1972-07-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions.
June 22, 1972-The Prime Minister:
That, when the House adjourns following the Royal Assent on June 30, 1972, it shall stand adjourned until a time fixed by Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Government, when the House may meet for the purpose of the giving of Royal Assent to any bills that have not been given Royal Assent;
And that, after the giving of Royal Assent to any such bills or in the event the House does not meet for that purpose, the House shall be adjourned or stand adjourned, as the case may be, until September 28, 1972, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time;
And that, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for all purposes of this order.
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might rise on a point of order to suggest that because this motion is no longer applicable it might be dropped, with the consent of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION ON JULY 7, 1972

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister) moved:: That when the House adjourns following the third reading and passing of Bills C-170 and C-201 or, at the ordinary time of daily adjournment on Friday, July 7, 1972, as the case may be, it shall stand adjourned until a time to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Government, when the House may meet for the purpose of the giving of Royal Assent to any bills that have not been given Royal Assent;
And that, after the giving of Royal Assent to any such bills or in the event the House does not meet for that purpose, the House shall be adjourned or stand adjourned, as the case may be, until September 28, 1972, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the
House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time;
And that, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for all purposes of this order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with my opposite numbers in the other parties and it appears quite necessary, not only because of those discussions but because of the changed circumstances, to alter this motion. I would propose to move an amendment to the Prime Minister's motion. Without going into all the phraseology, the amended motion would make certain that the House would adjourn on Friday, July 7, tomorrow, at the regular adjournment time, but with a condition. The purpose of the condition is so that hon. members will understand that if at that moment the bill we are presently considering, Bill C-230, having to do with the resumption of operation of certain Quebec ports, has not been given Royal Assent, then the House would not adjourn. I think we all understand that if things go along normally that bill will probably be cleared, but in order to make it absolutely certain and to indicate to the country that we will not adjourn unless that matter has been attended to it seems to me a provision to that effect ought to be included in the motion. If I may, I would move the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words preceding the phrase "it shall stand adjourned" and substituting therefor the following words:
"That when the House adjourns at the ordinary time of daily adjournment on Friday, July 7, 1972, provided that Royal Assent has been given to Bill C-230,"
The amended paragraph would then read:
That when the House adjourns at the ordinary time of daily adjournment on Friday, July 7, 1972, provided that Royal Assent has been given to Bill C-230, it shall stand adjourned until a time to be fixed by Mr. Speaker-
And so on.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion as amended agreed to.
3816
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT OF BANK OF MONTREAL IN TRANSACTIONS OF QUESTIONABLE NATURE- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgency, namely, the involvement of the Bank of Montreal in transactions of a questionable nature arising out of the inquiry of the O'Dea Commission in the province of Newfoundland and demanding attention by the federal government. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon):
That the government refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to inquire into the alleged conflict of interest of the Bank of Montreal arising out of the O'Dea Commission, and report its findings to the House within 60 days.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister advise the House whether the manpower program, known variously as Canada Manpower Opportunities Program or CANMOP or simply CMOP, which has been in preparation in his department during the past two years, is now ready for presentation to the Canadian people and, if so, will it be announced in the very near future?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if it were completed and ready for announcement 1 would make that announcement today. Obviously it is not completed.


George Harris Hees: Can the minister advise the House why this long-awaited program has taken so long to prepare, and will he undertake to announce it this summer?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It will be announced as soon as it is ready, Mr. Speaker, and I am very hopeful that it will be this summer.


George Harris Hees: Would the minister advise the House just what this program is going to cost and how many jobs are expected to be produced by it?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it will cost as little as possible and provide as many jobs as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Following that non-answer I would like to ask the minister a final supplementary question. Just how much is the government counting on this program to bolster its sagging hopes in the forthcoming election?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I was going to say that this government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North on a supplementary question.



POSSIBLE CHANGES IN TRAINING PROGRAMS- CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has he yet consulted the provinces in detail with respect to the changes in manpower training programs he is contemplating so that the programs can be made to fit in with the needs of the individual provinces?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think that what most hon. members, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North, are referring to basically is a change contained in the legislation passed by the House of Commons last Friday which permits, as a general rule, on-the-job training as a regular feature of manpower programs and eliminates what has been known as the infamous three-year rule. I mentioned in that debate that I had had consultations with all ten provinces, including the province of Quebec, either personally or through senior officials of the department.



POSSIBLE NEW WINTER WORKS PROGRAM-PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the assurance given by the President of the Treasury Board that any winter works program launched by the federal government would be undertaken in co-operation with the provinces, can the minister advise us that this assurance will be kept and that this is the plan of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Assiniboia.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Manpower and Immigration was not listening. I asked whether, in view of the assurance that in future any winter works program would be undertaken in co-operation with the provinces, the minister can advise that this is the policy of the government?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am no expert on winter works programs. I do not know what minister is responsible for them. What I have been talking about is a permanent program emanating from the Department of Manpower, which is an entirely different thing.
July 6, 1972



PROVISION OF SUFFICIENT TIME TO MUNICIPALITIES TO PLAN WINTER WORKS PROJECTS

['No, I have many more.']
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that many municipalities experienced real difficulties in properly drawing up plans for them to be involved in the Local Initiatives Program, can the minister inform the House what kind of action will be taken by the department to assure local municipalities that they will have sufficient time to draw up plans for winter works projects this winter?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure which minister I am speaking for, but if it is the policy of the government to introduce winter works programs this coming winter, for a variety of reasons, then I am sure the minister in charge would take into consideration the problem the hon. member has raised, as manifested last winter, and would want to meet with his counterparts at the earliest opportunity.



Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government been officially or in any other way informed by the government of France regarding the alleged ramming of Greenpeace III by a French minesweeper, and was there any response from the government to that information?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. When I heard the report yesterday or the day before I asked our embassy in France to get in touch with the French government because we had had no information previously about this incident. I am very happy to inform the House that we have reason to believe the crew is safe and well. There are conflicting reports about the collision. The French informed us officially of their version yesterday. They said, essentially, that the two ships were passing slowly alongside each other, that the French ship was about to pass a message to the Greenpeace and the Greenpeace turned by mistake or was blown into the French ship, that damage was light but the Greenpeace asked for help and was towed to Mururoa and repaired free of charge, and that the crew was hospitably treated. The Greenpeace may have left Mururoa now, but we are not certain of this.


David Lewis: Can the minister inform the House what kind of message and what were the contents of the message which the French ship was desirous of communicating to the people on Greenpeace III?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we were not informed about this. We are making further inquiries because, as the hon. gentleman knows, there has been some conflict. Mr. Metcalf has said that the ship was rammed. We have no
Inquiries of the Ministry
confirmation of that, but of course we were not there to witness the accident.


David Lewis: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the United States authorities have made public the information they have regarding the atmospheric nuclear tests made by France and, if not, can the minister inform the House whether he has any information on why they have kept it confidential in this case when in the past they have always let the world know when they have detected such explosions by the U.S.S.R., China and other countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I really could not answer that question. I do not know whether there is any difference in practice and, if there is, why it is so. We have reason to believe that there have been two nuclear explosions in the Pacific by the French government. This has neither been confirmed nor denied, and I do not know whether the United States has a responsibility to make this information available.


