairness I must correct. During the break I found something to which I was about to refer. When I got to the Canadian Bill of Rights I found it has a preamble and that it is still there even though the Canadian Bill of Rights is appendix III to the Revised Statutes of Canada for 1970. Mind you, that preamble is in different language. It starts off with the word "affirming" as if Parliament affirms such and such and hence enacts as follows.
It is also true that I have found a number of other statutes which had preambles in them at the bill stage, and that a number of those preambles stayed with the bill as it became an act and was written into the Revised Statutes of Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not the amending act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right, not when it is an amending act. I also point out that my assertion was not completely wrong. When you get to the Revised Statutes of Canada, even the phrase "Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada enacts as follows" disappears. That phrase appears in the annual statutes but is not in the Revised Statutes. I am talking about the Revised Statutes. I pick up one act right off, an act respecting livestock shipping, and the enacting words "Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the



June 27, 1972
Canada Labour Code
Senate and House of Commons of Canada enact as follows" do not appear in the Revised Statutes.


Mr. O'Connell:: Does that have a preamble?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, this one does not.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Find one with a preamble.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was admitting that where there are preambles, they do carry over, so I will not argue that point any further.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They are original acts; they are not amending acts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I say, I would be glad to do more research to correct this point. But on the other point, the one about the effect of preambles, I feel that I must press it rather strongly. I draw attention to Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, citation 360, page 268 where the author says:
As a rule a preamble is unnecessary in a public bill.
He goes on to state that in private bills there has to be a preamble, but repeats that it is not necessary in a public bill and that it does not have legislative effect. Then I pick up a book entitled "Legislative Forms and Precedents" written by E. A. Driedger, who at the time he published this book was deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada. At page 8 of his book Dr. Driedger says:
The use of preambles has fallen out of fashion, and public acts do not now normally have preambles.
The preamble is part of the act and may be referred to in construing the act. The Interpretation Act provides-
I could go on and read what he says of Dr. Driedger's book, from page 8 but instead I should like to read directly from the appropriate statute, namely, the Interpretation Act. It is chapter 1-23 of the Revised Statutes of Canada for 1970. Section 12 thereof reads as follows:
The preamble of an enactment shall be read as a part thereof intended to assist in explaining its purport and object.
I freely admit that a preamble is permissible, even though it has fallen out of style, that it can be put into a piece of legislation and that it does get carried forward. But the most that can be said for it is that it is intended to assist in explaining the purport and object of an act. In fact, that is all that is said for a preamble, not only in Dr. Driedger's book but in the Interpretation Act itself.
So I think we are now at the position that a number of us were taking before five o'clock when we insisted that if these words, fine words that they are, appear only as a preamble, if they appear before the words "enacts as follows", then they have no legislative effect. They are there; they can be looked at; they can be read for an explanation-but they do not have enacting or legislative effect.
Because we think there is some merit in the words that are in the preamble, we would like the minister to find a way to transfer them into the body of the legislation itself. I cannot support the proposition put before us by the hon.

member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that they should be wiped out altogether.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I don't know what the hon. member means by saying "Right" at that point.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I mean right, they should be wiped out altogether.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I cannot support that. Maybe there is something in the language that the hon. member does not like. Maybe he thinks that it goes too far.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It misleads.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I like the wording that is there, but I think we should put it in the statute where it will have some meaning. Now, if I may go back to what I was saying about my first point, not watering down my admission that preambles do not disappear, nevertheless may I say to the minister that what will happen to the preamble to Bill C-183 is a moot question. This is not, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) would point out, an original statute. This is an amending bill. This bill will amend chapter L-l of the Revised Statutes of Canada, namely, the Canada Labour Code.
What does the bill do in the enacting part? It provides:
Part V of the Canada Labour Code is repealed and the following substituted therefor-
Then there follows a new part V entitled "Industrial Relations" and it starts with a new section 107. That means that the revising officers, or those who compile an office consolidation, will have to pick up the Canada Labour Code and, starting with section 107, take out all the rest of part V and put in there the new clause 107 and all those that follow. But where will such revising officers, or those who produce an office consolidation, put the preamble? It is not a preamble to the Canada Labour Code; it is only a purported preamble to part V. But there is no preamble to part V in the act that is on the statute books and there is nothing in this bill that says where those words in the preamble are to be put anywhere at all in the main statute that we are amending.
Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we are arguing over words, forms and procedures and all that sort of thing, but I think there is an element of importance to it. If these words have any meaning, and I think they are good words, then they should be put in the statute in a place where they will have effect.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not being in my seat, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) sat down rather more abruptly than I anticipated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Come, come! I am a man of few words.


William Arnold Peters: Quite a few.
June 27, 1972


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Having heard that remark from the hon. member, I would say it is the most blatant understatement of the year. I am in full agreement with the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) to delete the preamble. I do not want to traverse the same ground with regard to preambles that was covered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but there is one distinction that I want to emphasize. The statute books and the Revised Statutes are full of examples of pieces of legislation that have preambles, but they are original statutes. This is an amending bill that in clause 1 proposes to repeal part V of the Canada Labour Code. I ask hon. members, where will the preamble fit in the Canada Labour Code when this amending legislation is enacted? There is nowhere it can be fitted in between sections 106 and 107; that is not the place to put the preamble.
This preamble is pure window-dressing for the purposes of this bill. I want to speak about this window-dressing because I believe it falls far short of what the bill should be doing. It is not often I speak on labour matters, Mr. Speaker, but I did speak on second reading of this bill because I was terribly disturbed about how it might affect the Canada Labour Code. The government, quite rightly, has proclaimed that the Canada Labour Code is the flagship for provincial labour acts across the country. The government claims that it sets the pace.
I want to impress upon the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) and all hon. members of this House that the ultimate purpose of any labour code is to promote industrial peace, not to put into contention the rights of the workers as against those of management. Certainly, it should establish the right of the worker to organize and to protect himself during the period of organization, but it should also establish the rights of the employer. Labour relations are, after all, a social contract between members of society and any contract should set out the rights and obligations of the parties as well as the means of curing defaults. I have seen many contracts which were not worth the paper they were written on because they did not provide a means for resolving defaults. This bill does not meet, the demand of today's society, namely that industrial peace must be promoted.
What is the result of a breach of the social contract between workers and management? The result is strife, confrontation and the abuse of society's rights. I do, not blame one side or the other, but in the end it is the rights of society that are abused. How does this bill provide for the correction of defaults, Mr. Speaker? It is the most inefficient document that you could find. That is what I think of this bill.


