1972-08-31

Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to notice given under the provisions of Standing Order 42(2) Mr. MacEachen, for Mr. O'Connell, seconded by Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton), moves for leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshor-ing and grain handling operations and operations related to longshoring or grain handling at ports on the west coast of Canada."
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time? By leave, later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, if I may rise on a point of order I should like to suggest to the House that it would be agreeable if we could proceed with the second reading of the bill that has just received first reading and, if that is possible, we would like to send the bill to the committee of the whole rather than to a standing committee. At the same time I would like to suggest, if it is agreeable to hon. members, that we might dispense with the private members' hour today in order to proceed with this bill.


Mr. Baldwin:: This is perfectly satisfactory, Mr. Speaker. We would like to get to the matter as soon as possible so that the government can explain its inadequacies in this respect.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we agree to these two requests, namely, that the bill be considered in committee of the whole and that we suspend the private members' hour. It is always nice to be able to give the government something in the way of help. It needs it.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement with the procedure proposed today and we are happy to further in this way the business of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made that the House dispense with the private members' hour from five to six o'clock, and also that the bill to which reference has just been made be referred to the committee of the whole House. Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that the bill just referred to has now had first reading and is to be debated on second reading within about 40 minutes, I wonder whether copies of it could not be distributed to members immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: It was the intention of the Chair and the Table to see that copies of the bill were distributed immediately, and I think this is being done without further delay.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, unaccustomed as I am to applause, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the continued high level of unemployment, in excess of 6 per cent seasonally adjusted, and the rapid increase in the-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Make it good, Bob.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -cost of living.

August 31, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the government taken a decision not to proceed with the 3 per cent increase in personal income tax to come into effect next January in order that people may know where they stand?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the position has not changed on that question since the address I made on May 8.



UNEMPLOYMENT-EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS FOR COMING WINTER

Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of this indecision and the prospects for a higher rate of unemployment this winter, can the minister state whether he has yet presented any plans to the provinces with regard to a winter employment program and, if not, when such may be expected?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I had thoi-ough consultation with the provinces, as did my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and the government's plans by way of special employment programs for the winter will be announced by my colleague.



COST OF LIVING INCREASE-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister may have had conversations but the premiers are very dissatisfied. I should like to ask the minister whether he has any specific measures to combat increase in the cost of living or whether he' feels that the disbanding of the Prices and Incomes Commission is sufficient in itself to fight the increase in the cost of living?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister stated in the House, there will be a nucleus from the Prices and Incomes Commission remaining in office and contingency plans are always under review. I might say to the hon. gentleman that if Canadians review the price record and the consumer price index over the last seven months they will see that our record compares favourably with that of the United States despite the fact that they had wage controls and a wage and price freeze.



HOUSING


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions to direct to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who, even if the roster applied, would be expected to be here on Thursday, but in his absence I must direct the questions to the Prime Minister. In light of a newspaper report that officers of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Montreal are being or have been charged with having received gifts improperly, and in light of the evidence in the Dennis report that CMHC is oriented toward the developers and the whole situation that that

reveals, may I ask the Prime Minister whether consideration is being given to instituting a full inquiry into the various projects in Montreal which have come under criticism in the Charney report, the Dennis report and now in the present situation?


Mr. David Weatherhead (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer the first part of the question. In view of the problems arising from the Projet Abeille, the project in Montreal which was mentioned, the minister formerly in charge of housing, now Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, asked the Solicitor General to conduct a detailed investigation into all events connected with the project. As a result of the investigation by the RCMP, charges were laid against a former and a present employee of CMHC, as well as against persons connected with the building firm. CHMC has suspended the present employee pending the outcome of the trial. The difficulties with Projet Abeille have since been resolved by CHMC to the satisfaction of the home owners, either by buying back the properties from the purchasers or fixing up the properties to the satisfaction of the purchasers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, while thanking the parliamentary secretary for his reply, may I ask a question of the Prime Minister none the less. In view of the fact that the particular project to which the parliamentary secretary referred is not the only project which has been built in a substandard way and against which there have been complaints, in view of the fact there are at least two other projects in the same situation, and in view of the fact that the investigation by the Solicitor General is purely a legal investigation, will the Prime Minister consider, if he has not already done so, making a thorough inquiry into the methods of CMHC and CMHC officers in Montreal with regard to all the projects which have come under criticism from the people who have suffered because of the substandard situation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker,
I would have thought that the answer by the parliamentary secretary indicated clearly that the previous minister and the present minister were indeed very much aware of the complaints of some people as to the application of the programs and that they had acted very diligently indeed to make sure that any abuses were corrected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF DENNIS AND OTHER REPORTS

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I now ask the Prime Minister whether he, on behalf of the government, is prepared to make public and distribute copies of the Dennis report and the Seadon report with regard to waste treatment plants and the part of CMHC in them as well as the other reports which have been prepared by task forces at the expense of the taxpayers and which would be of help to the Canadian people if they knew what the situation was?
August 31, 1972


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the House well knows, Mr. Speaker, the conclusions of the so-called Dennis report were published by the government at the direction of the minister. Therefore the public is informed on the recommendations and conclusions of that report. The minister explained, and it might be worth repeating, that the reason the report itself has not been made public is that it was prepared by a gentleman who had access to very confidential information, not only of the federal government but correspondence between federal and provincial officials and ministers, and that by the very nature of things this confidentiality must be respected.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Dennis report, which I have read, as the Prime Minister no doubt knows-


An hon. Member:: And published.


David Lewis: And published. When the government suppresses a document, someone has to put it out for the people to see. In view of the fact that the Dennis report very carefully avoids mentioning names in any references it makes to correspondence or memos, and in view of the fact that the information with regard to discussions within the department and between the federal and provincial governments with respect to the important issue of housing is precisely the kind of information Members of Parliament and the general public ought to have in order to judge what should and could be done, I ask the Prime Minister to inform the House whether his answer is final and all these reports will remain secret, known only to the government, or will he give consideration to making them public before the general election so they can be discussed across the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand from the question that the hon. member has made public something in the form of a report. I am not quite sure what edition or version he has made public. I have not seen what he has published, but if he has indeed published what he calls the Dennis report I do not see why he is complaining about the government suppressing it. It is there to be read by those who want to see it.
With respect to the content of the report we had prepared for us, the government frequently asks experts, people who have special knowledge, to examine our programs, giving them access to confidential information in order that they may help us to improve policies. Many such pieces of advice are given to the government both from within and from without. Were the government to take the attitude that it would publish all the confidential information given to it, it would-


Some hon. Members:: Speech. Order!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -it would only ask for reports from its friends.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We shall go on to the next debate.
Inquiries of the Ministry



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In view of the fact that the Quebec government has agreed to the construction of a cardboard factory at Cabano, could the minister tell the House whether the federal government will share in the construction of this plant and in the creation of new jobs in the Cabano region? If so, to what extent?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I have read in the newspapers that the provincial government had announced the payment of $3.5 million for the establishment of a plant in Cabano. We have been asked for an $8 million grant in addition to a $15 million guarantee, which means $23 million for a $30 million project. It is therefore normal that we should take a little more time to consider the matter.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question. I trust he has had a good summer with some of the escapees.


Mr. Bell:: Explain.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the increase in crimes committed by some of those who have escaped from penitentiaries and by those who have already served terms for similar offences, will the minister now give the House an undertaking that he will make public the Millhaven report as soon as possible? Will he also make public as soon as it is available the report of L.P. Landry on the recent escape of six prisoners from St. Vincent de Paul as well as the report on the escapes in Vancouver?


Hon. lean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, when we ask outside people to carry on an investigation on security in our penitentiaries, we evidently give them access to all useful information, in order to correct present conditions.
However, if we were to make that report public, we would only be providing to those we wish to keep in jail in order to protect the people some information on penitentiary security and make it easier for them to bring their plans into being.
I think that such is not the intention of the hon. member.

August 31, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I take it from the minister's long reply that the answer is no and that these reports will be kept secret. Having in mind the minister's criticism of the guards on the ground that they failed to fire on the escapees, can he tell us whether this is part of his new reform policy for the penitentiaries?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, there should not be any confusion whatever between rehabilitation and security. On that I was very clear. For a while I have been quite worried about regulations governing security in penitentiaries. In fact, since May the RCMP has been working in co-operation with our security services in these institutions in order to review the whole matter. We received a report recently and we shall act very quickly. Within a few days an assistant security director will be appointed to assess all our programs and regional directors will also be selected so as to make sure that high security prevails inside our penitentiaries and that there is no recurrence of incidents like those we had recently.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman take a leaf out of the Prime Minister's book and promise us an escape-free election?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport regarding the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on passenger service in southwestern Ontario. We were assured by the parliamentary secretary to the minister that action would be taken on this report and I am wondering what action has been taken?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that a formal appeal against the judgment was received by me at least from individuals. I am not certain whether I received one from any official body, but the matter is still under consideration.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, the minister may be a little mixed up since his answer did not make much sense, but also included in that report was a request for some assistance in the form of representations by the minister to the railway companies for additional facilities to transport feeder cattle from western to eastern Canada. The time will arrive shortly when this will have to be done. Has any action been taken in that regard?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if my answer was not sufficiently clear. Having regard to the second matter of feeder cattle accommodation, of course this was passed on immediately to the railways and I will be glad

to make inquiries to find out what they have done about it up to date.



NEWFOUNDLAND-APPOINTMENT OF CONSULTANTS ON GROUND TRANSPORTATION

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to advise whether the consultants have been appointed and can he announce the names of these consultants in respect of ground transportation in Newfoundland as it affects the CNR?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can provide the hon. member with a list of those who made submissions. These are now being evaluated. No official decision has been taken but I expect it will be made within a matter of a couple of weeks at the outside.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS' HUMP YARD, EDMONTON-REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING NOISE

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the shrieks and squeals at the CNR hump yard in Edmonton are having a hazardous effect on the health of 10,000 to 15,000 people, and in view of the fact no action has been taken to rectify this condition, will the minister take it upon himself to further intervene on behalf of these worthy citizens?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, I will be glad to, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is continuing discussions with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec with a view to giving assistance to those farmers who suffered from adverse weather conditions this summer?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There will be further discussions to delineate the areas that will be designated for some of the payments and, indeed, for fodder assistance and that sort of thing, but I have announced a fairly comprehensive program involving both levels of government to make sure the livestock industry remains viable in the entire area, as well as some additional cash grants.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether this assistance will be given in addition to whatever crop insurance may be operative within the area?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.
August 31, 1972



QUEBEC-PROGRAM TO ASSIST FARMERS AFFECTED BY CROP DAMAGE-REQUEST THAT MINISTER GIVE DETAILS

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister.
Can he be more specific concerning the program which he has already announced outside the House, which aims at assisting farmers in Quebec, and more specifically those in the Eastern Townships? Could he also state clearly the policy that he meant to announce, a few days ago, in Stanstead particularly?
Would the minister clearly define the already announced program-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member for Shefford is inviting the minister to make a statement which does not belong necessarily in the framework of the question period. It appears that he is asking the minister to make a statement which should normally be made on motions.
If the minister can reply to the question briefly, he will be allowed to do so.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: All I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that complete details of all announcements have been sent to each member's office.
* * #



AIRPORTS


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: I should like to direct my question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport. Has the government arrived at a decision respecting my numerous representations regarding special public hearings outside of the Expropriation Act in respect of the new proposed airport site in Pickering?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that the government has decided that there should be public hearings and that they will be conducted by an independent inquiry. However, in justice to those people who have been affected by the earlier announcement the expropriation proceedings will go forward in the normal course of events, and following that there will be the thorough airing concerning which the hon. member has made representations on many occasions.


Norman Augustine Cafik: My question again is to the Minister of Transport. Can he assure the House that such hearings will provide an adequate opportunity to the public as well as to other levels of government to express their views in respect of this proposal?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question-


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, one further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings who appears to have a question of moment to ask. I will recognize the hon. member for Ontario following that.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a question of great importance. I should like to address it to the Prime Minister. Would he now inform the House and the country whether or not he has yet screwed up enough courage to call a general election by the end of this week?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: He has no guts.




Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Some months ago he indicated to the House that the publication of expropriation proceedings in the Canada Gazette would be taking place in the month of August. Can he explain to the House why this has not occurred and when it will occur?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The
reason it has not occurred-this is still the month of August and while it may be possible to do so I doubt we can get it in today-is that a tremendous number of legal searches of property titles have had to be carried out as well as the preparation of individual notices to these people. As soon as these are completed, which I hope will be in the near future, we will proceed.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but in his absence I will address it to the Prime Minister. Is the government permitting the Quebec roads department to build a highway and a bridge through Caughnawaga and Lachine even though I and the citizens of Lachine and Caughnawaga are against such a project-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

August 31, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Raymond Rock: -and what financial aid is the federal government contributing toward this unwanted project?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.


Raymond Rock: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but in his absence I will again direct it to the Prime Minister. It concerns the rejection of the request by Montreal, Lachine, and the Montreal urban community for the building of the Lachine canal park. Is the minister aware that no request was made to his department to reconstitute the park's historical characteristics, as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development continues to imply? All the people want is a canal that will be operational for pleasure craft.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the House whether Bill C-183, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, passed by the House on June 30 and given royal assent in July, has yet been proclaimed and, if so, on what date?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, that bill has not yet been proclaimed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that there are references to Part V of the Canada Labour Code in the bill to be debated today, will the minister tell us whether the proclamation of Bill C-183 will be made immediately, during the life of the new bill or later?


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, the references to Part V are references to the existing or older piece of legislation. The proclamation of the new bill will be proceeded with in due course. We are committed to conducting extensive consultations concerning the appointment of a new board with labour unions, with management and with parties knowledgeable in labour and industrial relations. Those consultations have now been concluded and the government is giving consideration to the appointment of a new board, which should precede proclamation.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the House that all matters about which he is concerned regarding this bill have been completed and that there is nothing left which would prevent the proclamation of the bill in the very near future?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, the new board has not been appointed. Consideration is being given regarding the members of the new board. It is extremely important that it be the best possible board that can be put together

because of the very complex and onerous duties it will be asked to perform.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that we will be running short of time. If there are too many supplementary questions we will be in difficulty in a short while. The hon. member for Hamilton West will be allowed a final supplementary question on this subject.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the minister advise the House as to whether all the regulations applying to this bill have been dealt with and are now ready to be added to the bill in order that it can be proclaimed?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I would have to check on that point. I believe they are now ready, but if otherwise I will inform the hon. gentleman.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the information released today that another industry has folded in Sydney, namely, Lynch's Bakery, putting 70 people on the unemployment rolls and adding to the already estimated 25 per cent unemployment, and in view of the fact that the minister is responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation which has been involved in this enterprise, would he cause an investigation to be carried out to ascertain whether some method can be discovered whereby the operation will be continued, enabling these 70 people to retain their jobs?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will wait for the report of the president of Devco on this very important problem.


Robert Muir: Would the minister attempt to get through today to see if something can be done because the situation is quite urgent as these people do not have any jobs whatsoever?


Jean Marchand: If I can get in touch with the president of Devco, I will do so today.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
This morning he announced that an additional $9 million in direct subsidies would be paid some 22,500 producers, which represents $400 per producer; as this
August 31, 1972

amount will be inferior to the estimated damages, can the minister assure this House that, in view of this information, the producers will be able to get more money next September?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the $400 that I announced this morning is only a very small part, in the case of many farmers, of the total assistance program which was made public a few days ago. The reason the first announcement was made a few days ago was that we wanted to assure all the people in the livestock industry that we were determined they would have adequate supplies of feed.



LABOUR RELATIONS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question, although if he intends to give us the information on second reading of the bill that was given first reading a little while ago that, of course, would be satisfactory. I would like to ask him whether he and the government were aware that management had made a new offer on Tuesday morning before the decision was made to reconvene parliament for the purpose of dealing with the bill that has been introduced, and also whether the parties to the dispute were at any time informed of the government's intention to step in if an agreement was not reached?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will of course allow the minister to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for York South, but I think I should caution hon. members that we will reach the consideration of the bill to which the hon. member has alluded in five or six minutes time, and perhaps it would not be entirely in order to anticipate that order of the day by engaging in a debate on the bill itself. However, the minister may reply briefly to the question asked by the hon. member.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part is yes. As the government was coming to its decision it knew the employers intended to make and, indeed, on Tuesday did make a package proposal to the other side. The answer to the second question is no. I did not and no one in the government told the parties that unless they came to an agreement there would be action on the part of this parliament.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the strange resignation of Mr. Pickersgill from the Canadian Transport Commission the other day, will the
Inquiries of the Ministry
Prime Minister, just before the election, assure the House that even though the new appointee will be a well known Grit he will be one who will be knowledgeable and appreciative of the transportation problems of eastern and western Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether or not he has now received a report with respect to the damage done to HMCS Restigouche, whether or not he is prepared to act on that report and in fact decommission Restigouche and, if that is the course of action to be taken, does he intend to reactivate one of the four vessels now in a continuing overhaul configuration, with the use of the crew from the Restigouche?


Hon. E. I. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the report in question has not yet been received. I expect to receive it in the relatively near future. However, I am informed that the damage certainly is not in the area speculated upon by the press.



SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF NAVAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM TO STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it his intention to refer the whole matter of the naval construction program to a parliamentary committee, probably External Affairs and National Defence, for study, especially since the damage to the Restigouche is only one in a long series of blunders?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to say that the damage to the Restigouche is a blunder. I am not sure of this. I am waiting for the report. I would point out that the committee did have before it both the estimates for the Department of National Defence and the white paper on defence and defence policy in the 70's. If the members had cared to go into the question of ship construction at that time we were quite willing to answer any questions.