David Lewis: Just to clarify the situation, Mr. Speaker, did I understand from the minister that the United States authorities have not yet made any comment with respect to these tests? What source does the minister's information come from?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it comes from a number of sources that we have reason to believe are quite reliable. The fact that there have been tests has not been denied by anyone, and we assume it to be true. I really cannot answer for the government of the United States as to why they follow their practice.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, owing to the continued absence of the Secretary of State my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the continued absence of the Secretary of State in any way related to the public spanking that he received from the Prime Minister on Monday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question yesterday but I will gladly answer it again because the answer appears to have been misunderstood by the hon. member and perhaps by other people. I want to assure the House that it is not my intention to move the Secretary of State from his department because of what happened on Parliament Hill on July 1. What I did say in the House, Mr. Speaker, if I can have your indulgence and if hon. members will look up Hansard of two days ago, in response to cries of "resign" from the..other side, was that not only had we no intention of resigning but we were going to go on to win the next election, and that the Secretary of State, like other ministers, would then be in a new portfolio. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I might just add that I am sorry about the
25319-55^

July 6, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
misunderstanding and I do want to say publicly that there is no minister in my cabinet who has done a better job with more skill and devotion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He is sulking outside.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think, particularly, that the achievement of having set up a cultural policy for Canada, a bilingual, multicultural policy, is something for which we are very thankful.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Without agreeing with all the premises of the Prime Minister's answer and not necessarily debating them at this time, if the minister is held in such high esteem may I ask why it is that he has been absent every day this week when he should have been in the House according to the roster system? Today being the last day of this session, in view of the motion moved by the President of the Privy Council, members of this House are not going to be able to examine the minister on the many facets that come under his control, especially the film policy that was announced in Montreal on Monday. Before saying anything else I should like to know if the Prime Minister is aware whether the Secretary of State intends to come into the House during this question period so that we can put some very relevant questions to him in a most non-controversial way?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the practice has been that when ministers are due to be in the House and cannot be here, questions are taken on their behalf by the parliamentary secretary or by the acting minister, and I have yesterday and today shown preparedness to answer any questions addressed to the Secretary of State, whether or not they are addressed by the hon. member. As to absence, this does not seem to be the right day, when his own leader is not here, for the hon. member to draw the attention of the House to the absence of the minister.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At this stage, neither the Secretary of State nor his parliamentary secretary are in the chamber. The questions I wanted to put to the Secretary of State, regardless of what happened on July 1 or Canada Day or Dominion Day, had to do with the statement of policy made in Montreal affecting some of the major corporations and Crown agencies responsible to Parliament, agencies such as the CBC the CFDC, the Canada Council and the National Film Board.


Mr. Fairweather:: And the Bank of Canada.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I say in all seriousness that the Secretary of State is physically alive.


An hon. Member:: Is he?


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: How can one tell?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I do not know the state of his mental health, but I actually saw the hon. gentleman earlier today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: And, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope we will not spend the whole question period debating whether the minister is here or not here to answer questions. The hon. member is raising a point of order. He seeks the floor on a point of order. He should indicate what the point of order is that would require a ruling by the Chair.


George Harris Hees: Let the minister come in and face the music.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to hear the hon. member on that point.


George Harris Hees: Bring the minister in and have him face the music.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will change my point of order to a question of privilege. In the dying days of this session and of this Parliament, hopefully, when people across this country are concerned about the relevance of this institution, the minister responsible for culture has made an important statement in Montreal involving legislative changes to many acts that have been passed by this Parliament. These affect the future of the Film Board- has he come in yet? They also involve the question of the setting up of a film advisory committee which will supplant the film commissioner and perhaps make the minister responsible for culture the film czar of this land. Yet Members of Parliament have not been able to direct questions to the relevant minister. The Prime Minister can say all he wants about the parliamentary secretary accepting questions. That is not the way answers are received, especially, Mr. Speaker, in the dying days of a session. The Prime Minister knows as well as I do that that would be a futile experience, even if the parliamentary secretary were here. I say this is just another manifestation of the contempt that members opposite on the treasury benches show for this institution. This applies especially to the minister responsible for culture who likes to deal in the realm of philosophy and not come into this institution and answer the representatives of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is justified in wanting to ask some questions. I simply assure him that there are ministers present at this time, myself and the second acting minister, who are prepared to deal with those questions, assuming the hon. member, in the dying days of his membership in this House, wants to ask any questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will let history decide who has political mortality in this country, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: May I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the motion moved by the President of the Privy Council, if this Parliament comes back on Sep-
July 6, 1972

tember 28 and if the Prime Minister can make up his mind when to call the election, which he has not done yet, will the Prime Minister assure the House that the statement made by the Secretary of State involving those various cultural agencies, all under the cloak of film policy, will be referred to the broadcasting committee so that there can be a full explanation of the real intent behind this policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly make that recommendation to the Secretary of State. I am glad to have the acknowledgment of the hon. member that he will still be here and very active in the government. I am sure, with the agreement of the House leaders, that we can refer this and other matters to the standing committee, assuming we sit long enough at that time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Once the Prime Minister has made up his mind.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Once I have made up my mind.


An hon. Member:: Is that the only question you have, Pat?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No, I have many more.



HOUSING


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As approximately 30,000 single, detached houses were started in May, can the minister inform the House if these have continued to be mainly in the high income range?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State ior Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe so. They cover quite a wide spectrum of income ranges. They have all been properly built houses and they have been aimed at the Canadian market by their builders.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I was not able to hear what the minister said. Would he make a statement tomorrow as to what the average cost of these 30,000 units will be when they are completed? That will give him a little time to undertake the necessary research.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there are indications that we are building more houses in this country than we have ever built in any year in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is an indication of the success that the government's fiscal and housing policies are having in the country today. I do not see that a statement tomorrow is really necessary.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but there was a bit too much noise and evidently the minister did not hear
Inquiries of the Ministry
my question. I asked him whether he would do a little research between now and tomorrow and make a statement as to the average cost of these 30,000 housing starts in May?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the national average is around $16,000.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have not yet completed the first round of questioning. The hon. member for Lot-biniere will be recognized and then the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the Quebec government wishes to establish a global social security policy and in view of the attitude of the federal government about the introduction of the bill relating to the payment of family allowances, would the hon. minister tell the House whether discussions were held recently with the representatives of the provincial government? If not, could he tell us when a meeting will take place?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have recently had meetings, as I explained in the House yesterday in answer to several questions, particularly from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, concerning the Canada Pension Plan and its relationship to the Quebec Pension Plan. There was general discussion throughout the whole area of governmental policies but particularly about the Canada Pension Plan.



HOUSING


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Will the minister make public before the House adjourns tomorrow the critique or criticism of the government's efforts in the low-income housing field prepared by Michael Dennis and now in his possession?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that would not be possible.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Did the minister say it would not be published? If so, why not?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I said that would not be possible.