An hon. Member:: What do you propose instead?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I say we must establish means for the protection of society's basic rights, but there is no provision for that in this bill. During the second reading debate, I said that the ultimate purpose of this bill must be to promote industrial peace. The workers' rights are not worth a tinker's dam unless there is industrial peace.
Canada Labour Code


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Amendment No. 1.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The rights of the workers are not protected during strife. How many workers who have gone out on strike have recovered from the deprivation and dislocation, unless the strike was only for 24 hours. What about the damage to the economy, to the legitimate interests of management and ownership? These cannot be disregarded in a labour code.
I say that this bill is improperly oriented because it fails to have as its ultimate purpose the promotion of industrial peace. We have seen industrial strife from one end of this country to the other during the past year. Indeed, some people in various departments of labour seem to get gratification from the fact that they are sent out as conciliators and trouble shooters. Is that the answer to a labour code?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Of course, it is not!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A successful labour code is one under which there is a minimum loss of time through confrontation of workers and management and a minimum loss of production. This year, in the federal and provincial fields, we have seen an outright rape of society's interests, of the paramount public interest. There are certain things that individuals are entitled to do and certain things that individuals are not entitled to do in so far as the protection of their property and person is concerned. Mr. Speaker, we have seen how those rights have been abused as a result of industrial strife. Plant and property have been vandalized and sabotaged, then because a settlement is imminent it is claimed that there must not be any prosecutions. All this is done under the guise of striving for a labour contract. On the other hand, some employers use goon squads. However, goon squads are used by both sides. Some things done by management, of course, are not right. If I, as John Q. Citizen, were to break those same laws I would be brought before the court for having offended society. There are many infractions of the laws of this country as a result of labour strife, but apparently immunity is claimed just because there happens to be labour strife. This bill does nothing to cure that.
If there were a grave attack upon the paramount public interest of this country, is there anything in this bill that allows the government to move in to keep the parties apart and to impose a settlement? Settlement must be imposed ultimately; there has to be an ultimate sanction. Some may say that they do not want compulsory arbitration but that they want labour courts.
I think the worst type of settlement in industrial disputes is the ad hoc settlement forcing back to work a group of workers through a bill brought into this House and discussed in the other place under the stress of public pressure. Such settlement is subject to partisan contestation. And who wins? Nobody. Everybody loses-the workers themselves, the employers. If anybody believes in the viability of society and the collective rights of individuals, let me say that those rights will have suffered too.

June 27, 1972
Canada Labour Code
Yet it is said that this bill is a bright, new shining light in labour relations. This is to be the flagship of provincial labour codes. Will this bill do anything for the chaotic labour relations existing in British Columbia? Is this bill to be the flagship for equally chaotic relations in Quebec and possibly in Ontario, where it seems certain people can say of the public, "Public rights be damned; I come first." Confrontation, Mr. Speaker, settles nothing even though some segments of society today think it is the panacea in social relations. Confrontation should be the last possible recourse. To that extent I say to the minister that this bill is deficient; it has failed to provide any protection in that regard for the public interest.
As for the preamble, it is almost like a recital in support of motherhood. I commend the efforts of my colleague for Hamilton West to delete the preamble from the bill. In my view, even without his amendment the preamble is little more than a pious, cosmetic dressing-up of this bill. It is meaningless because it could not be included in the statute. You cannot insert it between sections 106 and 107; there is no way that could be done because this is an amending bill.
In brief, the preamble is meaningless, save perhaps to this extent: it will offer an opportunity for debate in this House and some people might use it, as I suggested, for cosmetic purposes. In the second paragraph of the preamble there are statements that do not hold water. The majority of employers in this country, and employees, enjoy rights. They enjoy good working conditions without having had to resort to freedom of association and collective bargaining. One could point to examples throughout the country.
Why is it that freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining must be the bases-I underline this-of effective industrial relations? That is a lot of poppycock, because the majority of labour relations in this country between employer and employee are not based on collective bargaining. They do not have to be. Recognizing that these relations do exist and that they are of value in many places, I ask, why insist that those conditions shall be the cardinal rule underlying these relations? To me this is mere window dressing-pure, cosmetic window-dressing.
Of course you give workers the right to protection and the right to organization. I know that Canada signed the international convention, but it did that many years ago without consulting the provinces which have equal, if not greater jurisdiction in labour matters. I doubt very much if some of the provinces would sign the convention now in the form it was brought down. Is this bill an attempt, finally, at bootlegging-perhaps we should not use the expression "bootlegging"-at surreptitiously legitimizing an action taken by the government of Canada inasmuch as it has not been able to do this before or has been unwilling to do it? Yet there is the attempt in paragraph 3. One does not need this preamble to continue one's support of the right to organize and the right to bargain collectively. One does not need the preamble to protect that right or to promote industrial peace.
In my final plea for support of my colleague's amendment I say this: To the extent that this bill will not promote maximum industrial peace-and according to evi-

dence given before the committee it will do just the contrary and bring about more and more confrontation- the bill has missed the point. That is why I urge this House to support my colleague's amendment.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I observed the attitude of those who spoke before me during the course of this debate. They all referred in particular to the preamble of the bill, and yet I cannot see anything in this preamble that might prevent a series of understandable clauses to be drafted, taking into account the needs of workers. I do not mean that I give blanket approval to Bill C-183 because, in my opinion, this is too complex a legislation which goes beyond the reach of workers and which will enable union and management legal advisers to use union dues to make profits by pleading before the courts a few disputed points which will arise as a result of a legislation difficult to apply.
A legislation dealing with labour must-and I stated it on several occasions in this House-be drafted clearly so that all workers and employers may understand it easily.
I have listened for some time to speeches about the famous preamble; they remind me of a debate to which I had the opportunity of taking part and in which the word "dialogue"-by the way, a popular word in our modern society-was often employed. This was even the subject matter that was chosen by the director general of the 56th International Labour Conference held in Geneva's Palais des Nations in June, 1971, and I quote:
Freedom through dialogue.
On that occasion, over 1,000 delegates from various countries of the world were looking for a step towards the organization of a more equitable and especially more humane world. The speeches of the representatives of various countries simultaneously translated into four different languages outlined the standpoint of each on the best ways to maintain or recover freedom through dialogue, to discuss, negotiate and seek means of agreement.
The delegate of the workers of France, Mr. Louet, summed up the world situation in a brief and persuasive speech and with outstanding eloquence. It would indeed be fit to quote some extracts:
Our planet is undergoing deep and quick transformations, of a magnitude and acceleration never known in all its history. For want of controling such an evolution, millions of human beings suffer from it sometimes dramatic effects. The aggravation of disparities of all kinds which results generates renouncement or bitterness if not anger.
The enduring egoisms and the complex jumble of economic mechanisms make national action almost inoperative in view of the world-wide scope of the problems to be solved.
Insisting on the advantage of dialogue, he added:
But what is the dialogue referred to, between what individuals and for what purpose? If holding a dialogue must be synonymous with speaking-
-I must add here that we are not short of speeches, we already speak too much most of the time without saying anything much constructive or original.
June 27, 1972