POLICY RESPECTING CONSTRUCTION AND COMMISSIONING OF DESTROYERS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether it is now the policy of his department and the government to build destroyers and then decommission other destroyers because there are not enough personnel to man them?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the policy has been stated many times that we

August 31, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
are to have 20 destroyers actively afloat, and we have crews for 20 destroyers. New destroyers have been built to replace those that are becoming obsolete. As the hon. member knows, one of the problems to be faced in the 70's is the fact that the older destroyers will become obsolete.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO SALES AT PRICES BELOW FARMERS' COST OF PRODUCTION

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Justice who reports for the Canadian Wheat Board. The western farmer is most interested in ascertaining the prices at which his wheat is being sold. As these prices are known to competitor countries, will the minister advise whether or not sales have been made to the U.S.S.R., to communist China and to Japan at different prices for the same grade in the last few months?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister ol Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the exact selling price for grain is a matter which is decided upon by the Canadian Wheat Board according to their power under their act to attempt to get the best possible price for the farmers. From time to time members of the Wheat Board appear before parliamentary committees and certainly on such occasions they can explain to what extent they are willing to disclose prices and to what extent they are not. For my part, I am not prepared to put pressure on them if they feel it is in the commercial interests of the farmers not to disclose certain matters.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to put pressure on the minister to tell the truth in this regard. The farmers are asking for information. I ask him this: Is it not a fact that most of the wheat being sold in export today is at a price below the farmers' cost of production? If he can answer that I will want to know what the prices are.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the right hon. gentleman that I am extremely satisfied with the performance of the Canadian Wheat Board in obtaining, in world competition, the best possible price available and still sell grain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I understand that the minister can be satisfied with almost anything, because he has been satisfied with 50 ships in harbour in Vancouver waiting for wheat for the last several weeks, without complaint on his part. I ask him now definitely to answer this question: Is it not a fact that in the last six months the Wheat Board has been selling wheat at a price below the farmers' average cost of production?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of an average cost of production is itself a rather complicated one. I am not prepared to state categorically what it is. I simply put back to the right hon. gentleman that if he knows the

price below which the Wheat Board should not sell grain he should state it to the House.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked whether I know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I therefore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, you are standing, but I have been asked a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: -and the government in this respect requires information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The right hon. gentleman knows he should resume his seat when I try to restore order in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. gentleman has asked a question. I am not sure whether he wants to reiterate or repeat the question-I think the right hon. gentleman prefers the latter word-but it seems to me the question has been asked twice-


John George Diefenbaker: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: -and answered by the minister, perhaps not to the satisfaction of the right hon. gentleman. I would hope we could get on to the next question.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister asked me whether I can say that the prices of export wheat from Canada in the past six months in many cases have been below the cost of production. He apparently has not got the information, and I so advise him that such is the fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the minister kindly resume his seat? There is one minute left before the end of the question period. I suggest it is not for the minister to ask questions of the right hon. gentleman or for the right hon. gentleman to answer questions asked hypothetically, I gather, by the minister. We should go on to the next question because there are just 60 seconds left before the end of the question period.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
August 31, 1972

In view of the seriousness of the situation and the farmers resentment, will the minister introduce, during this session, a special measure aimed at correcting this situation, in order to assure the survival of farming in the areas affected by bad weather since spring?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the premise on which the question was based, that there has been general dissatisfaction. I made a tour of the area both in Ontario and Quebec and the main concern was, of course, to make sure that the livestock industries would remain viable. Provision has been made for that, and whether or not the other amounts are high enough I think is a matter of debate. We think they are fairly good.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Following-


Mr. Horner:: How many cows will $400 buy, Bud? Are you in the cattle business? One milch cow at best. Harry Hays said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. The hon. member for Bellechasse will ask his supplementary, if we are privileged enough to be allowed to hear him. Order, please.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Minister of Agriculture if the results of his meetings with his Quebec counterpart will soon be made known to us and if the Quebec government is ready to co-operate with the central government in the application of truly efficient measures instead of being content with piecemeal ones-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a speech. He should be asking a question.

The minister may reply briefly and then I shall call orders of the day.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. There have been very useful discussions with the Minister of Agriculture of Quebec and they have led to a comprehensive program that is going to be helpful and, indeed, more particularly to co-operation between the two levels of government in administering the various programs. I should advise the hon. member again that details of the whole package of programs have been sent to his office.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Lundrigan:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate rises on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Minister of Manpower and Immigration allowed motions to go by without rising to explain the controversy sur-
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
rounding the unemployment insurance fund, I wonder whether he would be prepared to ask unanimous consent to revert to motions in order to make a detailed statement on the present position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there unanimous
consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not. Orders of the day.



VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to orders of the day, I should indicate to the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely:
David Anderson, Esquire, member lor the electoral district of Esquimalt-Saanich, by resignation.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Abram Ernest Epp: that Bill C-231, to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring and grain handling operations and operations related to longshoring or grain handling at ports on the west coast of Canada be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, no one will regret more than I the necessity of introducing this legislation to the House. The bill that we have under consideration today provides for the resumption and continuation of longshoring operations and, if necessary, grain handling operations at ports on the west coast.
This government, and indeed predecessor governments, does not wish to deprive trade unions, employers and employees of the full rights of collective bargaining. But there are occasions when Parliament must deal with situations, when the full resort to economic warfare by strike or lockout so impairs the ability of others to carry on their activities that it can be said to be against the national interest for the work stoppage to continue. Parliament in this case was recalled as a last resort when it was evident that the ports on the west coast would not resume operations for some weeks if normal collective bargaining procedures were allowed to take their course.

August 31, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
I do not think any honourable member will deny that a critical and urgent situation exists in western Canada as a direct result of the cessation of the longshoring operations of the ports on the coast of British Columbia. Already damage to the economy of Canada is evident and will mount at an increasing rate the longer the ports are closed. By far and away the hardest hit at this time is the grain economy on its external markets. This important sector of the economy is presently in the greatest jeopardy should the ports remain closed. British Columbia, too, has an export-oriented economy, and it is of the utmost importance that there be no prolonged closure of its ports. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said when he announced the recall of Parliament,
This government does not intend to permit the benefit gained by all Canadians from its international efforts to be dissipated by a prolonged closing of the ports.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: When did he arrive at that view?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: The Canadian Wheat Board has undertaken very large sales commitments to Russia and China, in addition to its regular sales to Japan and other nations. Indeed, our capacity for moving grain has been overstrained to meet these commitments. This export movement of grain has been concentrated through the port of Vancouver which has now been closed for 25 days.
The Asian market has been of growing importance for Canadian grain sales and has greatly enhanced the significance of shipments through the west coast ports, principally Vancouver. But one very important element in grain marketing, as it is in other businesses, is the ability of the seller to deliver on schedule. If our customers cannot depend on our shipments they will look to competitors, which can result in the permanent loss of markets. It is estimated that Canada's shipments have fallen behind by 30 million bushels and it will take a great deal of effort and additional cost to catch up. Any further delay in the resumption of operations will make it virtually impossible to do so. Not only have shipments fallen behind, but our grain transportation facilities are seriously dislocated and it is anticipated that it will take up to one month to get grain moving normally again. Future sales may well be precluded or lost by the inability of the system to deliver at a time when delivery capacities are already over-taxed by high sales volumes and catch-up efforts.
Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps desirable at this point for me to give hon. members the background of the dispute affecting the longshoring operations. I am going to say something further in a few moments about another dispute, the second dispute which complicates the first and that is the dispute with respect to grain handling operations as opposed to longshoring operations. In the case of the longshoring dispute, the previous collective agreement expired on July 31, 1972, between the British Columbia Maritime Employers' Association, which represents some 61 member companies in collective bargaining, and the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, which through various locals, represents some 3,300 longshoremen employed by these companies, at the ports of Vancouver, New Westminster, Chemainus, Port Alberni, Victoria and Prince Rupert.

Direct negotiations between the parties took place on five occasions during May and June. No agreement was reached. On June 7, the union requested the appointment of a conciliation officer. Two west coast officials of my department were appointed, but they were unsuccessful in bringing the parties to an agreement. The conciliation officers recommended the appointment of a conciliation board which I did appoint on July 24 with Dr. Noel Hall of Vancouver as chairman. The board met with the parties on July 26, 27 and 28 and reported to me on July 31.
The report, which was unanimous, indicated that the board felt it could serve no useful purpose at this stage because one party to the dispute took the position that meaningful progress toward resolving the dispute could only be made through direct talks between the parties.
Despite the fact that the board was unable to make recommendations on the substance of the matters in dispute, the chairman held himself available to assist the parties in any way possible and obtained an agreement from the parties that they would seek the assistance of the board before there was any breakdown in direct negotiations. The report was released to the parties on August 1, 1972 and, pursuant to the Labour Code, the parties were in a position to strike or lock-out on Monday, August 7 at midnight.
On August 6, complications arose affecting the port of Vancouver only, when longshoremen on regular work assignments resigned and reported for work on the daily despatch that applied to all other longshoremen at Vancouver. The dispute involving the despatch of the men has not been resolved and the port of Vancouver has remained closed since that date.
Various efforts to halt this work stoppage were made by the parties themselves and by my officers, but these met no success. Efforts were also made during this time to work out arrangements with the unions, as was done in 1969, to load grain on a voluntary and temporary basis through the National Harbours Board. The union, however, desired a permanent collective agreement arrangement with the board or another governmental agency to replace the agreement covering this work with the British Columbia and Maritime Employers' Association. The union's proposal had far-reaching implications which would require an extensive study which could not be commenced, let alone completed in the time available. Accordingly, the government felt that it could not accept the union's proposal.
Dr. Hall made further efforts to seek a solution to the dispute, but he was unable to do so. On August 10 and 11 the union took a strike vote of its membership employed at all west coast ports which authorized the union executive to take strike action. The remaining five ports were struck on August 23.
Well before that date, on August 14, I sent Mr. W. P. Kelly, Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, to Vancouver to assist Dr. Hall and to discuss other avenues to settlement. Again, no progress was made in the resolution of the dispute concerning despatching.
The day following the general shut-down of the west coast ports, I travelled to Vancouver and met with the representatives of the employers and the union. The first
August 31, 1972

meeting took place jointly. Subsequently meetings took place separately.
At the time of my arrival on the west coast, there were no negotiations in progress. Both parties agreed to meet and did so the following and subsequent days. Both parties desired some days of direct discussions because the complex issues involved in the dispute had not previously been explored. Neither party wished to have the assistance of my officials, but they agreed to meet daily and to make progress reports to me daily. While the atmosphere of the meetings appeared to be good, the parties could not assure me that an agreement would soon be forthcoming. Therefore, it became the government's view that the emergency which already existed could only deepen while collective bargaining proceeded over a period of several weeks.
The bill before the House provides for the resumption of longshore and related operations on the west coast while the parties continue to bargain for a settlement of their dispute. It provides for the extension of the collective agreement to December 1972, or until the parties make a new agreement, whichever is earlier. It also provides for further mediation. Strikes or lockouts during the extended term of the agreement are prohibited by the legislation.
Hon. members will observe, Mr. Speaker, that there are two main parts to the bill. Part I deals with the longshore dispute. Let me now deal with Part II of the bill which parallels in most respects Part I. There are separate and distinct operations from longshoring involving grain movement which are carried on in Vancouver by five elevator companies. Some 500 employees of these companies are represented by the International Union of Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America. Part II of the bill before us applies to these operations in contrast to Part I which applies to the longshore operations which do indeed involve grain as well as other commodities moving to the ports.
At the outset, I wish to point out particularly that this part comes into effect only on proclamation, and I hope that no proclamation will be necessary. The present situation in this dispute is that the collective agreement between the elevator companies and the union expired on November 30, 1971. Since that time extensive negotiations have been conducted and the conciliation officer and conciliation board procedures have been complied with and followed. The conciliation board reported to me on August 16, 1972 and the report was released to the parties and made public on the same day. Thus a strike or lockout could legally have commenced at midnight on August 23, about a week ago. The companies have rejected the recommendations of the majority of the board. The union accepted the recommendations, but desired some clarification from the chairman of the board. The chairman of the conciliation board has very recently supplied the information requested and it was remitted to the companies and the union yesterday.
I do expect that the parties to the second dispute, this elevator and grain handling dispute, will reach an early settlement. Regretfully, though, it will not be in time to
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
relieve the government of the obligation to deal with this situation in the bill now before the House. It is, therefore, essential that when port operations do resume as a consequence of part one of this bill the movement of grain should not be disrupted again by failure to reach agreement on the second dispute. If there should be a settlement of the second dispute, I repeat, there will be no proclamation with respect to part two of the bill. Because an early settlement of the longshore dispute is not apparent-indeed, it does not seem apparent in the next several weeks-and because of the critical situation in western Canada and in British Columbia in particular arising from the halting of shipments of grain, potash and other commodities from the prairie provinces, and of lumber, mineral and other products from British Columbia, it has been necessary to introduce this bill. I should add that in British Columbia the stoppage of loading operations has paralysed coastal shipping carrying supplies to remote ports and islands.
The basic purpose of the bill before us is simple. It is to bring about a resumption of port operations while negotiations continue toward a settlement. It is to interfere as little as possible with the collective bargaining process. It is to leave the parties, as they wish to be left, to negotiate directly, and, with the assistance of mediators, to arrive at an agreement which they can live with and want to live with during the next period. I sincerely regret that for the reasons outlined to the House there is no practical alternative to the adoption of the bill before us. Mr. Speaker, I now move its second reading.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, here we are again. We are back in a situation similar to that of about two months ago with the government, trying to make up for weeks of doing nothing by pushing the emergency button, pushing this button only after enormous damage had been done to the economy of the country. After a month of watching from the sidelines while every western province saw the prospects of economic disaster grow steadily, the government jumps in an attempt to put over an illusion of decisiveness and decisive action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sir, the government may delude itself, but it can no longer delude or fool the Canadian people, because it has tried the same trick too often. Here we are again, this time called together by a government which has become so accustomed to lurching from crisis to crisis that it now lacks even the decency to apologize for its failings or to present excuses for its ineptness.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have a great deal to answer for. They have certainly chalked up a long list of failures, but nowhere has their record been worse than in this whole field of labour relations and labour disputes. During the spring and early summer those of us who sit in this chamber witnessed the spectacle of the government and, particularly, of the minister, stumbling along week after week until the Quebec dock situation had deteriorated to a point at which they had no option but to call upon Parliament to act. In the past month we have seen the government, first ignoring and then denying, the importance of what was taking place in the west coast port. It

August 31, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
has only during the last month discovered that an emergency existed. It was, of course, only a coincidence that this emergency occurred at the time when the political cabinet was due to meet to discuss the prospects of an election.
I say to the government through you, Mr. Speaker, that this dispute did not spring suddenly from nowhere. It has been obvious for some time that profound differences existed and that an agreement would not come easily. But the government took no action of any significance. Even after the contract of the grain handlers expired last year and the one for longshoremen expired on July 31, after which the threat of a walk-out became more urgent daily, the federal government and the minister failed to take any active part; they did not actively move to achieve a settlement. Even after the Port of Vancouver was shut down on August 7, the federal government continued to tap its heels.
I shall not go through the chronology of events; the minister has done this, to some extent. But on August 17, ten days after the Vancouver walk-out had begun, an appeal from the premier of British Columbia that the situation be treated as an emergency received a somewhat cavalier reception from the Prime Minister of this country. I quote him as reported. "I do not see" he said "what it would accomplish to declare ... a disaster area. What does he want us to do-declare another War Measures Act?" The reference was to the premier of British Columbia. I see the minister from Calgary smiling. I suppose it is amusing to him. The comments of the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) on this request coming from the west were not as amusing as those of the Prime Minister. He was quite clear, though. I quote him as reported. "To elevate the dispute at this time to the category of a national emergency would be premature." This was just a few days ago, after Vancouver had been tied up for some time and after the strike had extended to all the west coast ports, with the result that difficulties were increasing throughout western Canada.
All the rest is history. Even while the minister was muttering that it would be premature to consider the situation urgent, he did go out to British Columbia on August 25, as he told us today. Then, with great fanfare, he announced his success in bringing the two sides together to talk again. Then, just as reports were beginning to circulate, I think originating from the minister himself, that great things were being accomplished by the minister he returned to Ottawa and the next sound we heard was the ringing declaration by the Prime Minister that the situation about which he was exceedingly nonchalant a few days ago, as was the minister, was intolerable and only Parliament could deal with it. Those are the facts, and as in the case of most facts with which this government is connected, they raise as many questions as they answer.
Why, for example, did the Prime Minister suddenly reverse himself in mid-flight, so to speak, and declare the situation urgent when shortly before that he rejected the request of his own western caucus to do precisely this? Why did both sides to the dispute express their astonishment at this turn of events, that is the announcement that

Parliament would have to be called? Why did the Minister of Labour not know that discussions were apparently about to take place on serious new proposals? What was wrong with communication? The minister did not even have to rely on the post office. Why, finally, if the government was seriously considering recalling Parliament, did the minister not make a public statement long before when he must have known the urgency of the matter and realized the effect that the tie-up was having upon the economy of Canada, and particularly the economy of western Canada? Why did the minister not make a statement indicating the gravity of the situation instead of he and the Prime Minister playing it down, and perhaps creating the impression even among those who were engaged in bargaining that there was not really very much damage being done to the national economy?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Instead, in their public statements, the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister spoke as though there were no real urgency. I can well understand why those involved directly in the dispute assumed they had plenty of time to settle matters and the government was not all that concerned about the damage being done.
Did the minister at least tell those involved in the dispute that unless they were able to act quickly the government would have no alternative than to ask Parliament to resolve the matter? He indicated today in response to questions that he did not give that indication. Did he indicate to those involved in the dispute not only that the matter was causing serious damage but that he would have to come back and report to the government that it was beyond the capacity of ordinary bargaining to settle this matter before irreparable damage was done?
I say that any way you look at this thing, the minister has lost his credibility. If he knew that Parliament might have to be recalld, he surely had a duty to make it clear to the participants to the dispute. He surely had a duty to make it clear to the participants to the dispute that this was a situation of national emergency rather than attempting to play it down, creating an impression quite the opposite. If he did not know this and did not realize the government was seriously considering calling Parliament back to resolve this matter, then he was certainly overruled in the policies of his own department, and what further effectiveness could he possibly have in the whole field of labour relations. I have to say to the Minister of Labour that he has lost his credibility, and as a result of that loss the whole government has lost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There are bound to be questions which will arise as a result of these events, and there is bound to be and certainly is confusion and uncertainty about the competence of the government in respect of the whole affair. There is one thing that is crystal clear and that is the undiluted and indisputable political motivation displayed by the government in its handling of this dispute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
August 31, 1972


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It was obvious from the moment it started that this walkout constituted a serious menace not only to grain farmers and others on the Prairies, not only to the whole of the Canadian economy but, as the minister himself said this afternoon, it really constituted a threat to the credibility of our country as a trustworthy supplier of grains and other products. The minister, in the House this afternoon, said this was apparent when he introduced this bill. It was just as apparent the first day the walkout occurred that this was a matter of grave, national concern.