July 6, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



INQUIRY AS TO CHANGES IN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ACT

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the widespread criticisms of the proposed amendments to the National Housing Act, is the minister considering making any changes?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in my experience the proposals before parliament have received very favourable comment from various sectors across the country. Naturally, in the course of approval by Parliament, the legislation will be dealt with by the standing committee of the House and where improvements can be made undoubtedly they will be considered by Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will have noticed that we have not been making much progress. We are still on the third or fourth question. Many members are seeking the floor. If there are five or six supplemen-taries sought on this question, that may take us to the end of the question period.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON LOW-INCOME HOUSING

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, and I am going to put it bluntly to him. In view of the fact that the Michael Dennis report has been in the minister's hands for many weeks, and in view of the fact it has already been translated into the other official language, according to information I have received, will the minister explain to the House why that report is not being made public so that Members of Parliament and the people of Canada may study it and see what in the policies ought to be improved?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the facts upon which the question is predicated are not correct.


David Lewis: The minister cannot get away with a generality. In what respect are the premises not accurate? Will the minister specifically deny the fact that he has had the report for many weeks in his possession or in the possession of his department? What other difficulties are there?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously a debate as to facts between the minister and the hon. member.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to take the time of the House, but I respectfully suggest that the question I asked-I can rephrase it-is entirely proper. The minister said that the premises of my previous question were inaccurate. It is surely right for me and for this Parliament to ask the minister to indicate in what respect those premises are inaccurate. Is it not true that the minister has had the report for almost two months or more than two months in his hands or in the hands of his department?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made by me or the government about whether to publish any such report. Second, it is a longstanding practice in this coun-

try that any publication of the government of any major concern be published in both official languages. At the present time, that is not possible.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. I suggest, with respect but with some anger-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -that either the minister ought to say in what respect my premises are invalid or he ought to withdraw that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question. He has repeated it twice. He knows the rules. The minister does not have to reply to a question. The minister has given a reply. The hon. member may not be satisfied with it and may feel it is inexact, but he cannot insist on having the reply which he wants.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister definitely said that the premises on which the hon. member for York South based his question were incorrect; in other words, that what the hon. member for York South said was not true. As a member of this House I say that the minister has a duty either to explain why it was not true or he should retract his statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not correct. The hon. member for York South has to take the word of the minister. The minister has to take the word of the hon. member for York South. As a result of this rule, very often there are contradictions, but that is still the rule.


David Lewis: Only in this House do I have to take his word.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Now that the government must have had the opportunity of reading the allegations in Maclean's magazine concerning the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is the government giving consideration to the appointment of a royal commission inasmuch as everywhere across the country members of the force Eire deeply distressed by that article and want the opportunity of having an investigation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: I then ask the Prime Minister whether the reason the government does not want a royal commission is the support given to the statements made by Ramsay in Maclean's magazine by Peter Newman, who has a national reputation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
July 6, 1972


John George Diefenbaker: -a notorious one for being a writer of fiction?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NATURE OF INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS BY FORMER CORPORAL RAMSAY-POSSIBILITY OF CHANGES IN SERVICE COURT PROCEDURES

['Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of these reports and I am sure all members of the House join with me in saying that these deaths constitute a terrible human tra-', 'July 6, 1972\nInquiries of the Ministry\ngedy. In regard to the second part of the question, I am sure the hon. member and all other members know that, while we fully appreciate the de facto situation, the Canadian government has consistently refused to recognize the legality of the incorporation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania into the Soviet Union.']
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further question on the same subject to the Solicitor General. I note that he is reading. Possibly he is now reading the article. First, I wish to ask the minister to answer, yes or no, whether he has read the article. Second, what action is he taking, either with the Commissioner of the RCMP or in his department, to investigate the broad allegations in that article?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have read enough of that article to realize it really deals with generalities. I am waiting for specific information to see whether we should really look into the matter with a view to improving our operations. Among others one thing struck me which was dealt with again this morning in the editorial of a newspaper the right hon. member for Prince Albert doubtless considers very important, that the rate of suicide is a thousand times higher within the RCMP than among the population generally. That is entirely false.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question? The minister has chosen to bring me in and I must answer him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the right hon. gentleman but first we should perhaps allow a supplementary by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I ask the Solicitor General whether he has been in touch with Mr. Ramsay to obtain further details as to the allegations, and whether or not he will have changes made in the Commissioner's standing orders and in the procedures of service courts in order to allow members of the force their full civil and legal rights?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, if that person is serious and has facts to point out to the government, then it is his duty to do so. But I am not going to bite every time someone casts a bait. Moreover, and needless to say, the government is concerned about the rights of individuals; we are certainly going to examine that matter concerning the RCMP. Finally, if the hon. member wants to know what I think of the RCMP in general, he might, if I may suggest it to him, read the speech I made on June 29 last to the members of the Quebec Police Association.


John George Diefenbaker: Since the Solicitor General has seen fit to mention my name, may I
Inquiries of the Ministry
ask him whether he has read the four or five editorials in newspapers across the country saying he has made such a mess of things that the only remedy, is "Go, Goyer, go"?


Some hon. Members:: Go, go!


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the same slogan had me elected with a majority of 24,000 votes at the last election. At any rate, it is true that I read some editorials and I would at times have the same reaction when reading editorials which really lack seriousness, because the writer did not get the facts and sought the truth.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere, but it seems to me the question period so far has not been a very helpful one in many ways.


George Harris Hees: The best we have had for a long time.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it has been interesting, but I know that some hon. members who have been waiting for an opportunity to ask their questions may feel otherwise.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Solicitor General.
Did he or did he not have discussions with the RCMP in connection with those articles?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have bi-weekly meetings with the Commissioner and his main advisers and we discuss on a continued basis in order to improve the operations of the RCMP and to make it such that it meets the aspirations of Canadians, who consider it very effective and very honest.



Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister aware of reports that a third Lithuanian citizen has immolated himself by fire in protest against the continued occupation of this Baltic state by the Soviet Union? If so, will he ensure that Canada's support and concern for the principle of self-determination by all peoples of the world are adequately and effectively conveyed to the government of the Soviet Union?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of these reports and I am sure all members of the House join with me in saying that these deaths constitute a terrible human tra-

July 6, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
gedy. In regard to the second part of the question, I am sure the hon. member and all other members know that, while we fully appreciate the de facto situation, the Canadian government has consistently refused to recognize the legality of the incorporation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania into the Soviet Union.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister giving consideration to changing the personnel of the Immigration Appeal Board during the coming weeks?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member may possibly have forgotten that the Immigration Appeal Board is an independent body set up by an act of Parliament and composed of nine members. I certainly have no intention of putting forward amendments to that act until late in the fall.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would the minister, then, give consideration to causing an inquiry to be made under the Inquiries Act to determine whether the present members of the board are carrying out the terms and intent of the legislation, bearing in mind that there have been so many complaints about the board's failure to use its power to exercise equity?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On looking into this question in a preliminary way I have found to my happy surprise that 42 per cent of the cases referred to the board under section 15, that is, on humanitarian grounds, are decided in favour of the would-be immigrant. That is a very high percentage.