True dialogue means promoting the exchange of ideas to convince each party to listen to the ideas of the other and then to review and reconsider one's ideas.
We should perhaps take the following as a motto: Let us speak a little less and listen a little more. When everyone speaks and nobody listens, communications break down and tantrum sets in; that is what we often note in the course of various negotiations.
It often occurs that government and unions speak different languages, particularly when the government's wage policy and the sum total of salaries are at stake. These are words many people use but with different interpretations. There is a kind of professional distortion particular to negotiators on whatever side of the table they may sit; actually, they keep putting a new sheen on old clauses without devising any new ones.
Negotiators on both sides haggle over commas and tend to forget the basic objective of a collective agreement which is the humanization of labour-management relations. Instead of seeking to guarantee the security of all concerned, some collective agreements develop into means of provocation.
We sometimes discover that those who should be concerned with maintaining good relations, do not pay as much attention to shouldering their own responsibilities and obligations as to claiming their rights; a good many problems would be automatically solved if people would try and apply more often nature's good old law of compensation which states that a job well done should be a job well paid. In view of the changing methods of production in this day of automation, a large number of workers tend to claim high wages for too little work with the ensuing result that in various segments of the administration there are public servants who are no longer "serving".
It is important to identify the various causes of misunderstanding and to direct labour legislation towards the protection of the rights of the week, the humble, the poor and, specifically those who are most in need of protection. Incidentally, it should be noted that the complexity of our laws often results in confusion.
I insist on this point. It is difficult to draft legislation- especially labour laws-in clear language. Let us then try to avoid these famous complexities which inevitably lead the parties into courts.
Today, there are big legal offices, as I know, having been active in the union movement. At that time, it was quite hard to find lawyers familiar with labour legislation. Now there are legal firms grouping 7 or 8 lawyers in cities like Montreal and Quebec. The legislation is so complicated that both unions and employers have to resort to legal advisers. Finally, what is the use of such complicated labour legislation? In fact, there are innumerable strikes and little agreement between the parties.
A summary listing of causes of conflict might provide food for thought to those who are really anxious to improve the situation. Considering the continuous rise of the cost of living through proliferation of taxes, levies, commissions, boards, surveys, etc. coupled with the complexity of legislation resulting in unending and expensive legal proceedings, it is easy to understand the reasons for
Canada Labour Code
the strikers' mentality which causes concern to employers and workers.
Such considerations should cause the government to take time out to prepare labour legislation truly accessible to those involved in it.
It is quite noteworthy that there should be a tendency to organize minor union skirmishes on various fronts, thus perpetuating a climate of mutual incomprehension. Why so? Usually for the sake of salary increases which, as soon as they are achieved, are quickly eroded through the increased price of products.
They fight to get wage increases to make up for the dollars which are lacking without being over-concerned about finding out who is making, controlling them and determining their value. What will be the use of earning from $3 to $10 an hour if this is equivalent to only $1 or $2? This is a problem of distribution of resources, purchasing power, work and leisure, and order must reign in the financial system which does not fulfill its task. In fact, let us consider this childish scene of distribution: 10 children, 2 apples, a fight ending in favour of the strongest; 10 children who have pennies, 2 apples, the highest bidder, provided he is protected by a policeman; 10 children, 15 apples, to each his own, and for all appetites.
There is the whole picture of the present crisis. We are behaving like children. Let us therefore try and find a way of drafting a law likely to favour a more equitable distribution of commodities so that workers may work in normal conditions. We must re-establish the equivalence of the purchasing power based on the needs and the value of goods, considering that human work tends to be replaced by machines.
Some clauses of the bill deal with technology and the way it may be applied. It is just about inapplicable. The worker is hungry and thirsting for money to live and support his children. Let us give him justice so that he will not be compelled to walk about with a stick and a piece of cardboard nailed at the end of it.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to what was in my opinion an astonishing speech made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Presumably he was discussing the motion before us which would have the effect of deleting the preamble to this bill, but as I listened to the hon. member it became obvious to me that he was really not debating the deletion of the preamble, he was debating the deletion of the bill. He was, in effect, willing to throw out the baby with the bath water, to quote a hackneyed expression.
The hon. member has a perfect right, of course, to disagree with the idea of the collective bargaining process, which is obviously what the hon. member for Edmonton West was telling us.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He did not say that at all.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: He may believe that the whole process whereby working people have the right, painfully built up over the years, to act as a group on more or less equal terms with an employer should be abolished as far as any

June 27, 1972
Canada Labour Code
basis of legality is concerned but I want to make it clear that I, for one, do not support the position he has taken. The bill does not say that collective bargaining is compulsory. As I understand the proposal, it is a process which is open and available under certain rules to those who desire to engage in it. As far as employees are concerned, unless the majority wish to enter into collective bargaining arrangements with their employer, there is nothing in the law which says they must do so. In the opinion of the hon. member for Edmonton West this is an insidious brand of dictatorship.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Edmonton West and he never said that at all. He said he hoped a bill would be enacted by Parliament dealing with labour-management relations and that it would be such a bill as to bring about industrial peace. He pointed out that the preamble did nothing of that kind. He never attacked labour, or collective bargaining. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has always been fair, and I hope he will be fair tonight regarding what the hon. member for Edmonton West did say.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I enjoyed the speech just made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), as I always do, but I hope the time taken for his speech will not be charged against me. I was not attempting to quote verbatim what the hon. member for Edmonton West said.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't waffle, then; set out the facts.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was saying that his remarks led me to believe the hon. member for Edmonton West is opposed in his own mind to the process of collective bargaining.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is a complete untruth.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I think it is a fair interpretation to place on the thrust of his remarks tonight.


William Arnold Peters: That is what I got out of his speech.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is not what I got out of it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The hon. member for Edmonton West said nobody ever gained anything out of strikes. Well, I do not believe there is anyone in this House who thinks strikes are a desirable element in our society. Nevertheless, I cannot subscribe to the view that all strikes have been fruitless. I recall being personally involved in three strikes before I came to this House. One was a strike to gain recognition of the existence of a union, and for the right to collective bargaining. This is not a right whose value can be estimated immediately in monetary terms, but in my opinion this was a justifiable and necessary strike.
The second strike was one in support of the principle of a 40-hour working week. It sounds academic now to be told that people had to strike to get a working week of that duration. However, in those days, if an employer told his workers to work six days a week for 12 hours each day, the employees were obliged to do so or risk losing their jobs. That strike, in my opinion, was necessary and socially desirable.