An hon. Member:: It is easy to see afterwards.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Go back to sleep.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My hon. friend says it is easy to see it afterwards. I am sure the hon. member from the Prairies, probably as one who took part in the western caucus, asked the government many days ago to treat this matter as urgent. If he would come clean with us, I am sure he would say it was really clear to him the first day the strike took place that this created a situation of urgency for western Canada. I am sure it was apparent to him, brilliant as he is, and it should have been apparent to his colleague the Minister of Labour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the past, this government has complacently allowed situations to rot to the point where the damage was becoming almost irreversible before deigning to move. I must say, in comparison with its past record, the government has moved in the present situation with comparatively stunning speed. It only allowed things to deteriorate for about a month this time before making the ultimate move of recalling Parliament.
This has perhaps been a dramatic performance. It was perhaps especially effective because of the secrecy in which this move was planned. If the people who were involved in the dispute had been alerted this move might not have been necessary. If the situation had been brought home to them earlier by the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister, it might very well have been unnecessary for us to intervene as a Parliament.
What is all that compared to the political effect the government hopes to achieve through these manoeuvres? Of course, this stoppage at the west ports has to end. Of course, western grain and other products must be moved again as rapidly as possible. Of course, the ports must reopen and of course the situation is urgent, as I said it was some weeks ago. Of course, in deciding its own moves the present government has looked to one thing and one thing only, and that is the political impact of its decision. Once again, it is the political timetable of this government and not the real needs of Canadians that has dictated the timing of the decision of this administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: True, we have here a sort of belated recognition that Parliament does have a role to play. When we consider the fact that for the last four years the
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
government has spent much of its time emasculating Parliament, when we consider that the denigration of Parliament was, for a while at least, the favourite indoor sport of this government, I suppose that what is happening here today must be regarded as a victory of sorts. But now the government is forced to call Parliament back if it wants to settle anything in connection with this matter. Unfortunately, however, there is a darker side to this picture because this government's decision to recall Parliament, after it has failed to take any action itself over a period spanning several years and when it saw its last few western seats slipping from its grasp, has to be qualified as a sordid piece of cynicism.
I hope that no one is under any illusion that the bill which has been presented today really offers any solutions to these deep-seated labour problems. Certainly, it offers no solutions to the problem of the disputes in the public service or in essential services in general. It is no secret that we are in danger of witnessing yet another postal strike in the next few months. I am not predicting that this will happen, but we are all aware that this may very well happen. The only comment I would care to make at this time on this subject is that if this strike should materialize during the long-promised election campaign that we are expecting, that is if there should be a stoppage of certain postal services during that campaign, then this Parliament has already given to the government the means with which to delay a general walkout until a new government can take over after the election and work out a satisfactory solution to these difficulties. We have known for some time that the provisions in the Canada Labour Code which were adopted last spring have not been proclaimed. If I understood the minister today, they are not likely to be proclaimed for some time because of the dithering around by the minister. I do not know what his real reasons are for not wishing to proclaim the provisions of the Labour Code after they were passed at the last session. However, I want to make it very clear to everybody concerned that Parliament at that time did give the government the authority to deal, during the period of dissolution with stoppages of the sort, by order in council where it was deemed in the national interest. We would be interested to know whether, in fact, the government does proceed to proclaim this legislation.
I recognize that there is no simple solution to the problems of labour relations. It is a complex field, often filled with tension, and certainly the issues frequently are not easily resolved. To name but one, there is the whole matter of the response of labour and management alike to technological change. This is a factor in both the British Columbia strike and the current postal negotiations. It is one element, and there are others, which demonstrates that labour disputes will become even more complex, and perhaps even more difficult of solution, in the future than they have been in the past. That is why we must all be constantly on the lookout for new ideas and new approaches.
There are many who strongly urge a resort to compulsory arbitration in the realm of essential industries and services, whether they be in the public or the private sector. Something like this may have to come with regard to essential services. I say this very reluctantly, not only because this would be a further limitation on freedom but

August 31, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
also because I am convinced that compulsion could poison the atmosphere and raise at least as many problems as it solves. That is why I believe we should certainly try other methods, and that is why any government that I would lead would take urgent steps to set up a public interest disputes commission to deal with the problem of essential services. I do not say that this is a magic wand, but I can see that in this situation, for example, such a commission could have played an active and constructive role in anticipating these difficulties and in trying to resolve them long before the contracts were to expire, and long before the difficulties which resulted in a work stoppage came to a head. Such a public interest disputes commission, consisting of men and women with wide experience in the field who know the problems and who are independent in their thinking, could, even without compulsion, play an active role. The recommendations of such a body would have a degree of moral force that would make anybody, employer, union or government, think twice before ignoring them.
I believe that such a public interest disputes commission could play an active part in reducing substantially the kind of tie-ups and stoppages that have been occurring in essential services, both public and private. I believe that is the kind of policy that the government should have been working out and long since should have had in operation. That is the kind of activity that would have earned the gratitude of Canadians and even the respect of the opposition, at least the respect of the members of my party. That, I believe, is the direction in which the government should have been going. This would not be a cure-all but an active measure that does not restrict freedom but one that would lead to the reduction of tensions and the resolution of disputes in advance of actual breakdown.
The government did not take that course. That is one reason we are back here today, faced again with this kind of difficulty as a result of this government's incompetence. Whatever may be the reasons, we are faced with a measure on which we must take some decisions. Due to the fact that, whatever the reasons, we are faced with a situation of urgency in the Prairies and for the people of British Columbia, I want to make it very clear that we in my party will certainly support and do support the principle of this bill.
I certainly want to make it very clear that we want to get this matter out of the way because we want the work stoppage to end, and we want the damage and the threat of further damage to the economy of Canada and of western Canada in particular, to end. We want to get it out of the way also because then the Prime Minister will presumably be out of excuses for not calling an election. I probably do not need to explain this, but we want the election to be called so that the Canadian people can get this government out of its way and move on to better things.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Red Deer wishes to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention that we have been called here to deal with a very

urgent situation which has almost become an economic catastrophe for western Canada. We have been called here at some inconvenience to the members of this House and a great deal of cost to the taxpayers. We have just listened to a positive and worthwhile comment from the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition dealing with this issue, and we see the front row of the government benches practically empty. Those who do occupy it, including the Prime Minister, with the exception of the Postmaster General, have not even given us the courtesy of listening to the Leader of the Opposition. Instead they have carried on a series of conferences. This is intolerable and a disgrace.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the timing of the introduction of this bill is political is something that is very clear. I do not intend to spend much time dealing with that point. I have great respect for the Canadian electorate, a respect which was confirmed by the people of British Columbia yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I am certain the voters of Canada will recognize that the timing of this particular piece of legislation was entirely political, and has much more to do with the possibility of the coming federal election than with the welfare of Canada and the welfare of Canadians. I am confident that the voters will not be fooled by what the government has done. I want to spend my time, which I hope will not be too long, in dealing with, (a) the general subject with which the bill is concerned, and (b) the bill itself.
The questions which I asked earlier during the question period with regard to whether or not the parties were informed of the government's intention, and whether the government knew that a new proposal was going to be made, were simply directed to the point that a government which does not have the foresight and the courage to draw to the attention of parties in a serious dispute that it considers the dispute serious and will act if it is not settled, is escaping its obvious duty.
I am certain that if the parties to this dispute had been informed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell), or by his officers in British Columbia, that the government considered that the dispute had to be settled, and that if it were not settled by the parties then Parliament had no alternative but to act, there was a strong possibility that they themselves would have settled it and Parliament would not have had to act. It is this kind of failure on the part of the government that I find very condemnable indeed.
I am told by Mr. Garcia, the president of the union-I mention him so that nobody will have to guess at the source of my information-that in the presence of the Minister of Labour the two sides to the dispute agreed to meet solidly for seven consecutive days for the purpose of trying to reach a settlement. If the minister agreed to that, and if he got the parties to agree to such a procedure to
August 31, 1972

undertake seven days of negotiation, what is the labour movement to think when the government does not give it seven days to do that which the minister had asked it to do? What kind of position does the Minister of Labour hold when he gets the parties to make a serious effort at negotiating a settlement, and two days after that agreement is reached the parties, without any previous warning, are faced with Parliament being recalled and legislation being placed on the books?
I suggest that the major problem facing us in the realm of labour relations is that, even though the Department of Labour has some very competent people in it, the direction of that department is incompetent. The direction of that department is unimaginative. The direction of that department is without policy, with the result that we jump from crisis to crisis in serious labour relations matters without knowing exactly where we are going, how we are going to get there, and why we should try to get there. When the present Minister of Labour was appointed to that portfolio, even though I recognized his kindness, his decency and his sincerity, I questioned whether his particular experience had qualified him for such a sensitive job. I am afraid that what has happened since his appointment has underlined the reasons for that questioning.
This is the second time within two months that Parliament has had to act to order people back to work. I can think of nothing I dislike more, and that my colleagues dislike more, than Parliament ordering men and women to go back to work when they are not satisfied with the conditions under which they work. I find that totally repugnant to any idea of democracy and democratic behavior. For the government to put Parliament in a position where it has no alternative than to do this seems to me to be really reprehensible. I cannot guarantee that this situation would not have arisen, but I do know that the officers of the department who were in Vancouver were simply sitting and watching the parties negotiate, and that when the minister went out to Vancouver he simply watched them talk and had a little chat with them. Mr. Speaker, when you are faced with a serious labour matter, that kind of behavior is irresponsible incompetence.
When you are faced with a serious labour relations situation, one in which you eventually intend to pass a law ordering people back to work, then sitting on a chair, or whatever it was that the officers of the department sat on-some of it too indelicate to mention-and just hoping that the parties will be nice to each other, is not good enough. Effective and active intervention by the officers and effective and active intervention by the minister, banging the table, talking to the parties, pointing out the seriousness of the situation to them, warning them of action that Parliament might have to take, arguing with them about the issues that are involved, all these are the tasks of the Labour Department, and particularly of the minister, in a situation which may end in Parliament ordering people back to work. This total incapacity to understand its obligations and duty in such labour relations matters is another indication of the arrogance and the complacency with which the government regards important matters.
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
On June 30, we passed Bill C-183 dealing with the Canada Labour Code, in which we made provision to deal with some of the matters that were in dispute on the west coast, and that were in dispute at the Quebec ports in the strike which we dealt with at the beginning of July. But to date that law has not even been proclaimed, and the minister tells us that he does not intend to proclaim it in the near future or, that if he proclaims those provisions, he will change the rules in the middle of negotiations. I happen to know that one of the things that management asked for in its latest offer last Tuesday was that the employers be exempted from certain provisions of that bill which have not yet been proclaimed. That was one of the matters which the union had to face, a demand by management that its members lose the safeguards and seniority that are presently in the collective agreement with respect to job security for members of the work force on the west coast.
We would be in a different situation if that bill had been proclaimed. I want to draw to the attention of Parliament, and to the attention of everybody else interested, that the amendments to the Canada Labour Code which we passed provide that technological change is subject to negotiation even during the life of a collective agreement; that it is subject to conciliation, and that it may be an issue on which people may strike. We write that into the law. We write into the law the right to strike and we write into the amendments to the law the right to strike in the case of technological change, then, owing to the inadequacy of the actions of the Department of Labour, the moment workers exercise it we say, "You can't; get back to work." I am worried when that kind of thing happens because nothing undermines the observance of the law and respect for the law so quickly and so easily as for people to be given a right solemnly by Parliament and when they exercise that right, to be told by Parliament "You can't. Sure, we gave you the right to strike but we didn't really mean it. When your strike becomes effective we are going to pass a law and order you back to work." That is the kind of action that produces disrespect for the law and makes workers and members of unions in this country feel that the law is not really ever on their side.
Mr. Speaker, that is not good; that is destructive of the democratic process. I condemn this government for having permitted the situation to continue to the point where Parliament is forced to do just that, to tell the people who exercise a right that we gave them that they cannot exercise it any longer. And why? Because it has become effective. People suffer as a result of a strike, which in a sense is precisely what a strike is for, and since the strike has become effective we tell them that they cannot continue it any longer, that they have to get back to work. This is what we must avoid, and in order to avoid it, I repeat what I have said many times in this House. The federal Department of Labour must become much more streamlined, must stop watching these crises develop hoping that everything will come out all right and then when it does not, bringing a bill into this House. The minister, and the very able officers of his department, have to stop this game of passivity and become active participants in the settlement of serious disputes so that

August 31, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
we will not again have to go through this exercise twice in two months.
The issues on the west coast are basically the same as the issues in Quebec or the issues in Britain and the rest of the world, as they relate to longshoremen. I am told money is not involved, that there could easily have been a settlement on any increase in wages. The real problem is the introduction of automation, computerization and assignment of work, the introduction of technological changes which are perhaps necessary for society as a whole but which threaten the security of the jobs of the people involved. As a Parliament, we cannot say to workers in a particular industry that they have to carry the full load of technological progress from which society as a whole will benefit and from which employers will benefit by added productivity, as well as perhaps added profitability, that the workers are to take it on the chin, losing the security of their jobs and becoming the victims of automation and technological change. That is the situation now, and we as Members of Parliament and the people of Canada must realize that even though the strike of the workers on the west coast has to be ended because it has reached the point where it is harmful to many other Canadians in this country, I want to say on behalf of my colleagues and myself that I hope the people of Canada will recognize that the longshoremen have a right to be concerned about the effects of technological change on their situation and their job security, and that they have a right to fight for security in their jobs-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: -and to expect from their employers in the first place, and from the Parliament of Canada in the second place, some kind of protection of their life work and the welfare and future of their families.
This is the issue that this Parliament will have to face sooner or later. If, from time to time, we are going to take away the right to strike, it is not enough merely to have a provision in the Labour Code that technological change should be a matter of negotiation and in the end people can strike, because that right is worthless if the right to exercise it is taken away. I suggest, therefore, that Parliament will have to deal with the question of the effect of technological change and the need to protect the working people of this country who would be the victims of such change.
Mr. Speaker, I think that in this bill the mediator ought to have been given, by law, instructions to deal with the effects of technological change in a way which would protect the security of the jobs of the longshoremen on the west coast. I intend that either one of my colleagues or myself will move an amendment to this effect in committee of the whole. I hope the minister will consider it carefully, and perhaps agree to it, so that the people involved on the west coast will feel that they have received some justice. Before I indicate exactly the point I am driving at, let me put it in a general social or philosophical context.
When there is a lawful strike, a strike in accordance with the provisions of the law, and for reasons of the welfare of all the people of Canada or some section of the people, Parliament considers it necessary to end that

strike by law and order the people back to work, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that those people have a right to have in the law some kind of quid pro quo. They have a right to have in the law some provision that justifies ordering them back to work. Merely to make them go back to work until the end of December under the old agreement and keep on negotiating to arrive at a new agreement is not enough. It is very dangerous from one point of view as far as the working people are concerned. That point of view is the retroactivity of any settlement made in these negotiations. The last agreement terminated on July 31. If you permit negotiation to be carried on without anything in the law guaranteeing or protecting these people in their rights to retroactive application of any term as a condition of the new agreement, then you give the employer an immense weapon and the employees and union have no weapon at all. For the next few months, if the employers do not like what is going on they have the power just to sit there and say no, but the employees from whom this bill takes away the right to strike until January 1, have no power at all at the negotiating table between now and the end of the year. They just sit there and argue as best they can, but if the employer does not want to budge there is nothing they can do about it because the threat of a strike has gone until January 1, and a strike in the coming winter is a great deal more difficult than a strike in August.
I, therefore, appeal to the minister and all members of this House that if we are going to pass this bill, and it will be passed because, for the same reason as every other member in this House we are forced to support it as reluctantly I am sure as everyone else because of the west coast situation, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, we have a social obligation to put into it something that will protect the workers, that will reduce the power of the employers in the next three or four months and put a little bit of power in the hands of the negotiating committee and the working people. I believe that this bill, in the appropriate sections, ought to contain a simple provision that any agreement arrived at by the parties as a result of the negotiations that the law requires them to enter into or any terms thereof, shall, unless the parties otherwise agree be retroactive to August 1,1972.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I know the arguments, Mr. Speaker. I have had enough experience in labour relations. I am sure some of the minister's officials know that retroactivity is a matter of negotiation. Sometimes the union sells retroactivity for some other benefit it wants to get and all the rest of it. I suggest to the minister that words can be found to enable that. That is why the amendment which we would move, and I hope the minister will move it, will say that the terms of the agreement or any of them shall be retroactive to August 1, 1972, unless the parties to the agreement agree otherwise. They can negotiate. They can agree on certain benefits, such as wages, going back to August 1 and some other benefits being retroactive to November 1 or some other time. It is up to them to decide. The grain handlers could have the benefits retroactive to
August 31, 1972

November 30 or November 1, 1971, when their agreement ended.
I appeal to the minister and all Members of Parliament. Unless this kind of protection is given to longshoremen, they have none at all. All that Parliament will have done will be to postpone the problem for four months. That is all they will have done. We will not have accomplished anything except to enable the government to enter into a federal election without the anger of people with regard to this strike on the west coast. When that anger comes back on January 1, 1973, it will be after the election has been held.
That is all this bill does. However, because it does make it possible for the grain shipments to start again, every member of this House, myself included, feels compelled to give assistance and support to this bill. I repeat, however, that we have a moral and a social obligation to make sure that it is not only one side in the dispute that will get hurt as a result of this bill.
As this bill is now worded, only the longshoremen will get hurt. The employer will not get hurt. He does not have to worry about retroactivity. As far as the employer is concerned, work will resume on the basis of the old collective agreement and the longshoremen will have exactly the same as they had before. The employer will not lose anything by the passage of this bill. The working people will lose. They will lose their power to force upon their employer the conditions of work they would like to have. In return for that loss to the longshoremen on the west coast, this Parliament has an obligation to assure in the law that the employers will not be able to play cat and mouse with the question of retroactivity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I raise this out of an actual experience I have had with the longshoremen on the west coast. I forget exactly when it happened. Two, three or four years ago, there was a voluntary return to work while negotiations continued. The minister nods his head indicating that he knows about it. It was three years ago. I have been informed by the union officials that the employees lost $2 million in wage increases that the employers refused to make retroactive. They lost certain provisions with regard to their pension plan, contributions to the pension plan that were going to be improved and so on.
The longshoremen on the west coast have a right to demand of Parliament that this little bit of justice be done. If they are to be forced back to work, the law should guarantee to them that the managers and employers cannot get around this. The law should guarantee the retroactivity of any benefits which are negotiated in the collective agreement.
I wish to say a few words about part of the bill that applies to grain handlers. The grain handlers have a right to feel aggrieved by the proposition of this bill because they have accepted the conciliation board report. It is the employer, including, I am sorry to say, the Saskatchewan and Alberta wheat pools that have rejected the conciliation board report. To threaten them with action in case they should strike, even before they have taken a vote, seems to be a pretty serious matter. As far as I know, they have not even taken a vote to strike. I may be wrong on
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
that. The minister has indicated that I am right. To threaten them in their situation with this kind of action if they should strike is serious.
The grain handlers' contract expired almost a year ago. It expired last November, 10 months ago. They are working without any new or revised collective agreement. They have gone through all the procedures. It took them months to do this. They have accepted a conciliation board report. This bill gives the government the power to order them back to work when the government thinks it is necessary, without any protection of their welfare. This seems to me to be an immoral act which the minister ought not make this Parliament perpetrate.
In the case of the grain handlers, we should have the same amendment requiring that the provisions of any new agreement, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, become retroactive to either November 1 or November 30. I cannot remember whether it is the beginning or the end of November. The parties can agree to change that with regard to any provision they have to make.
I did not take any longer than I needed to make the thoughts of my colleagues and myself as clear as I have been able to make them. There is no reason why we should be in this kind of crisis every two months. There is no reason at all. We are in this kind of crisis because of a totally wrong approach to labour relations by this government. I have made that statement many times in the past number of years. This attitude that not only is justice blind, but the labourers in the ports must be blind and have blinkers over their eyes until they and everybody else are kicked into seeing something that any half intelligent person, even this government, could have foreseen is just not good enough.
I believe we will not solve this problem, leaving alone the whole problem of the handling of grain, until this Parliament deals with one matter, namely automation and technological change and unless this government or whatever government follows it has the courage and the vision to make the federal labour department an active participant in important labour disputes, instead of a passive observer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have carefully listened to the comments of the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) concerning new techniques or automation. He also told us that the bill does not solve per se the problem now under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, the longshoremen's strike on the west coast has been lasting for a few weeks, that is a little too long. The government dispatched the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) to British Columbia and I feel that the latter, during his recent visit in Vancouver, has particularly contributed to the campaign for the election of a New Democratic government.
Mr. Speaker, in fact he went over there and came back to tell the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) this: It