John Gilbert: Would the minister advise the members of the Immigration Appeal Board that they should exercise equity and be compassionate in all the cases they consider?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Secretary of State but in his absence I should like to direct it to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. May I say that I express my sympathy for him in that the Prime Minister does not believe he is doing as good a job as are some of the other ministers. Would the hon. gentleman inform the House why core funding of Indian organizations in Ontario is being withheld?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the funds provided to the various provincial organizations for Indians are administered by the Secretary of State and I do not see why they could have been withheld. I will inquire and report in due time.


Paul Yewchuk: Would the minister be willing to investigate this situation in addition to the circumstances surrounding the withholding of funds for treaty research and undertake to report to the House on motions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is a complex question; when I obtain an answer, I will be pleased to inform the House. If we are not sitting, I will advise the persons concerned, namely the Indians.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has to do with a matter of some concern to a great many consumers in this country. I refer to the fact that some of the leading motor car manufacturers have apparently failed to equip their new vehicles with bumpers strong enough to withstand towing. Is the minister aware of this and does he intend to give consideration to this matter, possibly in conjunction with the Minister of Transport, with a view to seeing that the deficiency is rectified?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The matter has been brought to my attention and we are giving it some consideration now.



FINANCE


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Finance. Is the acting minister aware of the terms of the O'Dea commission report which reveals a possible conflict of interest affecting chartered banks in Newfoundland and, if so, does he intend to take action on this allegation?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Acting Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry not to have the answer but I will direct the question to the attention of the Minister of Finance.
July 6, 1972



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is it the government's intention to make public the research studies of the Prices and Incomes Commission, in particular the study on the contribution of land costs to housing inflation and the study on the contribution of government sectors to inflation and, if so, when can we expect an announcement to be made on these important subjects?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the correct answer would be that the Prices and Incomes Commission intends to publish many of its research studies. I cannot say whether it will be publishing those particular ones; I do not have that information. I will be happy to supply it to the House and to supply the hon. member with a list of the research projects the commission intends to publish.



METHOD OF FINANCING COMMISSION SUBSEQUENT TO END OF MARCH, 1972

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. In view of the fact the House passed estimates for the Prices and Incomes Commission to operate until the end of March, how does the minister expect to operate the commission? Does he intend to bring in supplementary estimates?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that is a question that my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, will have to answer.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the very serious disaster off Christian Island on the weekend and the apprehension and inconvenience now being caused, is the government having any discussions with the province concerning the building of the causeway that was being considered ten years ago?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any negotiation being conducted with the Ontario government on this subject but I shall look into it and we will consider the hon. member's suggestion.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to refer to the fact that there appears to be dual control in respect of this island. For instance, the province of Ontario has control of hydro and some of the roads. That is why I referred to the fact that a causeway was being considered ten years ago.



PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the references the minister has made a number of times to the possibility at some point of lowering the eligible age under the Old Age Security Act as well as under other pieces of pension legislation, will the government give consideration to preparing legislation to be introduced when we return on September 28 to start lowering the eligible age to age 60, doing it one year at a time as was done when it was brought down from 70 to 65?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be definitive as to when the government might be prepared to do what the hon. member suggests.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to be definitive that it will be done some day?


John Carr Munro: As the hon. member is aware, Mr. Speaker, we have already indicated in a general way in the White Paper on Income Security that this is an area for future consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not do it
now?



CANADIAN CULTURE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In May he stipulated that he would advise the House who would make up the formation of the Canadian Advisory Council on Multiculturalism. Would he name those people so there could be recognition of the visible minorities of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are giving consideration to this very subject now. The Secretary of State has begun to assemble a list which we will consider in cabinet next week, I believe. I will make sure that members of the Polish community, to which the hon. member belongs, will be given due consideration.
3824

July 6, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the treatment of the native peoples in the fourth volume of the B and B Commission reports, where their problems were just touched upon and almost excluded, are the Indians and Eskimos also going to be part of this multicultural policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the lists are not final and I cannot say at this time if there is inclusion of representatives of those groups.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A citizen named Lawrence Paul Rubin reputedly worked for the Le Dain Commission some two years ago and was fined $150 in an Ontario court for possession of hashish. Last winter he was working in the prairie provinces and a Manitoba court fined him $350 for possession of hashish. On both occasions he seems to have been working in one way or another in a federally-appointed job. I am wondering whether the minister can tell us what further schemes he or any other minister may have up their sleeves to spread federally sponsored largesse further among the other provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Canadian foreign exchange reserves have reached an all-time high, some $6.22 billion, and in view of the further fact that the Minister of Finance two or three weeks ago said he would give consideration to a suggestion I made that the government of Canada might use part of these reserves to buy up certain sectors of the economy which are foreign owned, is the Prime Minister in a position to inform the House whether or not the government has decided to act in this way?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I certainly could not answer that question in a positive way without making a long statement of policy.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact the government of Japan has embarked on the imaginative use of part of their foreign exchange reserves in this direction, would he consider sending some of his advisers to Japan to see how this is done?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to a number of hon. members I had hoped to recognize. I hope I will have

the opportunity to give them priority tomorrow. I have noticed the hon. member for Meadow Lake, the hon. member for Wellington, the hon. member for Vegreville, the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton and, of course, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. I extended the question period for a few minutes to take into account the rather lengthy question of privilege which took ten minutes or at least a few minutes earlier this afternoon, but I think I have no alternative now but to call the orders of the day.



TRANSPORT


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I asked a question yesterday that was accepted by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is of great importance to the people of my area. Has the minister left?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He heard you and he is running away.


An hon. Member:: Here he comes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, this question deals with the proposed creation of a council to govern the Trent and Rideau waterway systems. I should like to ask the minister whether a date has been set for the creation of the council and when it is expected to take control of the systems?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the minister to reply but of course this has to be done by consent of the House because the question period has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not answering this question any sooner, but I would like to do so now.
First of all, it is a suggestion respecting the creation of an advisory council to advise the federal and provincial governments about the administration of those waterway systems; it is not a council charged with the administration but an agency that would advise us. This matter is now under consideration and I hope the Ontario government and my department will be able to give the public an answer within the next few weeks.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, as acting House
July 6, 1972