The third strike in which I was involved was a strike to gain recognition of the principle that working people who were paid by the hour or by the week were entitled to a vacation once in a while without loss of income. I remember hands being held up in horror at the idea of paying someone when he was not doing anything. But why not recognize the work of people other than those engaged in the professions?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but don't you think of labour sometimes getting into the professions? Don't you think the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) is in a profession? He is a useful man.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The hon. member for Calgary North says the hon. member for Edmonton West was talking about industrial peace.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Of course, he was. And if the hon. member is in favour of industrial peace I agree with him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Good.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: But the nub of the matter is this: just how does one go about achieving industrial peace. Is it something which is imposed or is it something which comes about as a result of discussion and negotiation?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Or irresponsibility.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Or is it something which comes about as a result of the development of experience in the relationship between workers on one side and management on the other? We are a long way from having arrived at any seventh heaven in the development of peace between employers and employees. I do not say there have not been occasions when the fault lay on one side rather than on the other. What I am saying is that an attack on the concept of collective bargaining is not an approach which is likely, in any society which calls itself democratic, to move us toward a state of industrial peace.
With regard to the principles contained in the preamble and the way they are spelled out in the bill, the hon. member suggested that the worst means that could be used to bring about a settlement if the situation reached the stage where it seriously affected the public interest would be to introduce a bill in the House. I do not agree with that contention. I think that approach is far more apt to bring about a settlement that would be acceptable to both sides than would the kind of Star Chamber methods that have been used in the province of British Columbia under a law that was pushed through the legislature enabling one minister in secret to sign a document ordering the workers to do such and such.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When did I suggest that alternative? Come, now.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I suggest that the only way in a free society in which stoppages of work or industrial disputes can be settled in what we consider in the ultimate sense to be a democratic way is by taking action through the elected
June 27, 1972

representatives of the people in Parliament. Because here we can publicly debate the issues and the pros and cons of what is required in the public interest and what is fair to the employers and employees in relation to the public interest, and thus the individual situation can be assessed.
Fortunately, in my view, we are retaining that kind of approach in this bill. I suggest that if either in the pream-bule or any other part of the bill it is suggested that we take an approach similar to the one taken in the province of British Columbia, we would be sowing the seeds of deep-rooted trouble for the future as far as any hope for a real and lasting industrial peace is concerned.
Perhaps I am straying as far away from the subject matter of this motion as did the hon. member for Edmonton West, so let me come to the preamble itself which tlje hon. member is proposing to delete. Some of the questions raised about its position in law have already been dealt with by other hon. members and I shall not repeat them. I was, as member of the committee know, responsible for moving the deletion of the preamble during the committee stage.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was waiting for that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: To assist the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) perhaps I should quote part of what I said, as reported at page 20:23 of the Minutes of Proceedings for June 20 last:
Whenever I find myself looking at one of these rather flowery preambles to a piece of legislation, I think of it as being a continuation of what I call the Pickersgillian fad. I say that because the former member for Bonavista-Twillingate as minister of transport seemed to initiate this idea-
Perhaps I was a little out there; he revised it. As pointed out in one of the quotations of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), apparently this was something that used to prevail but which fell out of fashion. Then I went on to say that I did not think these preambles really meant very much. As pointed out by other members tonight, I too pointed out that in law they really had not very much effect, and I went on to say that I did not think the habit of putting this sort of thing in front of bills had much value. Members of the House may be interested to know that when asked to comment, the deputy minister of labour said that it was probably true that they did not have very much effect in law, but that if they had no more effect than that he could not see any particular harm in leaving them in bills.
Quite frankly, I have not altered my view about this practice. The sentiments expressed are laudable enough in most cases and I do not quarrel with them. Nevertheless, I think that what has been put forward as a serious suggestion by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is worthy of consideration. If what is said here is intended to mean anything, then let it be incorporated in the legislation itself. This is a serious proposition worthy of discussion and consideration, even though it might involve a little redrafting of the phraseology of the preamble.
As I have read the bill, I think it would add something to have some of the matters stated in the preamble made part of the bill. To take one example, though this is not perhaps a key point, mention is made of the government
Canada Labour Code
of Canada having ratified a convention. I do not know offhand whether Parliament has ever ratified it, but the present wording might be made more appropriate if it were phrased in such a way as to read that Parliament had given its support to the convention.
I think what is implied here is a recognition by employers that collective bargaining is supported and should be supported in this country. Yet as I read the law there is no provision to the effect that employers are bound to recognize collective bargaining. There is a pious sentiment here about a recognition of collective bargaining as a basis for arriving at settlements between employers and employees. If that were a proposition that could be considered, then certainly I would support it. However, quite frankly, despite what some of my colleagues have said as well as some of the arguments advanced, particularly by the hon. member for Edmonton West, in support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West, I have not changed the views that I expressed in committee about putting what I still feel are but pious sentiments in front of a bill.


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I want first to recognize that this bill came upon us this afternoon rather unexpectedly. This circumstance arose when one hon. member of this House declined to give unanimous consent to our proceeding with third reading of the bill then before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A member from your side.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: It did come a little unexpectedly, although the quality of debate has not suffered for that reason. No doubt that is because this bill has really been before all of us who have been interested in it for perhaps a year. A similar bill was introduced about this time last June. There have been many meetings, and many briefs have been heard. The minister has met with many delegations and listened to their points of view. The bill went through a very good second reading debate in the House and received great support. There were 24 hearings of the standing committee and 20 or so delegations appeared before that committee. No doubt that has all helped us to get a good start on it this afternoon.
I want to address myself to some of the points made in respect of the preamble. We are looking at these questions because the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has moved that the preamble be deleted. What does a preamble do? The preamble is here because it sets forth the faith of this government in the principles underlying this bill. Let me draw hon. members' attention to this fact. The preamble gives weight and recognition to employers and employees as participants to the collective bargaining process which the bill underwrites. It stresses freedom of association and free collective bargaining as effective bases for industrial relations in Canada.
I should like to draw hon. members' attention to the fourth paragraph of the preamble. It means just what it says, that Parliament desires, and expresses the desire here, to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their co-operative efforts to develop good