August 31, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
is impossible to solve the problem; they do not want to make sense. And so, we were ordered back to Ottawa on the double to study and pass legislation ordering the longshoremen of the west coast back to work.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind, the government was a little late in acting to settle the dispute, it knew full well that the negotiations were leading nowhere. The minister or ministers should have been sent to help solve the conflict between stevedores and employers. Today, we face an alarming situation. Hundreds of ships stand at anchor in the port of Vancouver; they can neither be loaded nor unloaded. The western farmers are waiting to ship their wheat; all is at a standstill; no solution has been found.
Mr. Speaker, the government is now introducing a bill to compel the longshoremen to resume work without making any suggestion so that bargaining may lead to agreement between both parties. The government does not give any advice. It merely says: Go back to work! Mr. Speaker, this is putting an artificial leg in a cast. Just telling workers to get back to work not later than December 31 means that we may still face the same situation on January 1.
We have had the same thing in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City, not so long ago. We called for government intervention. But they said: We must not interfere, even if the strike must last for weeks and months. Longshoremen in Montreal, Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres, as well as their families, have suffered all this time, but the minister kept answering every day: I do not want to interfere. And yet, at that time, there was an emergency in those ports.
Today, they tell us: They could have used the ports of Sorel, etc. What a farce! Everybody knows that longshoremen in Montreal, Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres belong to the same unions as those in Sorel. They would not have tolerated that situation. They would not have agreed to get back to work. The minister was well aware of that. However, it took weeks and months before some action was taken. Now, in this case, there is immediate intervention to settle the dispute.
Hence, people are wondering whether the government has two sets of attitudes and policies, one for the people of western Canada and another for the people of eastern Canada, especially in Quebec. That is what we are objecting to. We want the same policy implemented in the province of Quebec, the Maritimes, etc. We want the same policy of justice for the workers to be applied all across Canada whether in Vancouver, Halifax, Montreal, Trois-Rivieres or Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-231 is not the solution to the problem. We know we will have to begin all over again, for the same causes generally produce the same results. He who sows carrots cannot expect to reap potatoes. He who sows cauliflowers reaps just that, not bananas. Most of the time, the same causes produce the same effects.
These conflicts, whether in Vancouver, Toronto, the province of Quebec or Manitoba or elsewhere, all stem directly from an economic system which does not take reality into account and which we try to adapt to the requirements of a small number of financiers who control the flow of the economic blood of the Canadian people

and create chaos in various areas of the country. Instead of improving the system or establishing a better one, you punish the workers, the managers, in short, everybody.
Mr. Speaker, as long as we do not adopt a system whereby individual security would be closely dependent upon the production of our nation, we shall run around in circles as we are doing now. The end of a strike will see the beginning of a new one and there will be no end of it. We are acting just like a dog chasing its tail and running around in circles: we will never find a solution.
I heard the leader of the New Democratic Party say that we must ensure job security for the longshoremen and grain handlers in Vancouver, even if new techniques, computers, etc. are used.
Mr. Speaker, it is intended to add job security to the purchase of new machinery. Then let's talk about price and salary controls and see whether that will give prosperity to Canada, whether the Canadian people will be able to benefit from their production!
In fact, we have got new machines, we have got computers. We are using new machinery. But as intelligent Canadians-and not as people lost in confusion-we must ask ourselves: Will their use penalize man or serve him?
If all that has been devised to punish mankind, let us keep up our present system since everything is well and fine. Conflicts regarding grain, dissatisfaction, upheavals, attacks here and there, interunion struggles, union members fighting other unions, lay-offs and unemployment are instances of the uneasiness resulting from this system.
Mr. Speaker, if inventions, technology, computers and new machines have been devised to punish mankind, let us keep to our present course, since we are doing very well. If, on the other hand, these new inventions, techniques, computers and machines are to serve man and not subdue him, there is but one solution which is, not to provide job security, but income security which is the only means of facing up to the situation.
The following conclusion could thus be drawn, Mr. Speaker: if new technology, inventions, machines and computers are called upon to perform workers' jobs- which is actually the case against which both workers and unions are rebelling-briefly, if all these things are to serve mankind, there is only one way to proceed. To the extent that these innovations are put into operation, let us give everyone an income based on the productivity in Canada of these new machines and new technology, an income which would be synonymous with economic and social security, or a national dividend, whatever the name, provided a balance can be struck between the purchasing power and the country's productivity.
It is then, Mr. Speaker, that we would have a balanced economy rather than witnessing such situations as are now occurring not only in Vancouver, but also in many other places. There are lay-offs taking place, for instance, near Contrecoeur, at General Motors, Northern Electric, among longshoremen of national harbours and postal workers.
Dissatisfaction is rampant everywhere. Why? Because people want security and rightly so. The only way to do it
August 31, 1972

is not by collaring and forcing them to occupy a position which is redundant, but to give them the necessary purchasing power to buy whatever products machines are going to produce for them. Then only, would we show respect for man who was certainly not created and born only to be put to work for the sake of working-at cutting branches along highways, for instance, or doing winter works or local initiatives or Opportunities for Youth projects in which hardly anything is ever built and which have no purpose other than keeping those people working and earning a living.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the biggest mistake I ever saw, for you cannot help people in this way as you could logically do by making available to them the means to go and seek the existing production in Canada.
In order to solve those problems, Mr. Speaker, the money issue is not the only thing to be taken into account; there is also the matter of how to come to terms in the field of labour-management relations. I do not intend to go into this in detail, as my colleague from Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), who was a union president for years, will deal in depth with the matter of labour-management relations.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that a Canadian labour court be created as soon as possible in order to prevent disputes and to maintain the best possible relations between labour and management. This, of course, will require the co-operation of union leaders if unions are to be conciliators, not distributors of boxing gloves.
Managers, who are human beings the same as workers, do not want to be molested or lose their freedom any more than workers do. In order to satisfy both, we would therefore need a Canadian labour court made up of representatives of unions, management and government-in short, unbiased people who really seek solutions to labour problems.
Mr. Speaker, this is the proposition we are making; my colleague from Kamouraska and other colleagues will give more details. However, I would like to say there is only one way to a valuable solution, that is to take into account new techniques, as the member for York South was saying, but not by submitting human beings or workers to a technology that will increase the cost of production without liberating man. Such is real democracy. We are here to govern on behalf of the human being; let us do so. Let us liberate man by the use of machines, science and progress.
Mr. Speaker, lastly I would like to say that it has been reported for some weeks that I was dying in Montreal. Others said that I was dying in Rouyn. Well, I am in parliament today and my health is probably better than that of many people who wanted me out of the way. So, I think that we will be able to go on fighting, not for our personal objectives but for the instauration of a new system in Canada. Let us change what we have so that Canadians can be assured of security and personal liberty.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is in the nature of every strike that it causes harm to persons not directly involved. We have been very conscious of the
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
fact that, in the case of the particular strike at west coast ports, there have been significant amounts of interference, harm and inconvenience caused to a large number of people. We think readily of the situation concerning grain but, of course, there are many other people involved in perhaps smaller ways individually but ways still as serious to them. Even in the Prairie region I think, for instance, of the alfalfa pelleting plants and the difficulties which surround their attempt to move small amounts of products relative to grain through the ports, but who are seriously affected by delays.
The list of those affected on the Prairies and in the west is very long, indeed, and that is the reason everyone must have serious concern about the existence of almost any strike and the inconvenience and difficulties caused to persons not directly involved. In the case of grain, a great deal has been said because of the largeness of its role in the handling of products through the west coast and also because, in the initial closing of the Port of Vancouver it was the product affected much more seriously and for a much longer period of time since a very large proportion of grain moved through the west coast does in fact move through the Port of Vancouver.
In the case of grain, part of our difficulty and problem was due to the fact that we have a program and volume of shipment out of all ports at very high levels, indeed. We completed last year a total export which is roughly estimated at about 815 million bushels of grain and the current program is even heavier than last year's. This meant that in many cases we were going to test the facilities for handling and shipping grain out of the country to the fullest at different points in time. This is particularly true in the case of the west coast.
I have made it clear before that we believe some additional facilities, storage and the like, are needed there to cope with ever larger amounts of grain moving out from the west coast to our new and old customers, large customers such as China and Japan, and customers who have been at smaller levels but extremely important such as Peru, the Phillipines and others. In the last crop year we moved approximately 308 million bushels of grain out of Vancouver, an all time high and far above previous levels. As I have said, in this particular year we have programs to attain levels even higher than that. We were in a position, therefore of needing to strain to the full to accomplish our deliveries, and an interference or delay of nearly a month can have a very serious effect in that context. In the course of that month about 30 million bushels of grain might have moved out of the west coast ports, which therefore we must attempt to move in addition to our regular programs. We will try to do so. It is important, of course, that we get the ports back into operation, and the full co-operation of the whole industry is needed, but every effort will be made to catch up in any way this can be accomplished. That is why the passage of this bill is so important in beginning the operation of catching up on our sales. Our delivery commitments may indeed be caught up if we can start the operation right away. Any longer delay and the matter would become very serious indeed.
3912

August 31, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
We will be making every effort to catch up. Prince Rupert, which has been operating at levels close to its capacity with its existing facilities, is having a second leg put into operation for the receiving of grain and will have a capacity which is perhaps double its present level. We will have to look to extra shifts and the quickest possible turnover of railway equipment if we are to catch up, and we will therefore be counting on the co-operation of everyone throughout the industry, whether they be rail-waymen, grain handling workers or elevator agents, to begin the process of moving grain to the coast. We will be looking at every expedient, such as the additional facilities for cleaning or trucking grain, if this becomes necessary to move the required amount. We are fortunate in that we are starting off in the catch up period with a very high volume of grain ready and clean in Vancouver and therefore in a position to go into the ships as soon as possible. In the near future we will begin to receive and put into operation the hopper cars which have been ordered for the movement of grain and which, because of their greater volume and the greater speed in handling in unloading which they make possible, could further increase our capacity. But without a doubt we will be testing in every way our ability to move grain and we will find out exactly what our capacities are both in cleaning and handling grain.
The Wheat Board will be calling on farmers to deliver grain in areas where it is particularly needed for rapid movement, such as areas in the Prairies where the CNR operates. Right now the message will be going out to farmers to deliver grain as they have it available, wheat in particular, so that it can be moved to Vancouver by that railway line to the full of its capacity.
The problem of a strike is one which hurts many innocent people and it is therefore one which is open to easy criticism. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) engage in some criticism without exactly suggesting the techniques which we should choose for a final settlement, except for some hopeful new negotiation procedures.


Gerald William Baldwin: A new government.


Otto Emil Lang: The problem with strikes, and the problem with doing something about them, is that since they are harmful and hurt many people they are therefore an undesirable method. Everyone agrees on the basic principle that the collective bargaining process is valuable, a process which we should try to maintain in our society. The free development by the parties themselves of their positions must be achieved. The question must be what you would put in the place of collective bargaining if you are so critical of it and want to remove it. What alternatives are there that will not interfere with the collective bargaining process itself. What alternatives are there which are sufficiently satisfactory to the men who are involved in the negotiations, alternatives which they will accept, when the strike has been so long associated by them with the need for the protection of themselves and of their rights in situations where historically they were often deprived of them.

This is the challenge, and it is not an easy one. It is easy to attempt to make political or instant capital of the desirability of settling a strike. The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) indicated his confidence in the able officers of the Department of Labour, and I must say that with the able officers in the department and the able Minister of Labour it is a matter of their judgment as to how they can best attempt to assist the negotiations. Of course, they applied that judgment to the very best of their ability in the processes of negotiation. We are told on the one hand that we should not have waited so long, and then somehow, peculiarly, that when we make this move at this time the timing is political. It is a strange conclusion indeed and one difficult for me to understand, when presumably they mean we should have acted earlier.
The point, of course, is that we had hoped the collective bargaining process would produce a result, and we bent our efforts in that direction. The Minister of Labour has described the situation. He spoke about his officers being present at the scene. There were also descriptions of the situation when grain was one of the products not moving through the port of Vancouver, and special efforts were made to try to get it moving. When this was not possible the Minister of Labour tried to get the parties not just back to the bargaining table, in which he succeeded, but to get the product moving while they discussed the matter because the strike was bound to begin to hurt the economy, perhaps irreparably. When this was not possible, it was necessary, in the government's view, to come back to Parliament and to ask the parties to go back to work while they negotiate.
The bill is careful to preserve the basic collective bargaining principle and this is still extremely important. Anyone who could easily suggest alternatives should know what the impact of his suggestions are. There are very few countries in the world which have found successful solutions to the labour problems which can crop up. Some of the authoritarian governments have found solutions, and it is perhaps significant that they may be among the few who have, with whatever effect upon the rights and freedoms of the parties involved. In other countries a whole variety of solutions have been tried, and yet strikes go on whether legal or illegal. The collective bargaining process is important. We believe in its preservation so that the parties can discuss their problems together and can together attempt to sort out the best possible solution in the situation. It is therefore, as the Minister of Labour has said, with regret that we find it necessary at this point to interfere in the sense that we are at least indicating that the parties must go back to work while the bargaining process goes on. But the bargaining process seemed to be one which would take a significant amount of time and this would cause serious damage to many sections of the community, not only the noticeable ones but also many others which might have been noticed far less.
It is, therefore, extremely important to start the grain moving again, to solve the problems and avoid harm to many other individuals and all kinds of products, that we have the parties working while the collective bargaining goes on. Hopefully, the best kind of atmosphere and the best kind of negotiation can lead to a solution in the near future, and at that point, as the bill itself makes clear, the
August 31, 1972

operation of the bill will come to an end with the coming into place of the collective bargaining agreement. That is an end that we all desire, an end that the economic welfare of the country requires. So, we will certainly not only earnestly ask the House for support in the quick passage of this bill but also earnestly ask for the support of the parties in the discussion, negotiation and mediation process so that a successful conclusion to the work problems at the west coast may be reached. I, therefore, urge all members to support a quick passage of the bill in order that the work of the ports may begin again, and so that the harm which undoubtedly has been caused will be stopped.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that I do not intend to delay passage of this important piece of legislation, but I do wish to express a few thoughts on the government's stand with respect to the present phase in the evolution of strikes and collective bargaining. The hon. member who preceded me said it is of the utmost importance that collective bargaining continue while work is being done. This piece of legislation deals in effect with two unions, the longshoremen's union and the grain handlers in Vancouver port. I point out that the grain handlers have been involved in what might be called collective bargaining since November 30 of last year. This gives some idea of how long they have continued to work without agreement on a contract.
It is interesting to reminisce on labour disputes in Canada in 1971. I do not intend to deal with the whole subject of collective bargaining, but rather with the question of government intervention to ensure that work will continue while collective bargaining takes place. According to one study something like 152,000 man days were lost through strikes and lock-outs in areas under federal jurisdiction during 1971. Those of us involved in the grain industry recently experienced a strike which lasted for about eight weeks in Quebec ports. In fact the strike at Montreal port was an illegal one, but the Department of Labour did not feel it should intervene. Now, the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) intervenes just three weeks after the start of a strike on the west coast. I can only thank democracy for the fact that we are facing an election, and elections make governments act. At election time, governments seem to realize their responsibilities more fully.
The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board mentioned alfalfa pelleting plants. There are a number of these in my constituency. Their product is in keen demand internationally. No doubt the Vancouver port tie-up is detrimental to their situation, and to farmers generally across the Prairies.
It is important that we examine the whole question of government intervention, of when government should intervene and when it should not. Earlier, in Vancouver, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested that the government had given these people the right to strike, that they should be allowed to strike, and that that procedure should take its course. Now, all of a sudden, with an election coming on, he realizes he must act. I hope that the people on the Prairies and all across Canada realize he is
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
acting solely because of the election and not because of any deep-seated belief he may or may not have.
I have reached that conclusion because on July 7 Parliament passed certain amendments to the Canada Labour Code. One of those amendments gives the government the power, when a strike or lock-out is anticipated during dissolution of Parliament, to decide that a national emergency could be created, and so the government could act without recalling Parliament. That legislation has not yet been proclaimed, and this gives you some idea of the strong feelings of the Prime Minister. Here is pragmatism at work, dealing with crisis after crisis as they arise.
The Prime Minister is not concerned with the crisis on the Prairies; he is concerned with the forthcoming election. He is not concerned with the grain shipments that may have been lost. It is estimated that this strike, which has lasted since August 7, has held up the shipment of something like 38 million bushels of grain. On August 29, some 35 ships were waiting to be loaded at Vancouver. All of a sudden the Prime Minister realized the time had arrived when he must call an election. Therefore he had to act, not to save the western farmer but in an attempt to save his own political skin.
At this stage in the evolution of collective bargaining, governments should have the right to intervene with respect to commodities that are of national importance. No such provision was made in the amendments to the Canada Labour Code. The Prime Minister has not said, as the President of the United States stated when urging passage of a labour bill before Congress:
For those who argue that the government should not interfere with collective bargaining, the short answer is that the bargaining in this case has thus far failed-and failed badly for 15 months.
As I mention, Mr. Speaker, the terminal grain handlers have been engaged in collective bargaining since November 30 last. President Nixon went on to say:
I share the belief that government ordinarily should not tamper with the freedom of bargaining, but when the processes have broken down and the nation's health and safety are at stake we in public office have no right to turn our heads.
He was talking about the longshoremen's strike on the west coast of the United States. He added:
Let us resolve that this stoppage on the west coast will be the last of its kind. The Congress should act immediately to end the west coast strike and, with utmost dispatch, pass the Crippling Strikes Prevention Act.
We have nothing like that in this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation will cease to have effect on January 1, 1973. We must ask ourselves whether a strike which has not yet reached a satisfactory conclusion can be settled by January 1, 1973. I do not think it will be settled by then. The striking workers and the Maritime Shipping Association will look with anticipation to the forthcoming election to see who will be the winner. Let us say that the election is called for October 30. The declaration of the winner may take up to two weeks after that. The removal from office of those now in cabinet posts may take another two weeks. This brings us to the first part of December before a new government can take over, and then we are well into the festive season of Christmas and the New Year.
3914