leader, what business the government proposes to place before the House in the likely event that Bill C-230 will be disposed of before five o'clock tomorrow?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, after the question period, which has concluded now, we will call Bill C-230, the ports bill, followed by Bill C-170 dealing with family income security. When that is completed we will call Bill C-201, the foreign takeovers bill. I also understand there have been some discussions through the usual channels of the possibility of reverting to motions in order to make a motion relative to a reference to a standing committee. I would therefore ask leave to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. minister have leave to revert to motions at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Stanley Ronald Basford: That the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development be authorized to hear representations from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill C-230, to provide for the resumption of the operation of the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec-Mr. O'Connell-Mr. Honey in the chair.
The Chairman:: House in committee of the whole on Bill C-230.
On Clause 2-Definitions.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, clause 2 is the general clause. This is a piece of emergency legislation. As the minister pointed out yesterday this is the type of legislation the federal Parliament has reluctantly passed on a very limited number of occasions in the past. Hopefully, with the
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
coming into effect of the Canada labour bill we recently passed there will be less and less need for this type of legislation.
Members of Parliament are handicapped in discussing this type of emergency for two major reasons. First, most of us are not familiar with either organization which is involved, whether it be the maritime shipping agencies, their component parts, or the union involved or other unions which may be indirectly involved. Yesterday the minister mentioned that a great deal of national difficulty has been created because of the closing of one of Canada's major ports. I think that is an exaggeration in an extreme sense. I am quite sure the port of Montreal is not closed. I am unfamiliar with the operation of the port authority in Montreal and, therefore, I am not too sure what authority the port council may have. I rather imagine, however, if we were really familiar with the facts rather than with what the media have reported in this particular strike, we might be less concerned than we appear to be. It is always easy to build up the argument that so many people are on strike, that the strike has continued for a certain length of time and therefore the public in some way must be affected either directly or indirectly.
It usually is a fact that the public is directly or indirectly affected. However, I imagine in this particular case the public is affected very little, and probably there have been no shipments of grain either stopped or delayed because of the strike. Some container or merchandising freight probably has suffered considerable dislocation, but this dislocation probably is to the advantage of Halifax, Saint John and other Maritime ports, including I am sure, some of the ports on the St. Lawrence Seaway which are available to ocean-going ships. Probably the ports of Hamilton and Toronto as well have had some benefit. Therefore, we are really discussing this piece of legislation as relating to an emergency situation, without really having been informed about the scope of the emergency.
I am sure that the port of Montreal over the past 50 or 75 years, and until the last three or four years, has always experienced some difficulty because for a period of five or six months in the year the river was frozen. When several new icebreakers were commissioned a few years ago the situation was obviously changed considerably for the port of Montreal. I believe there have been difficulties at the port of Montreal previously which did not have a national consequence, even though the port was totally closed for periods of four or five months in the year.
The point I am making is that we are being asked to pass national legislation to end a situation with which I, personally, am not too familiar and which the minister himself has not outlined. I do not know whether a bushel of grain has been delayed because of the strike. I took it upon myself, in order to obtain information, to make several phone calls to people I know who are very close to the port in Montreal. I asked them whether the port was closed and how many ships were in the port. They said the port is not closed and is operating as usual. They indicated something the minister has not mentioned. There really are four or five major unions operating in the port of Montreal, loading, unloading and handling cargo in that area. They include the CBRT, the CNTU, the Mercantile
25319-56J

July 6, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
Union, the Longshoremen's Union and I presume other unions associated with other aspects of moving cargo on the dock.
The port of Montreal I am sure has built up over a period of years, and now on a year-around basis, a very large mercantile trade. It has done so in the import-export field and more recently in the container field. I am sure any disruption in this traffic would have an effect on the community, on the people who work in the dock area and, in faction the economy of Montreal in general. Whether or not this has reached the disaster level that would warrant this type of emergency legislation I am not sure. I suggest that no one, including the newspapers and other media which usually are fairly diligent in searching out information that would enable Members of Parliament to make a fairly good decision in respect of the emergency, has been diligent in investigating the rumour that grain is not being shipped as a result of the stevedores' strike. I spoke to some people who work as crew members on ships in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway, and they tell me there has not been one of their ships which has suffered any difficulty. There have been changes in places of loading and unloading, the destinations have been changed and other changes have taken place, but there has been no dislocation.
The point I am making is that I am not opposed to us doing something about the situation, but I am of the opinion that we are not dealing with a national emergency in even a very small sense. It may be that this has developed into that type of a problem, but if that is so, I am not aware of it. I have been involved in many strikes and I can assure you that if a large number of people are unemployed for eight weeks they Eire in serious difficulty. I am sure that if there are others on the management side who are operating businesses, and who are not having their deliveries made to their home port, they are also having difficulties. But I think that this bill contains no provisions that will solve the problems which originally caused this strike and, in fact, the decision on those points is now being left to an arbitrator who is to make a settlement some time in the future.
I suggest it is unfortunate that we did not have available to us the section of the new Labour Code under which a mediator could have been appointed to represent the public before a situation hardened to the extent that a compromise was no longer possible. I disagree with the minister. There is no question about his sincerity, honesty or integrity, but I think that he was overly cautious in not entering this dispute three or four weeks ago. Obviously, the problem did not appear to be any closer to settlement no matter whom he sent to negotiate on his behalf, and it seems to me that the minister had an opportunity to settle the dispute earlier.
This legislation would not be before us today if the former minister of labour had been the minister, because I am sure he would have gone to the parties and said: "I demand on behalf of the nation that this matter be settled. I will assist you to settle it and I will stay here until it is settled". Many of us can remember much more serious situations than this one when the minister went to Montreal and stayed there for several days at great personal

sacrifice to his health and to his personsd wellbeing. However, the parties did arrive at a settlement because no matter what the problem is only two people can arrive at the settlement and those two people represent management on the one hand, and the workers on the other. Until those two people decide to reach a decision, there will not be a decision. Unless the workers in this case decide that that can be accomplished with the arbitrator acting in the role of a trustee, there really is no reason for them to go back to work and they are not likely to do so. We will not, therefore, be much closer to reaching a solution than we have been in the past.
I do not believe it is fair to Members of Parliament and to the country for us to pass this legislation as emergency legislation. So far as labour relations Eire concerned, this is a very drastic type of legislation. The government has involved itself in this dispute and they will arrive at a settlement. I congratulate the minister for having introduced what is probably the mildest form of government intervention that he could find, and I sincerely hope that the arbitrator will be able to act on behalf of both parties in the role of a trustee. He will certainly have to have the patience and the ability of Solomon to arrive at a conclusion of a problem which involves technical changes entailing a smaller work force in the future. Therefore, his job will not be an easy one and a solution will not be found easily. I suggest that one of the weaknesses in passing legislation of this nature is that we are not able to ceiII witnesses.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You said you wanted us to deal with it in committee of the whole.


William Arnold Peters: Of course I did, and I am sure that we cEinnot have it both ways, but let us not kid ourselves. I am not so stupid as to think that holding it in committee for three hours-and that is about all it would take- would have warranted the calling of 30 or 40 witnesses to ascertain the extent of the problem. I am sure that most hon. members were not prepEired to csirry this debate on for two or three weeks, which would have been necessary if we were to follow that procedure.


Paul Yewchuk: We are prepared to stay.


William Arnold Peters: Some of the Conservatives may be prepared to stay, others have already left, as have some members of other parties. I am not suggesting that we engage in that kind of exercise. The only point I am making is that I am not sure there is an emergency simply because I have been told that that is so. My information is that ships are sailing in and out of Montreal harbour.