June 27, 1972
Canada Labour Code
relations and constructive collective bargaining practices. The provisions in the bill itself which follow that expression in the preamble are evidence of the value this government places on our present system of industrial relations based on freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Where is that going to fit into the labour code?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Some may not take this position but may reject it. What we say in this preamble is that freedom to associate and free collective bargaining are the cornerstones of industrial relations in Canada. Some may argue that there is only 10 per cent of the labour force operating under federal jurisdiction and that only one-third of the total labour force is in fact unionized. It is not a question of numbers; it is a question of the principles involved.
We are not going to bring before this House of Commons an equivocal statement in respect of the central position of free collective bargaining and freedom of association in Canada. We are not going to put forth a fuzzy preamble. We are not going to give with one hand and take back with the other. It is for that reason we cannot find acceptable the suggestion which came forward from the standing committee that this is to be one of the bases of industrial relations. No one is going to argue that the collective bargaining process as it is pursued under the Canada Labour Code is the whole story. No one is going to argue that this is the whole practice. What we say in unequivocal terms is that it is the cornerstone.
May I refer hon. members to the Woods task force report on Canadian industrial relations. Recommendation No. 434 did make a case and concluded by recommending that the legislation contain a preamble that would replace the neutral tone of the present statute with a positive commitment to the collective bargaining system. That in fact is what we are doing in this specific preamble.
May I address myself to the second point raised here which sent all of us to a hurried exercise in research over the dinner hour. What status does this preamble have as it is in print in this amending bill? I speak without the benefit of legal training but I think I now see my way clear in respect of this preamble. I conclude my remarks on this section of the comments by stating that I think we should encourage the House to leave the preamble exactly as it is now.
It has been said that a preamble which precedes the words "Therefore Her Majesty by and with the consent of the House of Commons and the Senate enacts as follows" does not have status, legislative effect and may disappear in a subsequent revision. It seems to me there are two points involved here, one in relation to the legislative effect of a preamble positioned in front of those words, and the second in relation to the likelihood of its survival in a subsequent revision of the statutes of Canada.
In the first instance, I have been able to find many acts on our statute books, in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, which do have preambles. These preambles precede the words "Therefore Her Majesty by and with consent enacts as follows". I will make reference to a few of them: the farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Industrial development Bank Act, and act respecting small loans, an

act respecting Royal Style and Titles, the Queen Elizabeth II Canadian Research Fund Act, the Atomic Energy Control Act, the Bank of Canada Act, and a number of others.
With the little research it was possible for me to do, I could find only one case where the preamble did not survive. I want to be frank with hon. members; I could find only one case where the preamble did not survive the attention of the statute revision officers, and that was the Veterans' Land Act. I do not know whether it is a special case, but it is the only one we could discover where the preamble was dropped in a subsequent revision.
Just to confirm this for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who raised the point, if he looks in the Revised Statutes, volume 4, he will find that tbe act incorporating the Industrial Development Bank Act begins with a preamble and these words;
Therefore, His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows-
Then comes the short title and the interpretation section. There are three volumes which follow that confirmation of this practice of a preamble that comes at the front of a bill surviving any revision process, and status there is not governed by the enacting sections.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were any of those amending statutes?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I will come to that in a moment. I cannot confirm or say no to that question. They may not have been amending statutes. I am further advised that it makes no legal difference whether a preamble survives a revision. The preamble continues in force and has the same validity that it had in the original statute, amended or otherwise, and it would still have the kind of legislative effect laid down in section 12 of the Interpretation Act. I shall read that section:
The preamble of an enactment shall be read as a part thereof intended to assist in explaining its purport and object.
The point I want to make is that in my view, supported by some legal counsel, the preamble continues to have that effect. It would have it in this amending statute whether or not in some subsequent revision it is carried forward. It is therefore not a question of technical features or drafting practices as to just where it appears in this connection.
The next substantial question is, what legal effect does this preamble have? I say it continues to have the effect which all preambles have as determined in section 12 of the Interpretation Act where it is carried forward in a revision.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question at this point?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Without arguing the matter as he placed it before us, would he not prefer that the language of the preamble have legislative effect rather than just the effect of assisting in explaining the purport and object of the legislation? The minister will
June 27, 1972

recognize I am quoting from section 12 of the Interpretation Act.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: This is a question which I believe I can answer rather readily. The preamble has no greater effect in any statute than that laid down in the Interpretation Act. Whether it is in one position or another, it has not different legislative effect than that permitted in the Interpretation Act. I therefore have to rest on the case I have been presenting.
I wish to say this in addition. From the advice I can get-in this sense it is not conclusive because the determining point is the statute revision officers, and when they come to look at this matter they are the ones who will make the decision-in all frankness, it may well be that this being an amending statute the preamble may in fact disappear. I cannot say it will, but I would be less than frank if I said now that it will not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because this bill does not say what to do with it.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Even if this bill put it in a different place, it might well disappear in the course of revision. That is to be determined by the revision officers. Regardless of the decision the revision officers will make this preamble will have as much use for all those who wish to refer to it whether or not it is carried forward in a revision, and the use of those who wish to refer to it is the use which is permitted in the Interpretation Act. With those few comments I conclude my remarks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit another question?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I feel I cannot accept the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West in motion No. 1.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us with certainty whether the interpretation of the balance of the clauses would be identical if the bill did not have any preamble?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I am being asked to give a legal opinion. I have to shrink from that. I can give my own opinion, which is that it would have exactly the same effect whether or not the preamble were there. It is not in there to modify the interpretation. The words of the Interpretation Act Eire, "to assist in explaining its purport and object". It is put in there to demonstrate the faith we on this side of the House have in free collective bargaining and in freedom of association.
Perhaps before I sit down I ought to correct one impression which may have been left by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lsunbert) with reference to ILO convention No. 87. If I understood him correctly, he said there was not consultation with the provinces. That is not the case. ILO convention No. 87 was ratified by this government Eifter receiving the unanimous consent of all the provinces of Canada. There was full consultation and unEinimous consent was received. It was ratified this year and reference is made to it in the act. That ought to be pointed out, Mr. Speaker.
Canada Labour Code


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, before the minister sits down might I ask him a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is rising to ask a question of the minister.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I listened to the minister and did not expect any different speech than that which I heard in the committee. However, I am wondering why the minister did not give any reason for not including the preamble in this bill, when in fact he has placed so much emphasis on freedom of association and the collective bargaining process as elaborated in the preamble.
I ask with all due respect-and I believe this was the thinking all along-why the preamble was not in the first bill. In fairness, I think we should have an explanation because it seems to me that suddenly-I know, Mr. Speaker, that I am getting into a debate-between the tabling of the first bill, its removal and the bringing in of Bill C-183 someone, for some reason, became enlightened. I ask why the preamble is in this bill now when it was not in the other bill.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is either a case of enlightenment or non-enlightenment. As the hon. member knows, it was the case of members of the labour movement for some time that a preamble should come into this bill. I found that to be a very persuasive argument and was very happy to have the preamble inserted in the bill. I have had confirming counsel to that effect in the Woods task force report on industrial relations which recommended the same thing. It seemed to me it would appeal to this Parliament to state unequivocally its confidence in the collective bargaining process and the majority of the pEirties which participate in it and work with it by laying it out here as the cornerstone of industrial relations in Canada. I Eim very happy to take responsibility for inserting it in the present bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise the House what he thinks will happen to the preamble, assuming the bill is passed and there is perhaps an office consolidation for use by the public, bearing in mind that I put it to him that the preamble would have to disappear because there is no provision whereby the preamble can appear between sections 106 and 107 of the statute? This is an amending statute; therefore, what is it worth?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I shall not tax the patience of the House by again going over the arguments I made. I know the hon. member was absent for most of my remarks. I regret that, because I believe I covered the ground quite fully. I think he will have to read my remarks in Hansard.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But you did not give an answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has time left in his remarks. If the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has a question and the minister wishes to receive it, the Chair will see the hon. member for Calgary North. The hon. member for CEdgary North on a question.