August 31, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
Of course, this whole subject can be dealt with when we go into committee of the whole, but I should like the Minister of Labour, the Prime Minister, and the whole cabinet to give some thought to adjusting the date of December 31, 1972 to perhaps January 31, 1973 or February 28, 1973. There is agreement by all parties in this House that collective bargaining has broken down, and everybody is anxious to pass this legislation. Today, during the question period, the Minister of Labour admitted that he knew that the Maritime Shipping Association was prepared to make a new offer to the longshoremen, but he still declared that negotiation had broken down. He must have had some inside knowledge in order to reach that conclusion, and to consider that the government needed to intervene.
We have evidence that collective bargaining with the terminal workers at the Vancouver port has been going on since September 30, 1971, so we could conclude that collective bargaining has broken down there. When we see evidence of how long it takes for collective bargaining to work, how can we, as faithful legislators, pass this legislation and expect it to work for the good of Canadians? I could not let it pass without warning this House and the country that January 1, 1973 is not an effective deadline if we think about the farmers of western Canada and the movement of grain.
But we may have an election between now and January 1, and then the Prime Minister and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) can ride their white chargers across the Prairies claiming to have solved the problem. But will the problem be solved beyond January 1? I think that the Prime Minister and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board are only thinking of themselves when asking this House to pass this legislation. The election may be November 7 or October 30 or whatever date the Prime Minister chooses, but I think they should wait until a reasonable length of time past the festive season of Christmas and New Year before allowing the legislation to lapse. Then, I would believe they were thinking of the farmers, of the alfalfa plants, the man in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon who depends on the Pacific ports to provide him with his necessary goods and commodities. I would believe that they were thinking of someone besides themselves.
A government of which I was a backbencher some years ago passed similar legislation in order to end the railway strike, but it allowed nearly six months for negotiations. The piece of legislation before us goes by the board in a relatively short period of time. I see the House Leader on the government side nodding his head in an affirmative manner.
I want the country to realize, Mr. Speaker, that the government is not making a concerted effort to keep up with the times in regard to collective bargaining. This is a temporary piece of legislation offered because they are going into an election, not because they want to save the country or help the grain farmers and people on the west coast who depend on the inward and outward flow of goods. If they are concerned with these people, then they should adjust that date to January 31, 1973. Give them 30 days after the festive season, 30 days after the election;
[Mr. Horner.)
give them to the end of March, but let us make a concerted effort to solve this difficult problem.
Reviewing the list of difficulties incurred in the labour field over the past year, it adds up to something like 400,000 man days lost in 1972 already. Having called Parliament back, are we prepared to reach some kind of conclusion which will have an effect on strikes and the economy during the difficult winter months? By January 1, 1973 we could have high unemployment, and I think the government would be wise to allow the parties involved to negotiate until the end of March, 1973 or at least until the end of February. I urge the government to consider this suggestion when we reach committee stage. Before the coming election, they must prove to the people that they have thought of the grain farmers, the lumber industry and the people who use the west coast ports. We have been called here to pass this piece of legislation, so let us do a man's job which will benefit the whole country and not just the political fortunes of the Prime Minister and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the situation we face in this House and the situation at the west coast which caused us to be called together. I regard it as a very serious matter when legislators, whatever their position of power, find it necessary to impose their will on the workers and the employers in any particular sector of the nation or of industry. When we do that, we are saying to those who work that they will work for the wages they are receiving, whether they find that satisfactory or not. We are saying to employers who have machines and contracts that they shall put those machines and contracts at the disposal of the people of Canada. We would only do this I suppose, and certainly I would only consider it, if we found that there were no acceptable alternative. We are told by the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) that in effect there is no alternative.
On August 11, I wired the minister urging that mediation be used in the dispute. Somewhere around August 20 or 21, I received a reply that mediation was being carried out. As to what happened in the interim, I only know what I read in the newspapers. Following that, I assume that the minister and his officials did what they could in the way of mediating the dispute.
This House must recognize that at the base of this dispute, and surely the dispute in the St. Lawrence ports, is technological change. Until we deal with technological change, and the manner in which it affects workers and employers, we can expect to find ourselves back in this House on a similar kind of business. It is the failure to adequately deal with this technological change that causes the farmers, businessmen, working people, the citizens of Saskatchewan and, indeed, the whole prairie region, so much unease and to regard any stoppage of the movement of our products to the export markets with great concern. Saskatchewan is probably more affected than other provinces. For a number of years we have been in a sort of limbo with regard to transportation. The MacPherson commission was appointed. It finished its work and made what I regard as a largely negative report.
August 31, 1972

Since then we have been left in a situation of wondering how soon and how much of our transportation is going to be disrupted or eliminated.
A few minutes ago, the minister in charge of the wheat board made what I call his high volume wheat speech. Not too long ago, the minister arranged a deal for approximately 2,000 boxcars. I wonder how many members are aware that there are many hundreds of miles of branch lines in Saskatchewan over which these cars cannot travel. They cannot travel on these branch lines because the roadbed has deteriorated to such an extent that it will no longer support that kind of load. The railroaders and many farmers know that. I wonder how many members of this House know about it.
Thousands of farmers who normally ship their grain over these branch lines wonder how soon they will be closed and the rails pulled up. They wonder what kind of transportation facilities will then be available to them. Members of this House should not be surprised at the unease, dismay and dissatisfaction that exists among the grain growers in western Canada because of the transportation system and the lack of attention they have received from this government. That is part of the reason we are so concerned about any disruption. We do not know when the government will give more attention to these matters.
This past spring and summer we argued for better rates for rapeseed in order to be competitive. The grains group conducted a study to see what would be the next move in this game of checkers between the two main railroads and the government. A committee of the Canada Grains Council is supposed to bring in a report within the next three years. The Canada Grains Council is loaded in favour of the transportation and grain companies. The farmer will come out second best. That is why he looks with suspicion at what is being done and the way in which his interests are being looked after or, more properly, neglected. The farmer sees reports in which it is suggested there should be 80 or 90 terminals to handle the total volume of grain in western Canada. He knows that is an impractical and unworkable suggestion. When there is a tie-up at the west coast, he views this as the ultimate disaster.
There is also the matter of the movement of potash and, as another member mentioned, the products from our alfalfa pelleting plants. This affects us materially. There are hundreds of workers in these plants. I do not speak only for the farmers in my constituency. Over 60 per cent of the people in my constituency are urban dwellers. There are mine workers who work in potash plants, as well as the food and allied packing house workers who work in the meat processing plants. I am responsible to those people as well. I speak on behalf of all my constituents when I say we expect this government to conduct itself more effectively in the fields of transportation, and labour management. We expect a more effective method in dealing with disputes which arise, such as those on the west coast. We expect the government to have a better understanding of what is involved and to spend more time trying to create a better transportation system, one which will effectively serve the farmer, the business community and, indeed, the total community of western Canada.
The root of the problem is the lack of concern and understanding as to where we have arrived in this techno-
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
logical age in which we depend so completely on the smooth operation of a transportation system that must be geared to handle more products all the time, whether it is potash, grain, sulphur or coal. We must be geared to do this kind of job in labour relations, transportation, industry, and labour. The employer and the worker must assume their responsibility in this field. I am not so sure that the employer has been accepting his full responsibility. I am reluctant to tell any man how he should dispose of his time or under what conditions he should work. This is not appropriate to a free society. Nevertheless, this is what we have to do at this moment in time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions
Gerald William Baldwin: The minister has already given a very limited explanation of this bill, but I should like to ask him to say a few more words at this time in answer to some of the questions which were raised by my leader, by the hon. member for Crowfoot and by hon. members in the New Democratic Party. In particular, I would ask him to indicate with some clarity why the government has not yet seen fit to proclaim the Labour Code which was passed on June 30 of this year. This bill was to be the answer to the maiden's prayer as far as labour legislation was concerned. It was originally introduced by the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Subsequently, it was withdrawn for further study and brought in again with a number of changes. An extensive study was carried out here, yet the legislation has not been proclaimed. There may be a valid explanation.
I have some experience of this government. Ministers bring down legislation such as the tax reform bill, which is alleged to be most important. In due course it is passed. The departmental officials who devised it then come to examine it and find there are impediments to its operation. When they examine its impact on other measures, they realize that new difficulties are involved. I trust I am not being unduly suspicious, since, as I say, there may be a reasonable explanation, but among other things I would like the Minister of Labour to give the House a rational, detailed and understandable explanation of this delay in proclaiming a bill which we passed on June 30 of this year.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I shall be glad to do so. I am happy to share the hon. member's expectation that any explanation I do give will be rational. The delay in proclaiming the bill which was passed here on July 5 is related principally to the question of the establishment of the new board.
As hon. members know, there is to be a new Canada Labour Relations Board comprised of at least six members. We undertook to consult extensively on this question

August 31, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
with the labour unions, management groups, persons in the judiciary who are informed on the subject of industrial relations, persons in the universities, those who are engaged in the provincial departments of labour, deputy ministers and others, and those who have been active in conciliation, mediation and arbitration procedures. I think we would all wish to be sure that this kind of broad consultation has taken place over the summer period.
I may say there has been a very generous response to our requests for suggestions concerning the new board. In the past short period the government has been considering these proposals, analyzing them and studying the question of appropriate appointments to the board. However, even when this work has been done it will take the new board some time at least in which to get itself into position. The persons who will be wanted are undoubtedly persons who are already busily engaged. Procedures will need to be established and staff recruited. A great deal of this work has already been done, though, and I hope we are not too far away from being able to proclaim the act. This is the basic cause of the time lapse.
I think it would be appropriate for me to clarify section 181 of the act which is undoubtedly in the minds of many members here. The question is whether, if the act had been in force, this section could have applied to the situation in which we now find ourselves. It is clear, in my view, that section 181 comes into play only after Parliament has been dissolved. The question becomes the following: if a dispute has reached a point at which a strike or lock-out has become legal before the dissolution of Parliament, then section 181 does not apply. On the other hand, if the dispute had not reached a point at which the seven days which must elapse after the minister has received the report of a conciliation board for a strike or lock-out to be legal, then the Governor in Council may act. It would, therefore, not apply in this situation because the seven days running time has elapsed. It was not the intention of the government, nor the intention of Parliament I am sure, as this was discussed in committee, that we put ourselves in the position of withdrawing rights which had been earned in a period before Parliament dissolved, because Parliament was there to deal with the question if it felt that the situation constituted, or was about to constitute, an emergency. Parliament was still there.
The matter was discussed and clarified in committee and I could refer to the proceedings recorded in the 25th report. The situation is, therefore, that when the seven days elapse before a dissolution use cannot be made of an order in council. When this new bill is proclaimed, in any subsequent dissolution, in any short period of two to three months occurring perhaps on an average of every four years, there is power through order in council to, as it were, postpone the lapsing of the seven days into another period. But the lapsing must begin to take place in a period between parliaments.
I shall be glad to go further into this matter if there are any questions remaining. I appreciate very much the rapid progress we have made up to this point. I feel everyone would expect me, however, to say something about the charge of inactivity which has come, in particular, from the Official Opposition. I am quite prepared to listen to this charge with respect to myself, although I

would disagree that it has application. However, I am not prepared to accept it as to the departmental officers who have long and I think recognized, experience in dispute settlement and know exactly what they are doing. I do not think it would be proper for me to let this moment go by without stating that.
Let me say first that in disputes within federal jurisdiction the experience is that over 95 per cent get settled without a strike, and many of those settlements are the result of expert work done in the department. In this particular case I want to point out that the conciliation officers were available and not fully utilized. The conciliation board was appointed and met very briefly because one party in particular did not find it useful to put a case before the board but rather wanted it out of the way, thus having stripped the situation of all the required procedures so the two parties could confront each other. They have the right to do that, and if we believe in collective bargaining we have to go along with it. You cannot force mediation. None the less, the chairman of the board remained available as did the officers of my department in Vancouver. The Assistant Deputy Minister, who is an expert in conciliation proceedings, was dispatched to the area. Subsequently, the Deputy Minister and I went to Vancouver. We have not been inactive at all and it is a mistaken notion, indeed, if one thinks he can press mediation into a situation where the parties prefer not to have it.
Let me remind the committee of the 1969 experience when another contract was being negotiated by the parties. The parties have indicated to me that at least partly because of mediation pressures three settlements were rejected by the membership. There was a strike of 39 days-with grain moving, none the less, in the ports- during which time the negotiators for the two parties came to tentative agreements. In ratification votes, those three agreements were rejected by the membership. The work resumed for three months and in the confusion that followed a fourth settlement was accepted by a very narrow margin, but only after a second strike took place. The parties, perhaps quite properly, did not want mediation pressures. That was made quite clear, and I respected that position. They felt that only by coming to grips together could they come to an agreement under which they wanted to live for the next two, three or one year period, whatever it may be. We have to keep in perspective the fact that mediation is a question of judgment and will differ dispute by dispute.
I did not want to let the occasion go by leaving any reflection on the members of the department who are so skilled and so successful as a rule in this field. I am going to consider very seriously the proposal put forward by the leader of the New Democratic Party in respect of retroactivity as it applies in the case of the grain handlers and the longshoremen's dispute. I do not know that there is anything more I might usefully say at this time. Undoubtedly, questions will arise during the committee stage and I will attempt to answer them then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister of Labour another question relating to the proclamation of Bill
August 31, 1972

C-183. I am calling it a question, but perhaps it will develop into a representation. As the minister knows, there is in this clause we are now discussing a reference to Part V of the Canada Labour Code and there are other references in the bill to that same Part V. It came out earlier today that since Bill C-183 has not been proclaimed any references in this bill to Part V of the Canada Labour Code are to be construed for now as references to Part V as it stood prior to the passing of Bill C-183 last June.
There are two or three problems which arise. There is the possibility that the proclamation of Bill C-183 might take place during the four month period this bill is in effect. During that time the parties will be negotiating under the provisions of the bill. They will start out to negotiate under Part V as it stood, but what happens to their position when Part V is changed in the middle of these negotiations?


Gerald William Baldwin: Don't ask nasty questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member for Peace River suggests this is a nasty question. It is one of those legal questions to which three lawyers will give four different answers.
May I point out, and I suppose this is where my question becomes a representation, that it seems to me it would be a good idea for the sake of negotiations between the parties under Bill C-231, for the proclamation of Bill C-183 to be expedited and brought about as soon as possible. I do not know whether it would be legal, but it seems to me if the minister is going to be able to do this in a couple of weeks he might indicate that to the parties now and tell them they had better carry out their negotiations in terms of Part V in Bill C-183 as we passed it in June.
In this connection I might point out, to show that this is a kind of knotty problem, and my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands may have something more to say about this later, that the package the employers put before the union on Tuesday morning included the suggestion that the union agree to the suspension of sections 150, 152 and 153 in Part V of the labour code. In other words, they are being asked to agree to the suspension of something that does not yet exist. The real problem is not the technical one but relates to the fact that these clauses have to do with technological change.
Surely, the minister sees there is a whole area of uncertainty here because it is not clear which version of Part V of the Canada Labour Code will apply at the point when the parties reach agreement, as they are asked to do in this bill. In light of all this, does the minister not feel he should really go all out to provide for the earliest possible proclamation of Bill C-183?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I am going to have my officers come down to assist me in some of the legal and other aspects of this bill. Let me give a preliminary answer which I trust will stand up when they arrive. We might refer to clause 2 which provides that Part V of the labour code applies during this period so long as the reinstatement of the existing agreement is in force. The answer I would give is that Part V of the existing bill, before the new one is proclaimed, applies. It seems to me that if in this interval the new bill is proclaimed, Bill C-183
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
and the new Part V come into existence, then the new agreement that is made would be under the new Part V. The old Part V relates to the old agreement, and the new Part V relates to the new agreement if the act is proclaimed during the four months interval.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What if it is not?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: The other question was whether one should not hasten in order perhaps to affect or influence the parties or to put them in a different bargaining position. I want to say that I intend to proceed on a normal course with the advice I would give as to the proclamation. The important thing is to launch the new bill on firm ground, on respected ground, and not to establish a new board or get the act proclaimed so that it will alter the circumstances of the present dispute. I intend to proceed on course, and I think we will soon be able to move, to the proclamation of the bill.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I would just like to interject for a few moments with regard to the minister's answer as to why Bill C-183 has not been proclaimed as yet. May I respectfully remind him that during the time prior to the debate of that particular bill there was some pressure-and I use that term loosely-in the interests of attempting to have this bill passed as soon as possible, firstly because the minister was very concerned about the aspect of technological change, and secondly because we were all of the opinion, and I think rightly so, that there was an election in the offing and that the country would be defenseless if section 181 of Bill C-183 were not proclaimed.
All I can say at this time is that it appears to me that the minister has forgotten, in stating his reasons why this bill has not been proclaimed the fact that his colleague, the former Minister of Labour, had put forward a bill similar in nature, with similar clauses, which had been untouched so far as section 181 is concerned. What I am attempting to say is that the minister stated that the reason the bill had not been proclaimed was that the labour relations board had not been established. I say that the minister has had time not only from June 30 to August 30 but from a year prior to that time, because it was the intention of the government to bring in a bill of that sort.
The minister is shaking his head. Surely the minister remembers that we had a previous bill, I think it was C-253, and flak came from both management and labour regarding its contents. We brought back another bill, Bill C-183. Surely the minister knows that the part I am talking about is section 181 of Bill C-183, which is also included in Bill C-253. One of the reasons given was that the country would be defenceless in the event of the dissolution of Parliament, though perhaps it was not the minister but some of the officials who were attempting to explain the bill who told us this.
As a matter of fact, there was no way in which the government or Parliament could handle a strike-unless it was under some measure similar to the War Measures Act-if the strike took place while Parliament was dissolved. This is the significance of the clause in Bill C-183. So in the event that the government calls an election, whether it be for October 30, November 7 or November