Mr. Rock:: No, passing it.


Mr. Valade:: There are only three ships in the port now, out of 150 possibilities.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am getting considerable help and it seems that the committee of the whole now resembles a standing committee with witnesses before it. Of course, the witnesses are not reliable because obviously they have an interest in the subject, and we should really face the problem on that basis. But I did want to say that this is a very serious step that Parliament is
July 6, 1972

taking. I hope that the results of the legislation will prove we were right in taking this step. I sincerely hope that the minister's wish is that in the future the appointment of a mediator will represent a totally new force in labour relations and that the interest of the general public can be served by the introduction of a mediator under the Labour Code at a very early stage of future negotiations. The minister said quite rightly that we should not be making the decision as to the final outcome of this conflict because the facts are so complicated that the mediator who had been appointed by the government was unable to make recommendations, and that therefore we should leave that area wide open. With that I agree, Mr. Chairman, but I do suggest that we are taking a very serious step on only hearsay information.
I would have been much happier with this bill if the minister had outlined not only the difficulty that developed in the labour dispute, which I can comprehend from reading the previous contract and looking at the changes made in the recent contract as well as the recommendations made by those who looked at the recent contract, but had also outlined in more detail the effect on the public interest. If this bill had been introduced in the normal course of a parliamentary session rather than in its dying days, we would never have given consideration to it without considerably more information. I sincerely hope that the judgment made by government members, when deciding to present this legislation, is justified. I sincerely hope that passage of the bill will go some way towards ending a problem that not only involves this union but will involve other unions, as was the case several years ago with the Freedman report on the reduction of railway crews and the retirement of people made supernumerary because of technical changes in industry.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the desired results will be achieved, and that parliament in future, before this kind of decision is made, will be given much more information. We are not here to negotiate contracts between management and unions. We are meeting in an emergency situation to solve a problem that has become detrimental to a large segment of the Canadian population. On that side of the problem, we have received very little information that is not hearsay. Investigations made by hon. members have not been sufficient to date, and therefore reliance on the government is necessary. I hope this bill carries with it a sense of responsibility on the part of the government, and that this action will be sufficient to eliminate the problem.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Chairman, I had originally intended to enter this debate for a purpose different from that with which I am now entering it. This bill, despite what the hon. member for Timiskaming says, is a necessary one at this time. There is no doubt in my mind that it is necessary. The bill proposes to do two or three things. It requires the employees, the longshoremen, to go back to work, and it requires the employers to re-open their plants for work. It carries with it, through the operation of the Criminal Code, certain sanctions. An officer of a union who does not abide by the provisions of this bill can be fined or put in prison.


William Arnold Peters: Only imprisoned.
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill


Charles Terrence Murphy: No, not only imprisoned. Under the provisions of the Criminal Code any crime that carries with it a penalty of five years or less may have the penalty changed by the trial judge to either imprisonment or fine, or both. This clause applies to officers of the union, members of the union, employers-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the remarks now being made by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, but I am becoming a little confused. I notice that we are on clause 2 of the bill, the definition clause. I am sure there are other clauses in the bill on which one could ramble and get involved in generalities. Even though not wishing to cut off the hon. member's very brilliant speech, I wonder if he is in order in making it on this clause. If we are going to carry on this way, we will be here for a considerable length of time.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. The hon. member for Hamilton West has a valid point. We are now on clause 2 of the bill, a definition clause. The Chair gave the hon. member for Timiskaming quite a degree of latitude. I would be prepared, on the first round of speakers, to give some latitude, but I would suggest that other speeches, when we move from clause 2-


Francis Andrew Brewin: How can you treat one group differently from another?


Russell Clayton Honey: -should be relevant to the clauses.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I do not understand by what principle the Chairman rules that one group of speakers be given a certain latitude and others not be given the same latitude. I suggest that you apply the same rule to all who seek to participate in this debate.


Russell Clayton Honey: I am probably repeating myself, but what I intended to say to members of the committee was that with reference to clause 2 the concept of the Chair is that we would have, on the first round at least, relatively wide debate. The hon. member for Hamilton West raised a point of order as to whether or not the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie was in order. I think the hon. member is in order, as I ruled. I think the hon. member for Timiskaming ranged a bit wide, but I did not call him to order. With respect, my ruling is that I would like to have the first round on clause 2 at least relatively wide, with the hope that hon. members would then confine their remarks as closely as they could to the clauses before the committee.


Charles Terrence Murphy: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Hamilton West had been a little more patient, he would have learned in short order that I was about to make my remarks relevant to clause 2. It is as a result of the definitions in clause 2 that certain individuals become liable to the criminal sanctions provided in the Criminal Code. Employer, as defined in clause 2, "means the Maritime Employers Association and any member of that association that was, on May 16, 1972, bound by a collective agreement to which this act applies." As a result, when clause 3 of the bill makes it an offence for the employer to fail to resume longshoring and related operations in Mont-

July 6, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
real, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City, not only individual employers but the employers association can be charged in a court of law under the Criminal Code.
The same provision applies to clause 6(a) which says "no employer shall declare or cause a lock-out." An employer who causes a lock-out can be prosecuted, and so can the Employers Association. I ask hon. members to look at the bill and see what is on the other side of the coin. If a union member refuses to go to work that union member can be prosecuted in the same way as the employer or the employers association. If a union officer does not abide by the terms and regulations of this bill, that officer can be prosecuted in the same way as the employer or the employers association. But, Mr. Chairman, nowhere in that bill does it say that a union, as an association, can be charged or made responsible in the same way that the employers association can be made responsible.


An hon. Member:: Right!


David Lewis: Where do you get that? Read the definition.


Charles Terrence Murphy: I see the hon. member for Hamilton West nodding his head, realizing that I was on point.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I did not say you were on point; I appreciate your argument.


Charles Terrence Murphy: The definition of union is very simple. According to clause 2(l)(b):
"union" means the International Longshoremen's Association and any affiliated locals thereof representing persons ordinarily employed-
Now, I ask the hon. member for York South to read the other sections of the bill. In no place does it say that the union is responsible. It says that every person who is ordinarily employed in longshoring must go back to work when so required, and so on, but it does not say that every person who is ordinarily employed in longshoring means the union. If the bill carried the provision that every person who is ordinarily employed in longshoring or related operation at any of the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec and who is bound by the collective agreement and so on, means the union as defined in clause 2, then I would agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: There is a legal reason for it.


Charles Terrence Murphy: I suspect the legal reason is that this government does not want to move toward-


David Lewis: A union is not a juridical person.


Charles Terrence Murphy: Neither is an employers' association a juridical person.


David Lewis: This may be but it may be incorporated; it probably is.


Charles Terrence Murphy: Answering the interjections, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for York South will have

an opportunity to speak in this particular field again in this debate.


David Lewis: It makes it more interesting.