June 27, 1972
Canada Labour Code


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, I want to say a few words on this matter.


John Gilbert: I want to ask a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I was under the impression that the hon. member for Calgary North wanted to ask a question.


John Gilbert: This is a very short question. I have been impressed by the rationale and persuasive arguments of the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell). The idea of setting forth a philosophy in the preamble is a good one. Is there any truth to the speculation that the Canadian Manufacturers Association is not happy with this statement of philosophy and want it deleted?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I think it is known to sill of us that not all the participants in collective bargaining in Canada are happy with this or that part of the labour bill. That applies to both parties to collective bargaining. I would not want to draw specific attention to any one of them this evening.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I thought he was very good. I listened to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I also thought he was very good; he put the problem squarely before the House and the people. I also listened to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), and I felt he misinterpreted the problem somewhat. From the questions put to the minister it seems to me that the preamble does nothing to assist in the interpretation of the legislation. It seems that it was intended by the minister's advisers to assist him in selling a bill that is not favourable to either labour or management. That is why it is there.
Let us consider what the legal authorities say about a preamble. I wish to quote from Maxwell in "The Interpretation of Statutes," twelfth edition. When I went to law school, Maxwell had a large book, but tonight I found that his book is only a quarter of an inch thick. When I read from it hon. members will realize why he has reduced it in size.
I know that the minister had the best possible legal aides to assist him in drafting the preamble. I would like to deal with it in a legalistic way and then say something about its political implications. The preamble does not add anything to or subtract anything from the bill. It was put in at a time when we are heading into a general election, when the government wants to keep both labour and management happy. As a result, we have a weak bill with a long preamble. This reminds me of lawyers who when they have a strong case on the facts spend considerable time stressing the facts, but when they have a week case on the facts they stress the law. I suppose anybody in the minister's position would have done the same.
When I reread Maxwell tonight it rather shocked me, not having looked at it for a number of years. It starts by saying;
Many old statutes-

In passing, Mr. Speaker, I always thought the Liberal party was a new party, an aggressive party.
-have preambles in which the main objects of the Act are set out, and these are legitimate aids in construing the enacting parts. But considerably less space will be devoted here to the use of the preamble in construction than in previous editions of this work, for two reasons.
He goes on to give the reasons. That is why the question was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and by other hon. members. I point out that Maxwell is a legalistic man who has nothing to do with politics. His is a text book which would be used by a court in deciding how this bill should be interpreted. I continue the quotation:
First, hardly any modern statutes have preambles, so that the importance of the preamble as an aid to construction is constantly declining.
I see the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) pointing to statute books. Those are Liberal statutes.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Would the hon. gentleman like to indicate which party was in office when the Bank of Canada Act was passed?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Wait, I am coming to something. When you are dealing with the interpretation of the constitution through the BNA Act, or with the Bill of Rights, then you can refer to the preamble. But when you are dealing with a working statute having to do with labour-management relations, that is a different proposition. If the minister is pointing to statutes that may have been passed by a Conservative government, I point out that I was not a member of that government. I am talking about Bill C-183. We are dealing tonight with a very important matter, probably one of the most serious questions affecting Canada.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: What about the Bill of Rights?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad the minister asks me about the Bill of Rights. That is an exception. When you are dealing with the BNA Act, the interpretation of the constitution, or the Bill of Rights then you may go to the preamble. Here we are dealing with the interpretation of a statute respecting labour-management relations. Let me just finish the quotation.
First, hardly any modern statutes have preambles, so that the importance of the preamble as an aid to construction is constantly declining.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: It is still there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would not get too excited if I were you. I don't think you have read what I am going to read. Secondly, the office of the preamble in interpretation has been authoritatively stated by the House of Lords-
This was an English case, The Attorney General v. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover, 1957 Appeal Cases, page 436. Here I might say that the British authorities are followed as part of the process in rendering decisions in Canada.
In that case, Lord Normand said (at pp. 467, 468): "When there is a preamble it is generally in its recitals that the mischief to be remedied and the scope of the act are described. It is therefore clearly permissible to have recourse to it as an aid in construing

the enacting provisions. The preamble is not, however, of the same weight as an aid to construction of a section of the act as are other relevant enacting words to be found elsewhere in the act or even in related acts. There may be no exact correspondence between preamble and enactment, and the enactment may go beyond, or it may fall short of the indications that may be gathered from the preamble. Again, the preamble cannot be of much or any assistance in construing provisions which embody qualifications or exceptions from the operation of the general purpose of the act. It is only when it conveys a clear and definite meaning in comparison with relatively obscure or indefinite enacting words that the preamble may legitimately prevail.
Then he comes to the general rule which has been mentioned by the minister, by the hon. member for Edmonton West, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Hamilton West, that the preamble means nothing; the act itself is important. If the minister is satisfied that this proposed legislation will bring about economic and industrial peace and will still be fair to both labour and management, they being responsible within the law, then he has done his job.
Basically, this preamble means nothing. The only reason it is there is that the minister and the government are concerned that they are not satisfying labour nor management, and that there is likely to be an election this fall. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is still frightened, we will have one according to the constitution even if we have to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to obtain the right to have it.
I thought the minister added something new to that department. I thought he was sincere, though sometimes he appears to be a little sad or apologetic. But now he brings in a preamble which is a straight, political platform and means nothing. I was not on the committee that studied the bill, but it appears that it might be selling labour or management a little short. One thing is sure, however-it is selling the Canadian people short. I listened to my friends in the New Democractic Party.