August 31, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
13, we have no protection it a strike occurs; the country will be defenceless because Bill C-183 will not have been proclaimed. And we do not know when it will be proclaimed.
This afternoon the minister stated that the regulations under Bill C-183 have just about been compiled and are ready to be appended to the bill. He also said that a conclusion has almost been reached regarding the designation of the members of the board. But he did not state definitely when the proclamation will take place. I would want the minister to clarify this problem. The government would be derelict in its duty if in fact Bill C-183 is not proclaimed. The country would be defenceless in the event that an election was called by "His Lordship" in the next two or three days and the government went to the people on October 30. I want the minister to answer that question because it is extremely important.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is "His Lordship"?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will leave that to speculation.
Another question which was posed and with which I thought the minister would deal related to the proposition that was put by the hon. member for Crowfoot. He said that if we are serious in wishing the parties to negotiate- and I think we all appreciate the importance and the need for collective bargaining-at the same time we should be concerned about the public interest. That is paramount. Although the parties are important, as I have indicated before many people are becoming more concerned about the fact that they are not involved in the collective bargaining process, whether they are with management or with unions. This leaves the consumer boxed in. I think that the parties must be given a fair deal in solving all their differences and I do not think that this can be accomplished by December 31.
The hon. member for Crowfoot gave several cogent reasons. He mentioned the upcoming election. He mentioned the forthcoming winter months. He mentioned the fact that it takes a new government a fair amount of time to make cabinet changes. He also mentioned the fact that before we know it we will be into the Christmas season. I can understand the confusion that may exist in the minister's mind with respect to this because we cannot be sure that meaningful negotiations will take place in the next three months or so.
After all, we know that these parties have been negotiating, I hope in good faith, for the past 10 months or so, so is it really fair to say: "If you do not reach any conclusion by way of collective agreement by December 31, you are back in the same boat again, which means you can go on strike"? They will have gone through the conciliation procedures and through the whole of the labour bill under which they are acting. We cannot afford another strike. I am asking the minister to look upon the request of the hon. member for Crowfoot with some sympathy, because I think we all want the same thing; we all want industrial peace.
I hope the minister can answer these two questions: first, whether the country will be defenceless in the event of the dissolution of parliament; and second, what is wrong with the suggestion submitted by the hon. member

for Crowfoot, who is concerned about whether there is enough time left? I hope we can be assured that the parties will bargain in good faith. Labour and management must bargain in good faith. I would like to know whether they are making full disclosure. It is obvious that either side could play hanky-panky with full disclosure.
The third point I have always concentrated upon is whether the parties are taking inflexible positions. If things have been all that tough regarding those three aspects of collective bargaining for the past ten months or so, can the minister give us some assurance that December 31 is the proper date for the ending of this legislation? How did he determine that date? I note that the employers submitted an offer prior to the introduction of this legislation. Does that offer give the minister reason to believe, after due deliberation and having listened to the advice available to him in the department, that December 31 will give ample time?
The hon. member for Crowfoot recalled, in connection with a similar bill dealing with a railway strike, that a former government provided a six months cooling off period. If a six months period was provided some years ago, have we now reached the stage in labour-management relations where three months are sufficient?
Collective bargaining is being severely tested. Many Canadians want the government to act. But the collective bargaining process cannot be easily tampered with because it provides the right to strike. That is a hard won right which nobody wants to remove. That is why I stand here with some regret. But when I analyse the situation I see that the public interest must prevail.
I have asked the minister three important questions and I hope he will give some indication of his thinking on these points.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, approaching the first question I should say that proclamation may be made at any time, whether Parliament is sitting or not and whether Parliament has been dissolved or not. So when the hon. member for Hamilton West asks if the government is defenceless, I do not relate the question only to proclamation. Proclamation can be made any time, but it has to be made in relation to the proper operation of the new act.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: But until that time the country is defenceless.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I do not think we can agree that the country is ever defenceless. This is a new provision in a new bill. We have never had it previously, and I do not know of any other jurisdiction that has this kind of provision in it. I just cannot bring myself to believe that we should use such a word as "defenceless".
I am sure no union would want to be in the position of engaging in a strike of very serious consequence at a time when Parliament is dissolved, Parliament being really the only agency that we have under the labour code to terminate such a strike if a national emergency ensued. If we searched our past experience I do not think that we would be able to find a case where that kind of dispute did in fact arise during a period of dissolution.
August 31, 1972


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Then why clause 181?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: It is a precaution and, I think, a useful one, but its suspension at this time does not expose us to the charge of being defenceless.
A question was asked about the date of December 31 and whether that is a reasonable time. This, of course, is a question of judgment. One of the considerations must be that in fact we are extending the terms and conditions of agreements that have expired, in one case for about a month and in the other case for about ten months.
I do not think we would want to extend former terms and conditions that at least one of the parties is unhappy with, since they want a new kind of agreement. We would not want to extend those any longer than we felt absolutely necessary. It would be unfair to the parties to say that they will live under those old agreements for a substantial period of time. The time should be related to the best estimate we can make for reaching a new settlement.
I would have hopes and expectations that certainly in the case of the grain handlers, where very little separates the two parties, they would quickly come to an agreement. In the other case there are complex, technological, difficult and human issues. But four months is surely an adequate time, and I would expect and hope they would make their agreement well ahead of the end of that time.
The first offers have been exchanged this week. That is a good beginning. In the government's judgment, and certainly in my judgment, the process will take several weeks. Therefore we have tried to find a reasonable balance, in fairness to all the parties involved.
I was asked whether the parties are bargaining in good faith, and I quickly answer yes. I have no difficulty in answering yes. I believe they are. The unfortunate circumstance we are all in is that by the time they got down to business, or were just on the threshhold of getting down to business, the main port on the west coast had already been shut down for 23 or 25 days. The economic situation is too clearly evident to let the strike prolong itself while the negotiations take place. So there is a cooling off period as described by the hon. member for Hamilton West which offers an opportunity to continue the bargaining.
You will note that provision is made for a mediator who will be given the authority of a conciliation board to call witnesses and to assist the parties in arriving at a settlement. It is really a question of balance. I hope we will agree that it is not an unreasonable one.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the minister in regard to the situation as it has existed, but the situation in which the bargaining is taking place today is different from what it was the day before yesterday. In regard to the time limit, it seems to me that if the government restricts the time period it will force the parties into an impossible situation particularly if agreement is not reached as the minister expects it to be reached.
It is assumed that we are on the threshhold of an election. When an election is held, 30 days elapse before the writs are returned. In the event that the environment is such that the two parties are carrying on their negotiates! Coast Ports Operations Bill
tions in a more relaxed situation because the strike issue is not there, and the disputes not settled before Christmas, then not only would parliament and the government of the day but the whole economy be placed in an impossible situation, one that would be very difficult to manage. It seems to me that it would aid, not hinder, that it would encourage, not restrain, the situation that exists now, and will continue to exist until final agreement is reached, if such an impasse could be avoided. I think the hon. member for Crowfoot took a very practical approach to this problem when he suggested that the date be extended by another two months or 30 days after Parliament had reassembled. This would be an advantage to everyone concerned.
I think it is important to remember that by the end of this year the economy will have lost some 400,000 man days in the area of federal jurisdiction due to strikes and lockouts. This is nearly double the figure for 1971 when we lost 219,360 days, and three times the figure for the year before when 152,030 man days were lost due to strikes and lockouts. Therefore it would seem practical to extend the time in order to make sure that Parliament can deal with this strike effectively, and I would urge that the minister reconsider his position when we come to clause by clause consideration of the bill.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, some aspects of this bill are becoming more apparent as we get into the discussion than were apparent on the surface during second reading debate, which of course was of somewhat unusual brevity.
I for one would not want anyone in this House, in the press or in the country to assume that because Parliament gave rather fast approval to what we call the principle of the bill, it was done lightly, at least as far as some of us are concerned.
The answer to a question this afternoon focussed attention on some of the really broad issues encompassed by the introduction of this legislation. I am not going to enter into this discussion between the minister and the hon. member for Hamilton West about what might happen during the dissolution of Parliament, but the minister did say that Parliament is the only agency that can deal with situations of this kind. That remark underlined for me the danger inherent in using this parliamentary agency too lightly and too often.
As I journeyed to Ottawa I must say that I felt quite annoyed at the flippant and casual manner with which the Prime Minister summoned Parliament without any proper notice or opportunity given members from a province like British Columbia, which is of course the seat of the situation, to get here from their constituencies without at least having to travel all night and arrive perhaps not in the best condition to consider serious and broad issues.
I think one of the concerns of members here is the fear that if we are not careful we are going to have Parliament in the position of the small boy who cried wolf once too often. If we ever come to a situation where the will of Parliament is ignored because it is being improperly used to rubber stamp proposals put forward by government to cover up its mistakes, then the country is in trouble.
3920

August 31, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
The minister said that Parliament is the only agency to deal with this situation. I would suggest that if Parliament is to remain an effective agency to cope with emergency situations, the actions of Parliament must be such as to maintain respect for this institution in the minds of the people of Canada, and perhaps particularly in the minds of the people involved in a labour dispute such as this.
The situation in which we find ourselves now, where we are forced to acquiesce to this government's proposal, arises from a long series of bumblings and inactivity on the part of the government. I am not going to repeat some of the earlier discussion about the impact of technological change, but I have been thinking to myself "shades of the Freedman report". I remember hearing the former member for Port Arthur, Douglas Fisher, speak about his involvement in that situation.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight p.m.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The Committee resumed at 8 p.m.
The Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose it was considering clause 2.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose for the dinner recess I had made a few comments about my reaction to Parliament being used in what appears to me to be a rather casual manner by the Prime Minister's summoning of the members. One day it appeared, at least to me, that he was shrugging this whole matter off as being of little consequence. The next day we received a rush summons by rather delayed telegram with little opportunity to arrive here and consider what I feel is a very serious matter for Parliament to be called back to act upon.
I suggested that the reason we are being used too frequently is that the government has been ignoring the basic issues that lie behind a developing situation such as the one with which this bill has been designed to deal. I mentioned the fact that a number of years ago Douglas Fisher, a former deputy leader of our party and then the hon. member for Port Arthur, had been involved in the events that led up to the Freedman Report.
It is true that Part V of the new labour code, which has not been proclaimed, touches lightly on some of the matters that relate to technological change. However, I suggest that the government has never considered redefining what might be described as the basic bill of rights for working people in an age when technological change is of daily concern to those involved in almost every industry, whether it lies in provincial or federal jurisdiction.
We are in danger of being called on to support a panic-button-pushing approach of the government. We had a very drastic example of that not too long ago which arose from events in the province of Quebec. I am concerned that it will become a habit of the present administration to rely on being able to draw in Parliament quickly and to

use its weight to cover its own lack of action, or the lack of action of a previous administration, in this increasingly important field.
One could go into the whole broad spectrum of a society where, with inflation and various other factors, we have an attitude taken by various segments of society which tends to hold each other up to ransom. There is an atmosphere in which one group is being pitted against another. This is as prevalent in the province of British Columbia as anywhere in Canada, though hopefully that situation may improve for the better in light of recent events in that province.
The present government should note there is a strong indication in British Columbia that people are becoming fed up with being pushed around by the kind of force that was all too prevalent in the relationship of the now retiring government of British Columbia with various segments of society, particularly with the working people who are organized into trade unions.
The cabinet in the province of British Columbia used what I call Star Chamber tactics to be able to do in secret what we are now actively doing openly. I am concerned that we may fall into that kind of trap. We should not let parliament be used for the purpose of accomplishing indirectly what poor legislation, which created a spiteful atmosphere in the province of British Columbia, has done directly by permanent authority given to the governor in council.
One aspect of this matter has been touched upon but has not been dwelt upon. Perhaps it may not be .of such broad national significance as matters such as the export of grain. I am referring to the tie-up in the coastal shipping traffic of the province of British Columbia. My observation was that they were coping with this emergency situation. When I received notice of the sitting of this House, I was in one of the northerly parts of my constituency. An airport is located there and I was able to see the airlifting and carrying of goods down the coast to fishing packers in order to ensure that essential supplies were being taken to those communities. One aspect of that matter which should not go unnoted in this chamber is that no action on the part of the longshoremen's union was taken in an effort to halt the flow of that necessary movement of commodities to the up-coast communities. I submit this reflects credit on the manner in which they have been conducting themselves in this dispute.
There is not much more I wish to say but I thought it was important I should make these remarks because I think they may help members realize that it is a group of working people in British Columbia who find themselves in this situation. They are Canadians, they have their rights, and we should not be stampeded into making sweeping generalizations or into infringing unduly upon those rights. Above all, Parliament should not be used by this government or by any other government in the future as an implement to achieve such an end.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a few comments once again. This matter was brought up a little earlier by one of the mem-
August 31, 1972

bers of the New Democratic Party, who found need for clarification with respect to the reference to clause 5-


An hon. Member:: Part V.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am sorry, Part V-of the Canada labour code. I would like to propose an amendment eventually on this point because I believe there is a definite need for clarification. As a matter of fact, I heard earlier during the debate that one of the parties to this confrontation had attempted to deal, I think, with clauses 150, 151 and 152. No one can deal with these particular clauses right now in view of the fact that these clauses are referred to in Bill C-183 and that that bill has not been proclaimed, which leaves us in a very peculiar situation, and more so those who will be directly offered by this bill.
The amendment I shall propose is based on the following reasons. The present bill contains four references to part V of the Canada labour code. These are in clause 2(2) on page 2, clause 5(2) on page 4, clause 11(2) on page 7 and clause 15(4) on page 8. The reference in clause 15(4) is to two sections of Part V.
Not wanting to be repetitious but rather to elaborate and cement that which I am attempting to point out, I would say that the confusion arises because there are now two Part Vs of the Canada labour code. One is the Part V in Chapter L-l of the Revised Statutes of 1970. Of course, that is the old Part. The other is the Part V contained in Bill C-183, now Chapter 18 of the Statutes for the present session. This, of course, is the bill which has not yet been proclaimed.
I therefore respectfully submit that there could be some confusion. The first Part V is in full force and effect. I can appreciate my colleagues understanding that. The second Part V has not yet been proclaimed. It could be proclaimed, as my good friend the minister said, at any moment. But having listened to the reasons he gave for its not having been proclaimed, I have cause for concern and worry. When it is proclaimed the Part V now in force and effect will be repealed and the new Part V will come into force, in other words, that Part V contained in Bill C-183.
These new Part Vs differ in content. I do not wish to elaborate because we have all taken part in the debate on Bill C-183 and we know what it involves in terms of measures to deal with technological change the appointment of a board, and so on.
As I read clause 5(2) of the bill before us one can easily see where we are into some difficulty as to what the government is attempting to project in terms of the parties now in dispute. It says:
The terms and conditions of the collective agreement to which this Part V applies shall be effective and binding on the parties thereto for the period mentioned in subsection (1) notwithstanding anything contained in Part V of the Canada Labour Code or in the agreement, and Part V of that Act shall apply in respect of the agreement as if the period for which the agreement was extended by this section were the term of the agreement.
I notice the Minister of Justice is listening. A man with his legal background can understand why I am concerned and why I am seeking clarification. If the present Part V applies, then what happens-I ask this because it raises an interesting point-if the new Part V is proclaimed during the extension of the agreement provided for by the bill?
West Coast Ports Operations Bill


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The parties to the agreement would then find themselves operating under a new set of rules. In other words, if the government intends that the present Part V should apply during the life of this bill, Part V of Bill C-183, could then be ignored. I respectfully say that it cannot in good faith proclaim Part V of Bill C-183. This is a terrible situation. We are operating under Bill C-183 because of section 181. But at the same time, if we are indicating to the parties involved in the dispute that what we are talking about is Part V of the old bill, then how can Bill C-183 be proclaimed? If I am right, the government cannot use section 181 of the new Part V.
I should like to ask: Is the government giving up this power to suspend during a dissolution? We have gone over this question but I am asking it again. I am asking whether the government, in its interest to settle this strike, is giving up its power to suspend during a dissolution of Parliament the right to call a strike or lock-out which might adversely affect the public interest.
If the minister would assure the House with judicial certainty, not with any "I think," or "I suppose," or "I would hope," or "It is my opinion," or "We intend to," or "We would like," but with judicial certainty which Part V is referred to, that if it is the old Part V, the new Part V will not be statutory during the agreement and that the power to use Bill C-183 is not prejudiced, then I will be satisfied.
I believe all hon. members are concerned about this because it could lead us into a chaotic situation if this is not spelled out with certainty. If the minister cannot satisfy this side of the House I would propose an amendment to the bill to clarify the uncertainty. I shall leave this with the minister in the hope that with the expertise he has available to him he will be able to come up with an answer very shortly with judicial certainty.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I wish to give an answer which I think will meet the requirement of being judicious. I do not think the hon. member is asking me to give a legal opinion. In respect of the two Part V's of the labour code, the one now in existence and the one to come into existence, it is clear that old Part V, if I can call it that, applies until the date of the proclamation of the new bill. Upon the proclamation of the new bill the new Part V, in my view, would apply except to the extent it is not consistent with any rights accruing under the old.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Mr. Thomas:: Is that a judicial opinion?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: No. It is an opinion based upon the Interpretation Act and upon the transitional agreement.