Charles Terrence Murphy: I would say that if this Parliament sees fit to include in this bill a provision making the union as such liable to the same penalties as its members, then this Parliament can do that, whether or not any union is or is not recognized as a legal entity. For the purpose of this bill, it is within the power of this Parliament to make a union responsible.
I make these suggestions because I would not like to see this Parliament fall into the trap-and the hon. member for York South mentioned traps yesterday-of making only members of unions and officers of unions responsible under the law. If that is done, then when a union member or officer is fined for having broken the law and does not pay the fine but goes to jail, he becomes a martyr as a result of breaking the law. In this case, that would involve 3,600 or 3,700 people. The jails are not large enough to handle them and the government would be made to look like an ass.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Terrence Murphy: If the government is given the power to hit the pocketbooks of the union in the same way that it hits the pocketbooks of an employers' association, then the likelihood of long strikes, and particularly in this case the continuation of the problem, is very remote. Some will say that in this particular case my comments have no real meaning because this particular group of unions does not have any money anyway. But there are clauses in this bill, Mr. Chairman, which provide that the act remains in effect for three years, the length of the agreement that was signed. There is nothing to say that there will not be trouble three years from now, and at that time the union bankroll might be a little larger than it is now, as would be the case with the employers' association bankroll which I would think is also being depleted as a result of the work stoppages.


Some hon. Members:: Poor fellows!


Charles Terrence Murphy: I am not saying, "poor fellows"; I am not carrying any cudgel in this debate. I am simply pointing out that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are going to get at the pocketbooks of the companies or associations on the one hand, you should also make similar provisions in the bill to get at the pocket-books of the union as an association of workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Terrence Murphy: The bill does not provide that now. I am not going to propose any amendments.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why not?


Charles Terrence Murphy: I will leave it to the government to decide whether my representations are worth considering.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the arguments the hon. member brought before the House.


Charles Terrence Murphy: You might have mentioned it yesterday.
July 6, 1972


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not want to be repetitious but I think they call for a question. I know what the answer probably will be from the minister, but I think in view of the argument that was presented perhaps the minister should tell the House why there seems to be only one cudgel in this bill and the union, as such, has been ignored. I wonder whether there is an answer to that question.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Greenwood.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I want to make-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I saw the minister rising and I believe he had an answer for me.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I saw the hon. member for Greenwood in his place and I recognized him. At that point, the hon. minister was also rising. I think the committee would feel that we should hear the hon. minister, and then I would then recognize the hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Chairman, the object of the sanctions in the bill is to make it as effective as possible. In this instance, in my judgment the most effective sanction with respect to the longshore unions is to proceed through their officials. In this specific instance it has been the wilful acts of officers of this union that have led to the situation in which we now find ourselves.
I address myself to another aspect of the question raised by the hon. member to point out that under the present laws, under the Canada Labour Code, a union as such can be proceeded against for any violation of a labour agreement or the Canada Labour Code. For those purposes there is no question that a union is a corporate person, is a person under the law. We know that in civil proceedings a union can be proceeded against in the courts by way of injunction and by way of contempt proceedings. Yesterday a judgment was rendered which levied fines for contempt of a court order, not only on the union but on individual officers. Therefore, part of the answer to the question is that under the Canada Labour Code, or under civil proceedings, the union may be proceeded against as such.
What we are discussing here, and what we have in front of us is a specific bill, an emergency bill, in which penalties are not specifically spelled out; the penalties are those which flow through the Criminal Code of Canada. In my judgment this would be most effective in bringing about the results we want. The results we want are surely not extremely punitive ones, but to get the men back to work and to get the ports operating. To do that, in my judgment, and I hope that members of the House will support me in this, the most effective way of proceeding is through the officers of the union, as the bill provides.


Charles Terrence Murphy: Mr. Chairman, will the minister permit a question. It is really a double-barrelled question. First, is it not true that, as this bill does not provide that certain individuals or groups of individuals will be subject to penalties under the Criminal Code, the Code itself does
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
not provide for penalties? Second, if what the minister has told us is really the purpose of the bill, namely, that it is not intended to be punitive so far as the unions are concerned, and that is fine, is there any objection to removing the words "Maritime Employers Association" from the clause, so that it will be the members of the association, along with members of the union, who will be subject to the penalties which are suggested?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that "Maritime Employers Association" is included in the definition of employer in order to obviate the necessity of listing the 50 or more shipping companies, stevedoring companies and shipowners, who belong to and are members of that association, the total composition of which is not available to us. Let me point out that the bill obliges the Maritime Employers Association and the companies to do two things, to resume port operations and to not engage in lockouts.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I understand we are discussing clause 2 of the bill. Clause 2 defines "strike" in part as:
-a cessation of work or a refusal to work or to continue to work by employees,-
There are a few other words which I do not need to mention. By reason of this definition, the effect of this bill will be to limit the right of a person to strike, to cease working, to refuse to work or to refuse to continue to work. I support this clause with extreme reluctance. I was happy to note that the minister also expressed extreme reluctance over it. I believe, and my associations in the past with the trade union movement may be partly responsible for my views, that the right to strike is absolutely essential if we are to maintain an industrial democracy. I think that there should be an order directing people back to work only in cases of clear, national emergency.
I differ with my colleague for Timiskaming here. There is no doubt that this strike lasting eight weeks in those important ports does constitute a national emergency and this legislation is therefore justified, but only, in my view, because there is such a national emergency. When three of our main ports to a large extent have been closed down, when the entire wheat industry which maintains the Prairies and which is an important factor in the economic well being of our country is threatened because farmers are not able to distribute their produce as a result of this strike, I say the time has come to act, although I accept this action with great reluctance. I hope this bill will receive the unanimous support of this House, because I believe it represents the will of the people of Canada.


Mr. Dupras:: Mr. Chairman, from the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) it is certain that no hon. member would oppose the passing of this legislation. Everyone was expecting a settlement to come about well before today. It was never thought that there would be such a long delay before the longshoremen got back to work. The agreement had been signed and accepted in March of this year. All hon. members, both of our party and of the opposition, had hoped that the longshoremen would decide to go back to work on their own accord.

July 6, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
I want to put my support on the record for the legislation that will be passed today, hopefully. It was also hoped that the introduction of such legislation would not be necessary.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister another question. I noticed that when he was asked about penalties and sanctions previously, he related his answer to the Criminal Code. At least, he mentioned the Code. As I understand it, the Criminal Code, in cases like this, comes into effect only when no other law applies. I think this is covered either by section 115 or section 107.


An hon. Member:: Section 115.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the minister tell me whether, in this situation, the Criminal Code or the present labour legislation would take precedence? Which legislation would take precedence? Does this come under section 147? I understand that Section 115 of the Code applies only if no other law applies. Perhaps I am somewhat confused. I know the minister mentioned the criminal law in the first instance. The penalties may be double-barrelled, coming under the present labour legislation and under the Criminal Code. I want to know which law takes precedence.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that this being a special act of Parliament, introduced for a specific purpose, it takes precedence over the Canada Labour Code and, therefore, it is the provisions of the Criminal Code that would apply with respect to this particular bill rather than the provisions of the Canada Labour Code.