An hon. Member:: As you always do.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is clear that Saskatchewan has been pretty kind to the CCF, Mr. Speaker. That is where the first socialist experiment took place. The farmers of Saskatchewan have been pretty kind, too, giving them a few seats in the legislature. But I would like to have a mouse in the caucus to find out where they stand when they speak to the grain farmers.
The port of Montreal has been tied up so that we cannot ship wheat and contracts are broken. Since 1968 there have been so many strikes on the west coast that wheat cannot be shipped. How does this party manage to hold seats for the wheat farmers? How can they hold seats, with labour union leaders like the leader of their party who is at least a solicitor for unions? It is beyond me.
I should like to have the unanimous consent of the House to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who has been connected with the labour movement in this country, explain to the people of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, agricultural provinces, why the party almost continually supports industrial unrest. It would take a magician to do it, but somehow they manage
Canada Labour Code
to get the farmers and labour of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to vote for them.
In his speech the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said that what we are trying to legislate tonight is industrial peace. Surely that is important, Mr. Speaker. If it is not one group on strike, it is another. We cannot get the wheat out of the country. It is all very well to talk about great markets and contracts, but in the last four years Canada has dropped from first place to sixth place as a nation trading in grain. If I am to be kind to the government for a moment, I must say it was not really because of their agricultural and trade policies but because there has not been industrial peace in this nation. Without it, we cannot compete against Japan, Germany and the United States. While our ships waited in Vancouver month after month to be loaded with wheat to meet our contracts with the U.S.S.R., the United States was loading ships in Seattle with American wheat.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Not true.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In the story "How Green was my Valley", which was written at the time of the industrial revolution in Great Britain and dealt with the suffering of the coal miners, the old man told his sons that they could only achieve their ends if they did it with responsibility. That is the important factor, Mr. Speaker, and it is the only way to get industrial peace. Management must be responsible and labour must be responsible.
With the greatest respect to the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell), I do not think much of this preamble. Maybe his legal advisers told him it was necessary, but it is nothing. If he needed it to bolster this act, he would be better to throw the whole thing on the garbage heap because it is nothing.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of speaking at this time but as I listened to the hon. member who just sat down, several questions occurred to me. I have not been able to figure out which part of his speech referred to the preamble of this bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I read from a legal text; I cannot do more than that.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should try to understand, although I do not suppose it is possible, that when workers in Canada talk about the right to collective bargaining it means their right to bargain and to negotiate about conditions of work, wages, holidays, grievance procedures, and so on. It means that they will be able to decide what is important, on their own. It means that nobody can tell them what to do if they follow the proper procedure.
I agree with the hon. member, since trade unions are composed of human beings who are fallible, that there have been strikes which probably were not very wise. The workers themselves are making decisions on principle, Mr. Speaker. They are not influenced by outsiders, by people like the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), by members of the NDP or by anybody else. Of course, the hon. member may deplore strikes. They cause inconvenience. I can understand the concern of wheat farmers who want to move their grain. I can understand

June 27, 1972
Canada Labour Code
the concern of people who want to go to hospital when hospital workers go on strike.
It is not enough for the hon. member for Calgary North to complain about strikes. It is not enough to point out how strikes create difficulty. Strikes are a facet of life in every democratic country. The hon. member spoke of the wheat sales the United States made while the port of Vancouver was closed. I think the hon. member for Calgary North knows there was a longshoremen's strike on the west coast of the United States which closed every port from Seattle down to San Diego. That strike lasted for almost six months.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do they permit strikes in Sweden?


David Orlikow: Of course they permit strikes. They have many strikes because they have-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Enlightened management.


David Orlikow: Precisely. If our management were as enlightened as Swedish management, and as ready to deal freely and fairly with employees, we would not have nearly as many strikes in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I want to say something else to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). If there were as little unemployment in Canada as there is in Sweden, there would not be as many strikes in this country. Strikes are to be deplored. But deploring strikes is not enough.
When a person says strikes are bad and that there should not be strikes, he is obligated to suggest a method of establishing relations between employers and employees which will work better than free collective bargaining, a system which sometimes leads to strikes. Mr. Speaker, systems like that have been tried. For 50 years in Australia and New Zealand they have dealt with labour matters under forms of compulsory arbitration in labour courts. Yet in those two countries there have been more strikes in some years than there have been in Canada, where the relatively free method of collective bargaining is used.
Let me say one more thing, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. member suggests or implies that the members of my party encourage or are involved in strikes, he is just as wrong as he would be if he were to suggest that we encourage employers to lock out their employees. We have no more influence over what others do than members of any other party. The perfect example that comes to mind, and I will close on this note, is this: there is not one province in this country which has experienced more strikes in the last couple of years than Quebec. The hon. member for Calgary North talked about the lockout of dock workers in Montreal.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about B.C.?


David Orlikow: I am sure that even the hon. member for Calgary North would admit that my party has little influence in the province of Quebec. After all, Quebec is represented in this House mostly by members of the Liberal party. If any politicians are responsible for those strikes,

the hon. member for Calgary North had better look across the way to the government side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on motion No. 1, in the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: In my opinion the nays have it.


William Arnold Peters: Call in the members. The Conservatives are not rising. They are chicken.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Alexander) negatived on division.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I change that and say I am rising on a question of privilege? An hon. member to my left has suggested that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is chicken.


William Arnold Peters: Don't fight about it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If there was any fight, it resulted from the NDP's action in filibustering this amendment. Most of them never even mentioned the preamble.


John Stratford Burton: That's a bloody lie and you know it.


An hon. Member:: You can't say that here.


John Stratford Burton: Well, I said it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to become involved in any controversy with the hon. member who made an ungentlemanly remark.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He is not even in his seat.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I think perhaps he has lost his ability to take cognizance of the place where he usually sits. In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, why should we call for a vote on this amendment at this particular time? After all, it was a mix-up on the government side that prevented the FISP bill from passing. An hon. member on the government side said, when the matter was put to the House, that it should not carry."


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: After that, the government brought forward the farm credit bill. An hon. member on the government side to the right of the Speaker prevented the passage of the FISP bill. It would have passed earlier this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: Who was that hon. member?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Just one moment. The government, in its confusion, hurriedly tried to bring forward another bill, the farm credit bill.
June 27, 1972


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That bill was not proceeded with and the government brought forward the labour bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. So far I have not heard anything that might constitute a question of privilege. From what I have heard, there is no question of privilege.


William Arnold Peters: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Finding that it is close to that hour, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on June 1 last, I put the following question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare:
Does the minister intend to make a statement on motions following the action taken recently by the Quebec government with regard to its intention of using part of the increase in the old age pensions which was granted through passage of Bill C-207?
The minister answered as follows:
No, it was not my intention, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I understand quite well why the minister did not intend to resume the discussion of the matter because he would have been compelled to say that Quebec had no other alternative than to increase the cost of staying in homes.
Thus pensioners find themselves with next to nothing. Not all of them, I agree, but certainly the poorest and those who, under federal-provincial agreements, will get next to nothing from the $15 increase which has been granted to them.
For instance, let us consider a few cases quoted by Miss Claire Dutrisac in La Presse of May 31 last.
Take a single person, aged 65. After a monthly estimation of his needs, that is, $90 for housing, $52 for food, clothing and personal expenses, $10 for a special diet and $5 for life insurance, we have a total of $157.
On the other hand, the income of that person is made up of the old age pension, plus the guaranteed income supplement, that is $137.70. The difference paid by the welfare service is therefore $19.30. Medical supplies are also paid by that service, although not directly to the beneficiary. So, in view of the $15 increase we voted, this person's income will be increased to $152.70.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The difference between the needs and the income would therefore amount to $4.30. This, then, will be the amount added to the allowance of the federal government, instead of $19.30.
To conclude, in that specific case, Mr. Speaker, this individual will not see one penny of the $15 monthly increase.
On the other hand, a single person of 65 who does not benefit from the welfare act because his needs have been evaluated at less than $137.70 will benefit fully from the $15 increase and will live off the $152.70 pension we have voted.
Mr. Speaker, this principle resembles that of the communicating vessels. It will be even more pronounced in the case of those who live in old people's homes. Those who used to receive $137.70 will get $152.70 retroactively to January 1, 1972. They now pay the institution $104 a month for room, board and services supplied by the home. Thus they have $33.70 left for personal expenses such as clothing, entertainment, tobacco and so on.
Now in a few days their pension will be increased to $110 a month. The sum remaining at thier disposal will therefore be $42.70. If the government of Quebec had not increased their pension, they would have $48.70 left. In other words, their $15 increase will in fact be cut down to $9 since they will have to give $6 more to the institution.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the federal government should not so deceive. People of 65 or over do expect to get $15 per month more.
In fact, nearly 12,000 senior citizens of Quebec will see very little or no difference as a result of Bill C-207.
Mr. Speaker, I shall soon bring up this matter again in the House so as to make sure that the government is really taking its responsibilities towards the people who have built our country. I insist on it because we will be old one day and we will then realize the extreme importance of an equitable pension for all the old people.