Thomas Miller Bell: Start all over again. You are all fuddled up.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: The requirement under the Interpretation Act and the transitional requirement is that the new bill would apply except to the extent that it would not be consistent with rights accruing under the old. As I under-
25319-62{

August 31, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
stand it, those rights would continue for as long as this act continues. The old Part V is mentioned in terms of this emergency bill. I think that is the answer to the question asked.
The hon. member also asked, I believe, about the technological provisions. If the new act were proclaimed it is also provided in the act that it would not apply to an existing agreement and therefore would not disturb the existing agreement so long as it lasts but could affect the terms and conditions of a new agreement which the parties are now negotiating.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder for clarification if the minister could spell out those parts of old Part V and new Part V which are inconsistent, so that we will know.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I am not aware of any. I do not think the problem will arise. I was asked to give an interpretation of how the thing would fit and I believe I have given that interpretation. I am not aware that it would cause any disturbance in the transition from one collective agreement to the next collective agreement, or from one Part V to the other Part V.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, after hearing this explanation I must say with respect that it is not based on judicial certainty when the minister states it will be all right so long as there are no uncertainties and no inconsistencies. What kind of nonsense is this! All I want is clarification. We must be sure that we are talking about Part V of the old bill. This government has had a year and some months in which to proclaim Bill C-183. Here we are hung up with this point and the minister starts talking about "provided there are no inconsistencies and provided there are no other problems". This is a lot of garbage, I suggest with due respect.
If we are to pass a meaningful bill which has some sense surely this calls for clarification. It is extremely complicated. My friend from Fundy-Royal asked if the minister would kindly advise us what the inconsistencies are, and the minister did a "flip-flop" and said he did not think there were any. This sort of thing is not good enough. In view of that, unless there are other members who would like to pursue this matter further, I would like to move an amendment. Seconded by the hon. member for Moncton, I move:
That clause 2(1) of the Bill be amended by inserting therein, next after line 2 on page 2 thereof, the following:
(2) In this Act, wherever reference is made to Part V of the Canada Labour Code, such reference is to Part V of the Canada Labour Code, Chapter L-l of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, which shall continue in force and effect for the purposes of this Act notwithstanding that Chapter 18 of the Acts of the present session of this Parliament may come into force hereafter.'
and by renumbering the subsequent subclause accordingly.
Some of my friends from all sides of the House will say this will not rectify the situation, but at least it is a sincere, and I respectfully say a credible, attempt to clear up a very unacceptable situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise briefly to say that I regret that the hon. member for

Hamilton West has proposed this amendment. We have no option but to vote against it. I have already made clear we believe it is unfortunate there is confusion about Part V in so far as the terms of Bill C-231 are concerned. However, we believe there are other ways in which to resolve the confusion. One of the best is an early proclamation of Bill C-183. This proposal of the hon. member for Hamilton West would deny to the parties during the life of Bill C-231 any chance, even if Bill C-183 were proclaimed, to make use of the technological change provisions in Bill C-183. The hon. member was against those changes. As I recall it that was his position when Bill C-183 was before us.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I am sure the hon. member is equally as concerned about the workers as I am, but I think in all fairness he should point out that what I attempted to do to Bill C-183 was to make it acceptable not only to the parties to the dispute-that is, labour and management-but also to the people of Canada. In other words, I was trying to put something before this House in the interest of industrial peace.
I resent very much the implication of the hon. member in saying I was against technological change. With all due respect our amendments attempted to improve the bill. I respectfully ask the hon. member to admit that I at least tried to improve things, rather than say I am against technological change.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I readily accept the hon. member's description of what he was trying to do in June. In any case, we had that debate then and I see no point in rehashing it now. It is still true that the effect of the hon. member's amendment is very clear. It will provide that parties operating under Bill C-231 now before us would be denied the right to negotiate under the terms of Part V. Whether the hon. member likes the new Part V is immaterial. The fact is that we cannot accept a denial to the parties of the benefits that are in Bill C-183. Therefore, we hope that this amendment will be turned down.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I want to assist the hon. member for Hamilton West in every way I can. In order to provide the clarification he is seeking, I might go back to the earlier point he was raising and say we have to bear in mind that what we are doing is merely extending the term of the previous agreement. We are not in effect making a new four-month agreement of this measure. Naturally we hope the parties will come to a settlement long before the extended term expires.
What we are doing is extending the term to a limit of four months. This is not a new agreement, it is simply an extension. Part V would apply to that extended agreement so long as this act is in force. This act is in force to the point where they make a new agreement. I do not see too much difficulty in that regard.
Frankly, it seems to me the clarification the hon. member was seeking is of that nature. If the new Part V comes into force because of proclamation I do not think any of us would wish to deny any benefits or rights that might accrue to those parties under the new bill if they
August 31, 1972

were still negotiating a new settlement. If we did that we would be taking a rather different step than that which is the main purpose of this bill, namely to provide for the resumption of operation, not to affect that which would normally come to parties which did not have collective agreements. We would be singling out this group and denying it the opportunity of taking the benefits and responsibilities under the new bill. When he thinks about that he must feel that it would not appeal. I am sure that was not in the mind of the hon. member. We would in fact be denying certain rights which all other parties at that point of time would have access to as they negotiated collective agreements.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up any more of the time of the committee and I think we should call for a vote on this matter. We do find ourselves in an extremely unfortunate position. I hope this will indicate to the government that it cannot pussyfoot in respect of bills. Bill C-183 has been outstanding for a considerable length of time and the minister has known about it for even longer. Section 181 is the same under this bill as it was in Bill C-253. We have no business being put in this position. I do not know how much life this government has left but I suggest this is a lesson for all of us. When a government has a bill passed it should be proclaimed as quickly as possible, particularly when another bill which has something to do with the first bill is brought forward. This is an extremely unfortunate position and I want to register our concern about what I will not call the negligent proceeding of this government.


An hon. Member:: I will.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The House leader says he would call it that, but let this be an indication that we cannot pussyfoot by bringing in another bill which creates an area of cloud and confusion. This is not fair to hon. members on all sides of the House and is certainly not fair to the parties involved.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West.
Amendment (Mr. Alexander) negatived: Yeas, 21; nays, 74.


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Chairman, as one who has the privilege of representing a constituency which will be affected by this legislation, both from the standpoint of those who work on the docks and that of the general public who depend for their supplies on ships, I would like to say a few words about this measure before us. I am particularly interested in the proposal made by the leader of this party this afternoon asking the government for an amendment to the bill to provide that any agreement entered into between the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association, the longshoremen's union, the grain handlers and the grain elevator companies shall be retroactive to the date when the previous agreement expired. It would be of great help to the committee if the minister could indicate whether he intends to introduce such an amendment.
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
He said this afternoon that he was sympathetic to the idea of introducing an amendment. Could we know when such an amendment could be introduced and under what clause it is going to be introduced? I think it would help a great deal if we were told that. I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that what this committee and what Parliament face is really a contradiction in two basic principles to which most of us adhere. I think all members of the House, irrespective of party, believe in the basic principle of free collective bargaining. We believe that in a free society people have the right, either singly or collectively, to bargain regarding the terms under which they will sell their labour or their product. At the same time we also accept the principle that Parliament has a responsibility for the national welfare and to see that nt>
action taken by any single group jeopardizes the national wellbeing.
The minister this afternoon made reference to the grain sales, and the Minister of Justice again made reference to it later in the debate. I do not think enough has been said about the fact that the longshoremen's union and the grain handlers have shown a remarkable responsibility with reference to grain sales and a realization of how important grain sales are to the Canadian economy. The grain handlers have indicated their willingness to accept the conciliation report and the longshoremen's union have indicated their willingness to enter into a separate agreement to deal with grain providing the facilities were manned and operated under the National Harbours Board.
The Minister of Justice said that this was not possible, but he did not say why it was not possible. It was not possible because apparently the government was not prepared to take this rather daring and innovative step. I want to make it clear that the workers have also recognized the responsibility which they have for the wellbeing of the Canadian economy.
So Parliament is faced with these two principles: the right of free collective bargaining, and the need to protect the national well being. If, as this legislation does, we are going to remove the right to strike, then surely we have a responsibility to make absolutely sure that while protecting the national interest we do not use that as an excuse to allow the workers to be exploited or to be manipulated into accepting terms which are unfavourable to them.
Nothing that either of the ministers said this afternoon gave the immediate impression that the government is fully seized of the real cause of the dispute on the waterfront of British Columbia. The matter of wages has not been a major issue, and certainly that can be resolved. The major issue on the waterfronts of British Columbia, as it was in the eastern seaports of Canada, and as it was a few weeks ago in the seaports of Great Britain, has to do with the growing threat to the job security of the men who unload the ships. That arises out of automation, out of containerization, out of the proposed telephone computer dispatch system, all of which will change the pattern under which those who unload the ships have operated for a great many years.
It may be that changes are inevitable and that changes are desirable. We cannot be modern Luddites who try to solve problems by smashing machines or refusing to use

August 31, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
computers. But if there is to be a process of automation and cybernation then surely Parliament has a responsibility, and this government has a responsibility, first to protect the job security of workers, and second to see that a substantial share of the increased productivity arising out of automation is passed on to the general public and particularly to those who work.
This is not a new problem. The former minister of labour wrestled with this as did his predecessor. We all recall in this House the problem of the firemen on the railroads. We remember the Freedman Commission being set up and we remember the Freedman report which was accepted by all parties in the House and to which the government paid lip service, the report about which practically nothing was done. The chickens are now coming home to roost and there are going to be more problems unless we tackle this problem of technological change.
For instance, in Great Britain even the union officials wanted the men to go back to work, but they would not go back. Why? Because in three years the number of dock workers in Great Britain had been reduced by 23,000. When men get into their 50's and early 60's and see automation taking over the jobs of their fellow workers, and it keeps getting closer and closer to them, these men, who have reached an age when it is not easy to learn a new trade and to get a new job, become panicstricken. They get uptight. That is why, we have trouble in ports all around the world.
The fact that the government has this legislation here today is an admission of their bankruptcy of policy to deal with the question of technological change. What does this legislation do? It settles nothing. It does two things: one, it gets the government off the hook until after the federal election is over by sweeping the issue under the rug for four months; second, it helps the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association because after January 1 it will probably be easier to negotiate with the workers in the winter. This allows the B.C. Maritime Employers Association to get over the four big months of shipment and to negotiate after January 1, if they have not reached a settlement before then, under conditions that are much more favourable to the employers and much less favourable to the workers. The government should know that.
Therefore, it seems to me that we in this Parliament are being asked to approve legislation which is going to take away a very basic right of certain workers for the next four months. I think they are entitled to two things. They are entitled, first of all, to some assurance from the present Minister of Labour that the legislation with respect to technological change will be proclaimed, and secondly, that the government's program with respect to automation and cybernation will be stepped up, enlarged and made effective.
Additionally they have the right to know that when they do manage do work out an agreement with the employers, the Maritime Employers Association of British Columbia, that agreement will be retroactive, in the case of the longshoremen to August 1, 1972, and in the case of the grain handlers to November, 1971. That is the least to which they are entitled.

If tonight the minister can assure us that he intends to move an amendment to that effect, and tells us the clause under which he will move it, this will make it much easier for us to get on with passage of the legislation. I would like to say to him that I am sure no member in any part of the House wants to take away from any group of workers the right to strike, and we are not going to take away that right unless we provide them in return with some measure of protection, protection which in our opinion they are entitled to be given by the Parliament of Canada. Therefore I ask the minister if he can give us some information on the results of his sympathetic consideration of the proposal made by the leader of our party, and if he can assure this committee that it is his intention to move such an amendment.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to give the assurance that I will be prepared to move an amendment to clause 7 in Part I of the bill, and to clause 13 in Part II of the bill, to bring about the retroactive results that have been proposed by the leader of the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to let this clause pass without making some general remarks with respect to the situation facing us in this chamber, and particularly with respect to the situation facing us on the west coast. For hon. members who have not had the opportunity to be closely associated with it I think I can sketch the situation on the west coast for them in just a few words.
On the west coast we have had a beautiful summer. The days have been very sunny. The people are in the parks, on the beaches in Stanley Park, and driving along the Marine Drive overlooking English Bay. Throughout the summer vessels have been coming into English Bay and taking up anchorage, until now we can look at 20 vessels or more anchored there, and another 20 or so in the inner harbour along the north and east side of the city. It is a magnificent sight to see. Little sailboats go flitting in and around them. The sun and the sea make it a marvellous sight to look at-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, I seem to be working uphill against a great deal of noise not only from members of my own party but from members opposite and I wonder if I could ask for a little order.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. Of course the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, like other members, is entitled to order, but having said that I hope he will quickly get to the kernel of his remarks.


Grant Deachman: With respect, Sir, I am dealing directly with the subject before us, a strike which is tying up the city of Vancouver, the province of British Columbia, and the Prairie provinces. We have a disturbing feeling as we look at this because we know that the people of Canada are paying demurrage on these ships at a rate of from $1,500 to $2,500 to $3,000 a day.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would you believe $4,000?


Grant Deachman: Yes.
August 31, 1972


Thomas Miller Bell: That is about 10 cents for every word you utter.


Grant Deachman: Some of the charges range up to $4,000. This is a situation that is costing us as taxpayers something in the neighbourhood of half a million dollars a week, or about $2 million a month. This is a serious matter if only in respect to the demurrage.
Many speeches have been made in this House with respect to the movement of grain, but very little has been said about the other factors in this strike. The strike in Vancouver harbour not only ties up the movement of grain affecting the three Prairie provinces but is gradually tying up the entire economy of British Columbia.
Mines in the interior of the province, not having a place from which to move their ore, are forced to shut down. The tow boat industry which moves ore down along the shore is forced to close. Lumber operations along the coast must gradually come to a halt because there are no ships on which to load the lumber. Bit by bit, inch by inch the economy of the province is coming to a halt, involving its mines, its canneries, its forest industries, the movement of autos and other commodities coming from abroad through the port of Vancouver, as well as the outward movement of bulk commodities such as sulphur, coal and potash from the Prairies, and other bulk commodities from British Columbia itself.
In effect, basically we are looking at a national crisis involving half of Canada. I know it is difficult for members from eastern Canada to realize the importance of this to the west, and the extent of its impact upon the four western provinces, just as it is difficult for we western members to realize the importance of strikes such as the one that recently tied up Montreal harbour.
The settlement of the strike at Vancouver in the long rim will not be an easy matter. Lying at the root of the problem is the procedure with respect to dispatching gangs to man vessels. This is an old established procedure based on the hiring hall practices in the port of Vancouver. Interestingly enough the hiring hall is owned not by the union, not by a neutral organization serving both the employers and the union, but by the employers themselves. Union members going to hire on as a gang every morning come into a hall operated and owned by the employers. It is also interesting to know that this hall is the only one owned by employers and operated in this fashion on the whole of the west coast between Mexico and Alaska.
Part of the problem lies in an agreement contained in the current contract to computerize the dispatching operations. One must realize that if the dispatching were computerized, the computer now would be owned by the Maritime Employers' Association, and the union employee, for dispatch purposes, would then be at the mercy of a computer owned by his employer. If I were a longshoreman I feel quite certain that I would not want to live any longer with a practice of that kind. I think the solution would be some form of neutral hiring hall or neutral dispatching service which would serve both management and the union.
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
From my own experience and my talk with longshoremen and people working on the harbour both at management and employee level, I want to say that I believe this practice of a company-owned hiring hall is at the basis of the trouble in Vancouver Harbour. I hope that in going about the business of finding a long term settlement to the problems of Vancouver Harbour the minister will look deeply into the practices which exist in the hiring hall and the way in which dispatching is done. That is the basis of the problem we are facing today and it will not be easily solved either from the standpoint of management or the employee.
It is not an impossible question, however, Mr. Chairman. Nor is the question of computerizing the operation of dispatching on the harbour an impossible one. But the solution must be based first of all on the realization that when a longshoreman comes to be hired out to a gang in the harbour he is interested in knowing what his own position is. He wants some guarantees that he is being treated fairly relative to others hired on a gang. He wants to know that the advantages are not being weighed and cannot be weighed in the direction of management and he wants to know that the service is giving him an honest break. Because that is his livelihood.
Mr. Chairman, I say this is a human problem dealing with human relationships, with people who work very hard, honest people who are down there every day to work on that harbour and who do an excellent job in moving cargo through our west coast ports. These are not people who kick against technological improvement; in fact, they are people who recognize the advantages of technological improvement. They are not an enormous number of people; they are 1500 skilled people backed up by 1800 people of lesser skill. Their reputation is not one of striking again and again; we have had long periods of peace on the Vancouver waterfront.
At the core of the matter is the recognition that it is a human problem which must be looked at in human terms. I hope that will be the basis of any investigation to secure a permanent solution. In the meantime, it is my personal feeling that these people are prepared to stand by the bill which we will pass here asking them to continue work while a better means is found to regulate work on Vancouver Harbour. I hope we will meet in good faith, as I am sure they will meet in good faith, the question of finding a way acceptable to both sides for the regulation of this dispute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Term of collective agreement extended.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak briefly on clause 5. I listened very attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra on the matter before the House. His remarks caused me some concern and it took some willpower on my part to resist answering him in what might be termed a political debate, but I did wonder whether he was making an attempt to defend the actions of the government in regard to this labour strike.

August 31, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill


Mr. Benjamin:: And also to save his own neck.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As my hon. friend comments, he was also making remarks to save his own neck. I am in no position to judge that comment but I lay it before the committee and let the committee judge as it may see fit.
Reflecting upon the hon. member's remarks I attempted to recall when he might have spoken for the good of the country rather than in defence of the party, but could not do so. He seems to be a trouble shooter prepared to rise on any occasion. When the party seems a bit weak and needs certain defence it calls upon his superior wisdom and his comments may or may not help.
I am not trying to judge whether the party in British Columbia needs some bolstering today, nor would I like to be counted as one who suggests that this piece of legislation needs some particular defence. Having followed the hon. member's remarks closely I feel that deep down he agrees with this legislation and wants to give every opportunity possible for the normal and natural forces to work for the general advantage of the system of collective bargaining, of management and unions settling their own disputes, with the least possible government interference.
In light of that I am sure that he would be the first to agree with the amendment which I am prepared to offer to clause 5, on page 4 of the bill. I gave the purport of my amendment this afternoon. I believe that the system of collective bargaining should be given the ultimate opportunity to solve its own problems.
I believe that this piece of legislation was drawn up in haste. I could go on at length to indicate how I reached that conclusion. For example, less than 10 days ago the Prime Minister said that these people should reach then-own conclusion and asked why the government should interfere. All of a sudden, the legislation is before us.
The date suggested in this legislation, December 31,
1972.	I suggest that was not fully thought out for the good of Parliament and the collective bargaining system. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer:
That clause 5(1) of the Bill be amended by deleting the words "December 31, 1972," in line 7 on page 4 and substituting therefore the words "February 28, 1973".
I am prepared to move that amendment because I firmly believe that, in legislating a solution to any conflicting problem between labour and management, ample time should be given to the two parties to reach a satisfactory conclusion before more restrictive and demanding legislation is brought forward. If, after ample time has been given to both parties to reach a conclusion, there is no way the situation can be solved, it may be said that they need punishment, the strong arm of the law and a very firm hand to resolve the problem.
I do not want to take the time of the committee to enlarge on the point I made this afternoon, so I will briefly summarize the conclusion I have reached. We are now approaching September 1. The solution called for here will bring about the dissolution of this Parliament either tonight or tomorrow. It may well bring about the calling of an election on October 30 or November 6. It is my belief

that during the election period we will create an atmosphere in this country in which no meaningful discussion can take place with regard to this problem for which this Parliament has already formulated a solution. The two parties will want to wait until after the election to see who wins. If this government is returned to office, they may or may not negotiate. They may force further government action. If another party wins the election, they may wait to see if that party is prepared to demonstrate a spirit which will create an environment in which collective bargaining can reach a successful conclusion. I like to think that will be the case, but I may be biased.
No meaningful solution to collective bargaining will come about during a federal election. We will pass this legislation and the workers will return to work, but they will not attempt to reach any conclusion until October 30 or November 6. What will happen if there is a change in government, or a minority government with the present government still in power? There will be a period of uncertainty. A period of approximately two weeks after an election is required for the issuance of a writ to determine what party and what cabinet ministers are actually governing Canada. Another two weeks is required to appoint a cabinet. This will take us right into the festive season of December and January, January 1 in particular.
The government has been so involved in the political problem of meeting the electorate that it has failed to proceed logically step by step on this whole question. The date they have fixed is not logical. I would like to see all members of all political parties of this House unanimously agree that December 31, 1972 does not allow ample opportunity for the system to work. It does not give ample opportunity for this piece of legislation to work. It may well challenge the union to force more federal legislation upon them.
I did not reach this conclusion because of the recent turn of events in British Columbia. However, because of that, my conclusion is fortified. I ask all members to give serious consideration to this amendment. It does not change the legislation. If the strike is settled by January 1, there is no problem. The legislation will die automatically and there will be no great upheaval. If the strike is settled, the grain will be moving and commodities will be coming into and out of Canada freely, so there will be no problem. There will be no loss of face. In light of the forthcoming election and festive season, which it could be said are as sure as Christmas, why not give the system ample time to work?
Let us put partisan politics aside in this hour of urgency. Let us agree that February 28, 1973 is a far better date to include in this legislation than December 31, 1972. Let us accept this minor change in this legislation. Let us unanimously approve this bill tonight so that we can give it third reading tomorrow, face the electorate, prepare to do battle and let the electorate choose who shall govern Canada after the normal 59 days' notice is duly given. That is all I ask this House. I am not condemning the legislation. I am not condemning clause 5 or any of the prior clauses. Let us put partisan politics aside and accept this logical suggestion.
August 31, 1972

I regret I did not approach my many friends on the Liberal side and offer this amendment to them, because I know the government might then have been more receptive to the idea. Surely in this hour of crisis the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister, who saw fit to fly out government planes east and west to bring us all back to Ottawa, would agree to put partisan politics aside and accept the logic of my proposal. If they do not like the date February 28, let them agree to January 31, or March 1. Let them choose any other date. But surely they should rise and say: "January 31 is time enough; if solutions are not reached by January 31, if we are returned to this House we shall take further strong arm action".


Mr. Mahoney:: Strong arm action?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Strong arm action, as the hon. member for Calgary South suggests. I really do not believe they want to take strong arm action. I do not want to take strong arm action.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I believe we can reach a viable solution to this problem. Grain has to move. Imports have to enter Canada, not only through Vancouver but through every port on the west coast. I feel that because the government is faced with a situation in which it feels bound to call an election, the particular dates involved here are dates which will become subject to the challenge or call of political partisanship, and that is not a good thing. I urge all members of this House to sit down-


An hon. Member:: Sit down yourself.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -and to think carefully. If anyone has any objection to the date I suggest, February 28, 1973, he should tell me what his objections are. If the matter is settled before December 31, 1972, there is no problem. If it is settled three days after January 1, there will be no problem. Why not give the system a little more time before a new government may have to act, or before a coalition government has to use its weapons?
Having made my plea for some kind of non-partisan solution to the crisis which is presently preventing the movement of grain as well as the movement of goods in and out of Canada, I urge the committee to accept the amendment moved by myself and seconded by my hon. friend from Red Deer. The solution I propose is a simple one. It is one which will cause the least difficulty to the next government, and perhaps it will result in grain and other commodities moving quickly again. I commend to the House this amendment changing the date in line seven on page four from December 31, 1972 to February 28,
1973.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Crowfoot has proved conclusively by his speech in support of the amendment that either the Conservative party knows nothing about labour relations or that he is willfully accepting a system which would place both management and labour under the control of government for a
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
much longer period than the bill presently before us is suggesting.
He says he wishes to give those involved time in which to work out their difficulties. He says the period presently proposed fails to do this. The logic of the argument would lead one to the conclusion that he should propose cutting the period from four months to two months if he wants something known as free collective bargaining. My friends on the right are always talking about the merits of free collective bargaining. But instead of proposing an amendment which would result in management and labour being uninhibited by government control, the hon. member for Crowfoot proposes that there be an additional two months during which both parties are bound by the existing contract. Rarely has one heard such an absurd proposal presented in this chamber. We have listened to a good many but this one comes near to the top of the list.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The legislation before us is not such that it can be approached enthusiastically as, to his credit, the Minister of Labour has pointed out. But politics often offers a choice, not between black and white but between two objectives, each of which is desirable; in this case, the preservation of collective bargaining on one hand and the maintenance of wheat exports from Canada on the other.
We in this party agree that it is necessary severely to inhibit the process of free collective bargaining for a four-month period by passing this legislation. Nevertheless we cannot accept the ridiculous suggestion which has just been made that he extend the process for another two months. This would not encourage the people concerned to work together to reach an agreement. Rather, it would postpone the period of free discussion for a further two months. I urge utter and complete rejection of this proposal.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that if I speak now I close the debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre assures me that this is the case.
I should like to correct a misinterpretation which has been placed upon my words. If a settlement through collective bargaining is reached by December 29, 1972, the unions and the other parties involved will no longer be affected by this legislation and there will no longer be any problem. My amendment merely allows for extra time in which to enable the legislation to take effect.
If the hon. member of the New Democratic Party believes that today is a day on which the members of his party should feel a bit chesty and that they should throw their weight around in the House of Commons, I forgive him for his words. But when he misconstrues the words I used and the amendment I moved, I cannot let this go unchallenged.
I want to reemphasize that if an agreement were reached at any time prior to February 28,1973 this legislation would automatically go by the board. The grain would be moving and commodities would be moving in and out of Canada. It would not in any way superimpose the long arm of the government upon the unions, nor for
3928

August 31, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
that matter superimpose the long arm of the government upon management, in any way. When the hon. member rises to enter into a picayune debate with me on this grave occasion I certainly think less of him than I did prior to his remarks. However, being of a generous nature I shall forgive him for his remarks on this particular occasion following the victory of the New Democratic Party yesterday.


Gérald Laniel: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Horner) negatived: Yeas, 22; nays, 103.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clauses agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Employers association and Union to negotiate.
Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to clause 7 which would have the effect of producing a new subclause to provide that any new collective agreement entered into in amendment or revision of existing collective agreements to which Part I applies shall, unless the parties thereto otherwise agree, have effect on and from August 1, 1972.
In some respects it might be argued that this amendment is not necessary and that in the ordinary course of collective bargaining the parties would come to an agreement that the terms and conditions would in fact be retroactive. However, to remove any doubt, to add clarity and certainty and to confirm the government's earnest desire that equity prevail in an evenhanded way during this extended period, I am very pleased indeed to move this amendment, which was first proposed by the hon. member for York South. I move the following:
That Clause 7 of Bill C-231 be amended by adding thereto the following subclause:
Terms and conditions of new collective agreement
'(2) Notwithstanding section 5, the terms and conditions of any collective agreement entered into in amendment or revision of the collective agreement to which this Part applies shall, unless the parties thereto otherwise agree, have effect on and from August I, 1972.'


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question. In view of the fact that there is a recommendation from His Excellency with regard to this matter can the minister assure us that this will be satisfactory to His Excellency in light of the fact that the Prime Minister may be asking a favour of him later on during the week?


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, forgive me, but you have not put the amendment. Perhaps before I speak to it you might want to put it.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment proposed by the hon. minister carry?


David Lewis: I wish merely to express the appreciation of my colleagues and myself that the minister has accepted the suggestion I made to him earlier this afternoon. Indeed my hope that he would act in this way was raised when one of his assistants requested a copy of the amendment we proposed to move. I want to say to the minister that this change is necessary not only for the purpose of clarity and certainty. He may have been informed that in the normal course of events the parties would agree to make the provisions retroactive. If he has been so informed he has been misinformed. I have been involved in many negotiations where the question of retroactivity was a pretty serious subject. There was no certainty at all that the employers would agree to make any part of the agreement retroactive, particularly in the absence of any possibility of the men taking strike action. Therefore this change is important not merely for the purpose of clarity and certainty; it is important for the purpose of giving some justice in return for the right that is being taken away from the longshoremen on the west coast. I hope this clause will pass quickly along with the rest of the bill at this stage. I am simply expressing the appreciation of my colleagues and myself of the NDP to the minister for having seen the justice of the suggestion and acting on it. I am very glad he has.


Mr.   Homer@: Mr. Chairman, I hope this piece of legislation passes this evening but as an old parliamentarian I regret that important legislation such as this has to pass in a committee of the whole where such a bi-partisan position is taken by hon. members. This amendment is evidence that the government has failed to dot all the i's and cross all the t's in drafting its legislation.
There is a customary statement in legislation that it shall begin at or be retroactive to such and such a date, August 1 in this case. I hope in passing this amendment the government acknowledges the fact it has not fully thought out the problems which may arise as a result of such legislation. I hope it is an indication that the government is prepared to accept other amendments put forward in the spirit of co-operation with the intention of improving the legislation for the whole of Canada. Some of these amendments are necessary because the government has not thought out all benefits such as the one covered by the present amendment. Like the leader of the NDP I hope this measure can pass so that operations on the west coast can return to something near normal at the very earliest possible time.
Amendment (Mr. O'Connell) agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 8: Termination.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with Clause 8 I think we should consider something that pertains to the future. Many of us have expressed an opinion on more than one occasion about the importance of recognizing grain as being extremely important to our national economy. Before we pass Clause 8 we should give some direction to the government in respect of the future move-
August 31, 1972

ment of grain. We realize that when there is a tie-up involving the export of grain and other commodities people begin to talk about a national disaster leading to a confrontation. I suggest that the government should accept its responsibility in this regard instead of passing it on to someone else. If the government did this there would be no reason for passing legislation to handle this type of situation.
In recognizing the extreme importance of our export markets we should consider the position of the middleman in the movement of grain. We should decide whether this man is interested in making profits from moving grain and other commodities out of the country. We might also consider the idea of nationalizing our ports and adopting a comprehensive transportation policy.
All this could be looked into by a committee vested with authority to look into the general picture and problems affecting the whole movement of cargoes through ports in Canada. It has been noted in the past that people in the port of Vancouver would rather unload U.S. goods than Canadian goods. It has been suggested that grain could be handled separately. I am sure all members of the House would agree to a study to determine the effectiveness of moving grain as an item separate from general cargo.
With those remarks I should like to move:
That Clause 8, Part II be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"provided however that before December 31, 1972, the government shall initiate a study under the Inquiries Act into the possibility of separating grain from general cargo, such grain to be handled by the Canadian Wheat Board."
There may be some question whether grain should be handled by the Canadian Wheat Board or the National Harbours Board. We support the contention that the Canadian Wheat Board should be made responsible for such handling. If it is to be responsible for moving our grain into export position and making sales, it should be given the authority to move grain through the Port of Vancouver and other Canadian ports. We recognize the importance of this situation, and this amendment would require that some consideration be given to the setting up of a study to determine a better method of moving grain out of the country.


Gérald Laniel: At first consideration the amendment appears to be unacceptable in that it moves quite far beyond that which the committee is considering at this time. To my mind it embodies a completely new proposal. On the other hand, when looking at the clock I wonder if the best and quickest solution might be to have the committee decided rather than to start a procedural debate. My first thought is that the amendment is not acceptable.


Gerald William Baldwin: In view of the fact we have not got copies of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would read it.


Gérald Laniel: Without putting the amendment at this time I will read it. It is moved by Mr. Skoberg that Clause 8, Part II, be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma and by adding immediately thereafter the following words: "provided however that
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
before December 31, 1972, the government shall initiate a study under the Inquiries Act into the possibility of separating grain from general cargo, such grain to be handled by the Canadian Wheat Board."
I will accept the amendment as being put in order that we can have a general discussion without questioning the procedural aspect.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I failed to understand your words of advice to the committee and I would seek your guidance. I have some doubts about the wisdom of the amendment and whether it will be good or bad for Canadian commerce. If I am in order I will proceed with my reasons. I understand that you were somewhat dubious whether it was in order but you were prepared to accept it in view of the time.


Gérald Laniel: The first impression of the Chair is that the amendment is not an amendment but a substantive motion, but because of the time, if the committee is ready to consider the motion as it is, the Chair will accept it. I have read it to the committee. If the hon. member wishes to speak on the amendment, the Chair is ready to listen.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, the amendment, according to my limited knowledge of the rules of the House, is out of order. It does not apply to clause 8 and it does not particularly apply to clause 7. I am not in a position to debate the question as to whether it is in order or out of order, but I preface my remarks by saying that personally I believe it is out of order. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) has failed to distribute a copy of his amendment. I would now like to thank the hon. member for personally delivering the amendment to me.
The amendment says that the government shall initiate a study under the Inquiries Act into the possibility of separating grain from general cargo, such grain to be handled by the Canadian Wheat Board. My remarks regarding the amendment were to the point. It seems to me that this is the wrong place at which to move such an amendment. The amendment should be debated at the longshoremen's union level at a particular point.
I am under the impression that there are 3,200 longshoremen at the west coast ports and something like 65 or 70 are involved in the handling and movement of grain. I am diametrically opposed to a complex situation which would involve the important matter of grain movement, which encompasses one fortieth of the total number of workers. It seems to me that this is quite wrong. I have been one who has long argued and fought against the amalgamation of various workers involved in union strikes. I believe that steel workers should be steel workers and grain handlers should be grain handlers, and that each should have the right to unionize.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This over-all amalgamation of unions gives the total union a great deal of political strength, far more strength in the market place than it should have. I have been long opposed to that practice, and I say to you, Mr. 3930

August 31, 1972
West Coast Ports Operations Bill
Chairman, that now is not the time for a bill before the House to propose such a practice. Now is not the occasion for you to allow such an all-encompassing amendment to be put forward.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has caught my eye. If he has half the intelligence with regard to the rules of the House of Commons that the press attributes to him, then he should know above anybody else in the House that this amendment is completely out of order. Any member of the House should realize that we have been called together here to pass a piece of legislation to aid grain movement, not to bring forward a harum scarum provision put forward by the party to my left which is somewhat chesty today because of its victory in British Columbia. It has brought forward an amendment which is completely out of order, and I urge you to rule it so, so that we can get on with the business of putting the longshoremen back to work and start the grain moving.
I urge the House leader to rise and say, with his vast knowledge of the rules of the House of Commons, that this amendment is out of order. Perhaps he is one member who is equal to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I have no doubt in my mind that the amendment is completely out of order and I urge the House to voice its opinion before we get into a lengthy debate as to what should belong to a given union representing a whole conglomeration of trades in our economic sphere today.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that it is close to ten o'clock, I wonder whether you might agree not to see the clock for a further period of time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, Mr. Chairman. I thought the House leader was rising to give his opinion with regard to this amendment and to give you some advice on whether this amendment is or is not in order. If he is not prepared to do so and does not see the clock, others do and will. We are prepared to deal with the grain handling problem. Let us not deal with unions and the whole scope of unions encompassed in this amendment.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. May I point out, without getting into a debate with the hon. member, that the amendment has been put to the House. When the hon. member rose he said that he wanted to comment on the amendment, and at that time the Chair said that it was considering the amendment as put by the hon. member for Moose Jaw and read to the House. So the question is on the amendment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: When shall the committee agree to sit again? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might rise on a point of order and suggest to the House that it might be profitable for us to attempt to complete the committee stage of this bill. I understand that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) had some comments in the com-

mittee and we could deal with them if we were allowed to go back to complete the committee stage this evening. We would then deal with the third reading of the bill tomorrow. That would be my suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I have amendments to move to clauses 8 and 11 of the bill. I am prepared to deal with them this evening provided the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) drops or withdraws his rather out of order amendment, so we could then deal with the subject matter before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member knows that this would require unanimous agreement. Is there agreement in the House?


David Lewis: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that the issue which was raised in committee by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) was raised because he did not see the text of the amendment. The amendment that was proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) did not deal with unions. It deals precisely with grain handling, and suggests that grain handling be dealt with in a collective agreement separate from any collective agreement that deals with other cargo. The amendment does not deal with unions, as suggested by the hon. member for Crowfoot; it deals with grain handling in the way that he says he wants it dealt with.
In view of that, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would change his mind. Because on behalf of my party I wish to agree with the government house leader that it would be desirable to complete the committee of the whole stage this evening and go into third reading stage tomorrow, instead of starting the committee stage all over again tomorrow without being at all certain that we would complete third reading tomorrow. In view of this brief explanation perhaps the hon. member for Crowfoot would reconsider his position on seeing the clock.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I now have a copy of the amendment before me. While I think it is substantively out of order, and having asked the government House leader to give his opinion on whether it is in order or not, and he having neglected to do so, I assume the government is in agreement with this amendment. If the government is in agreement with the amendment, I am in no way reluctant to pass it this evening. I see the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) shaking his head negatively. The minister does not want to separate the 73 grain handlers from the other 3,200 workers. I believe they should be separated. If we can reach no agreement on that point this evening, then all I can say is that I regret that ten o'clock has arrived so quickly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I understand the point of view of the hon. member, but at this time the question concerns the possibility of an agreement to go beyond ten o'clock and allow the House to resume its committee work. I will put the question again. Is there agreement to allow the House to go back to committee and resume its work on Bill C-231?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
August 31, 1972


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Not unless the government is prepared to accept the amendment being moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
West Coast Ports Operations Bill


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being ten o'clock I do now leave the Chair until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At six minutes past ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, September 1. 1972