Mr. Andre Ouellet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and I was wondering if those comments are really his own or belong to Miss Dutrisac.
In any case, if he wants to criticize the government's decision to increase the pension of the 1,800,000 individuals who will be getting additional payments, he is ill-advised to do so I think and if he accuses the federal government of failing to come to an understanding with the Quebec government I will remind him that the leader of his party in the House sharply criticized Mr. Caston-guay when the latter took his decisions following the increases authorized by Ottawa.
The hon. member mentions the possibility that a decrease in supplementary benefits to welfare recipients would cancel the increase coming to some retired people.
I would reply that the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare are presently studying the effects of the increases in the benefits paid as old age security pensions and as guaranteed income supplement on the benefits paid under the Canada Assistance Plan, and they are discussing all aspects of the matter with the representatives of the provinces. Even if the total number

June 27, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
of people involved at the present time equals a small percentage only of the number of pensioners, the federal government plans to examine every possible means to keep them from being short-changed in any way.
On the subject of that increase, I would also like to say that from the human point of view most Canadians have approved the government move to increase the old age security pensions and the guaranteed income supplement.
The substantial difference between the rates of payments to people aged 65 and over and to people under 65 quite clearly illustrates what regard we have for our senior citizens. A quick survey of levels of payments to elderly people in all provinces has demonstrated that such levels are lower in all the provinces than those made by the federal government. Quebec is not the only province in this situation, although it is the only one to have voiced criticisms.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that this decision taken by the federal government may have brought pressure to bear on Mr. Castonguay. However there is a course he can resort to, should he find such pressure too strong. He can always increase benefits to welfare recipients between 55 and 65 years old and, it is known, the federal government would share these expenditures, assuming 50 per cent thereof.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS-INCREASE IN COST OF FOOD-MEASURES TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME CONSUMERS

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, evidence continues to pile up that the consumer is being made to pay higher prices for food in the supermarkets while at the same time the profits of the huge food chains are increasing. Today's Globe and Mail reports that the cost of 147 food items in major food chains in metropolitan Toronto hit a record high in February of this year, according to a graph produced by the Ontario Food Council. The same 147 items which sold for just over $55 on December 9,1970, cost $62 on February 9,1972.
The council secretary said much of the increase was due to the cost of beef and pork and, in a smaller way, the increased cost of poultry. These are nutrition-necessary protein foods. In spite of the slump in prices due to the late price war and other dips due to various factors, the council secretary says prices are now on the rise again.
Who is responsible for these price rises? Clearly not the farmer. A correspondent in Calgary reports that some farmer friends of his received from 19 to 26 cents a pound on the hoof for lambs in 1971 and only 19 to 33 cents a pound for lambs this year in Calgary. In June of this year the Safeway chain in Calgary was charging $1.95 a pound for lamb chops which, my correspondent adds, "were so tough they must have been mutton". Not much fat in those chops for the farmer!
As to poultry prices to the farmer, just today in the House the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) announced the slaughter of one million chickens in Canada for the purpose of keeping up prices for the farmer and ensuring that the egg market would not be depressed by an oversupply of cheap eggs. Speaking in the House on June 1, my hon. friend from Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) poin-

ted out that in 1949 the farmer received 57 cents of the consumer's dollar. Twenty years later, in 1969, he received only 45 cents. My hon. friend believed that by last year the farmer's share had dropped to only 40 cents. So we need not waste time blaming the farmer. Like the consumer, he is on the losing end.
Nor is the need for a government spokesman to assure me that Canada has lower food prices than Outer Mongolia or Timbuctu. The consumers of this country can put two and two together. If the farmers are not getting a larger share of the food dollar and if food prices are rising, someone between them and the farmer is grabbing the difference. We want to know who it is. That is what I want the government to find out. If the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is worth anything, it is supposed to look after the interests of consumers as well as of corporations. But when the proposed competition act was introduced, the big corporations of Canada protested so vigorously that the bill was withdrawn. Why was this so? Because it contained some provisions to protect consumers.
The chairman of the federally-appointed Canadian Consumer Council said recently that the government's decision to revise this bill was "an act of political expediency" and the "result of an unbalanced dialogue" since only two or three out of a total of 300 briefs represented consumer interests.
Big corporations are well organized and well heeled. They can afford to travel, to hire experts to prepare briefs and to make their case for special privilege, while consumers are unable to protect themselves. Who, then, is to protect the consumer by delving into the facts and getting at the reasons for the relentless rise in food prices? Who is going to see to it that better ways are found of protecting the farmer than slaughtering one million chickens while thousands of Canadian families and millions of other families elsewhere need the protein they represent?
I firmly believe that only one agency can and should take responsibility for these problems, and that agency is this government. I urge once again that it begin to discharge that responsibility by conducting an investigation into rising food prices-a public investigation with witnesses from every sector of the food industry from the farm to the supermarket shelf-and that consumers be among the witnesses and the audience. Until this is done and the facts are known, the public will continue to suffer blindly, the government will continue to evade its responsibility and food prices will continue to rise.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister ol Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stated that between April, 1971, and April, 1972, the cost of food used in the home rose by twice as much as the cost of living generally. The food component of the consumer price index rose from 131.5 in April, 1970, to 138.3 in April, 1972, an increase of 6.8 points. The consumer price index rose in the same period from 129.7 to 138.2, an increase of 8.5 points.
The use of the period April 1,1971, to April 1, 1972, gives a false impression of trends in food prices because a large

part of the increase during 1971 represented a readjustment following the price war among the supermarkets which began in 1970. From September to December, 1970, the food component of the consumer price index declined from 130 to 125.6, or 4.4 points.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion The recently announced budget makes special reference to the problems of low-income consumer groups, in particular elderly Canadians, through the adjustment of old age pensions in accordance with the cost of living and an increase in the guaranteed income supplement for needy, elderly Canadians.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Wednesday. June 28, 1972