David Lewis: Briefly put, this is not an amendment to the Canada labour legislation. This is a separate act.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: That is right.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Persons bound by collective agreement.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask if the collective agreement to which this act is to apply, and especially section 1.09 of the agreement between the employers' association and the longshoremen's association, covers the majority of people affected by the strike in the Port of Montreal particularly. Will other unions that are not affiliated with the ILA and are not direct locals of the ILA be affected in any way by the measure we are considering this afternoon. In short, will any other unions be affected?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could stand this clause until I have had an opportunity to look into all its implications. Other locals, of course, work on the Montreal docks. I do not know if the question of job security, about which the hon. member, I think, is asking, is to be modified by the action we are taking. My impression is that the answer is no, but we had better be sure. Perhaps we could stand this clause.


J. Michael Forrestall: May I ask another question, Mr. Chairman. Will this act in any way change or alter the rights of other organized unions which might come under the umbrella of this act? Will it affect their rights to withhold

services, if, for any reason, they deem it necessary to withhold them?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: To answer the hon. member's second question, Mr. Chairman, this act would apply only to the locals named in the three ports.


David Lewis: In other words, the employees covered by the collective agreement.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Yes.


J. Michael Forrestall: May I follow this matter through to its conclusion. I am asking about a hypothetical situation now, as this, perhaps, is the best time to do it. If another organized union could, by withdrawing services, effectively shut down the Port of Montreal, what would happen to it under this legislation? Has the minister considered the effect of such action on the ILA and the two principal locals that are involved?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, that is indeed a hypothetical situation. In this bill we are only dealing with the present situation and the three unions that are involved in the longshoremen's union. If a new situation emerged, it would be a new situation which I do not think we can anticipate in this particular bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, there is one point in clause 4 which I am sorry I did not raise before clause 4 passed. Perhaps with the indulgence of the committee, I might be allowed to raise it now.


Russell Clayton Honey: If the hon. member would like to revert to clause 4, I am sure the members of the committee would agree. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On Clause 4-Notice that strike declaration, etc., is invalid.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the question I want to ask the minister is simply this. There is a duty laid upon persons who were officers of the union on May 16, 1972, even though they might not be officers now, to do certain things. I do not know whether there is any person actually affected by the wording of this proposed clause, but if there is and he no longer holds an office, he is on the outside. He is required to send out notices to members without the benefit of a secretary, stationery or even having any position of authority. It strikes me that this wording is a little unusual. I do not know whether I am raising an academic question, but when I read the bill yesterday, I made up my mind to ask the minister or his officials for some kind of interpretation of the effect of this on a person who was an officer, but may not be an officer now and is told to do something he may be very powerless to do.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, the purpose is to maintain the obligation on a union officer whether or not he continues to be one, that is a resignation will not lift from him the obligation or penalties for noncompliance with this provision after the coming into force of the act.
July 6, 1972


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, that point did strike me as the reason for it being there, namely that people will not be allowed to duck their responsibilities by resignation. I do not know enough of the facts to know whether this happened or not, but there may be people who have had positions and their union has dealt with them, eased them or pushed them out of office in some way. I can see the point in trying to grab those who might otherwise resign. With regard to the other type of person, I am in a quandary as to whether this is a good measure to have on our statute books to deal with them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the same point raised by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. I wonder if the minister will agree that clause 4(1) would read better and take care of the situation if after the words "Each person who was an officer of a union", we inserted something along the line of "a person who becomes an officer of the union while this act is in force". An officer may die or be voted out of office and a new officer will take his place. He was an officer when this act came into force.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, in my reading of clause 4, that eventuality of a future officer would be covered by "who is an officer at the time"-well, that might not cover it.


Russell Clayton Honey: By unanimous consent, clause 4 was re-opened. Therefore, the Chair must again ask, does clause 4 carry?


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would once again review the question of clause 4. Like many other members, I am concerned about this. I would like to know what procedure the minister would envisage in the event of noncompliance. Will he also indicate whether he has had discussions with the attorney general of the province of Quebec and, if so, does he have the assurance of the attorney general that action will be taken under the Criminal Code if that should prove to be necessary?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, my legal advice is that the Attorney General for Canada can initiate prosecutions, if desirable to do so, under this act. I was also asked whether I had discussions with the attorney general of the province of Quebec. The answer is no.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of those of us who are not trained in law, would the minister be good enough to indicate under what statute the Attorney General of Canada would intervene?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I am unable to identify the statute that would provide that right. We have been assured by the Department of Justice that the Attorney General would have that power to so initiate.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is all very well, Mr. Chairman, but the Department of Justice has been known to be wrong on some previous occasions. In this country, under the British North America Act, the administration of justice falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces. It is up to the provincial attorneys general to institute proceedings under the Criminal Code. I would like a little better assur-
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
ance than I have received from the minister that in fact this bill is anything more than a meaningless piece of paper.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the same point. May I ask the minister whether he was advised that if the Parliament of Canada creates an offence, the representative of the government of Canada, namely the Attorney General, has the right to initiate proceedings in respect of such an offence.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our advice from the Department of Justice is that the Attorney General of Canada has the power to initiate proceedings for any offence committed under this act. I cannot go any further than that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Surely, Mr. Chairman, if the Department of Justice gave that advice, having read their opinions on two or three previous occasions, they would have given some background information as to how this would be done. Does the minister not have that available to share with the committee so that we can have the same assurance that he has?


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 4 carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not just yet, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister is reaching for some information. We should give him a little time to get it from his files.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I cannot go any further than that. I have already informed the committee as fully as I can that the advice given to the legal officers of the Department of Labour by the Department of Justice is that the authority does reside in the Attorney General to initiate proceedings for offences under this act. We were not advised of the source of that particular authority.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Persons bound by collective agreement.


J. Michael Forrestall: I thought we were going to stand this clause for a little while.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Oh, yes.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause five stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
Clause 5 stands.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Postponement of job security plan.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, in my remarks on second reading yesterday, I drew attention to what I believe to be a shortcoming in this clause. I was hoping the minister might come forward with an amendment which would overcome what I believe would be a serious difficulty.
I have not asked any questions, nor, as I recall it, have any of my hon. friends, about sanctions and the like because I think it is obvious that if the law which Parliament is seeking to establish by this bill is disregarded and

July 6, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
we are placed in the position of having to think of sanctions, the exercise we are now undertaking will have failed. I join the minister in hoping that everyone concerned will obey this law as being the will not only of parliament but of the people of Canada. From my conversations by telephone with some people in Montreal I have great ground for hope that the law will be obeyed, at least on the labour side, and I have no reason to doubt that it will be obeyed on the management side. Obviously, when one is dealing with a large number of people-some 3,000 individual members-it is impossible to say how each one of them will act. But I am not so much concerned about sanctions, whether they are included in this bill or whether those contained in the Criminal Code will apply. I take this position because I hope, as I am sure does everyone in this House, that sanctions will not be required. As a matter of fact, the sanctions in the Criminal Code are probably more severe than any which the minister would probably have placed in this bill had he thought it necessary to move along those lines.
Unlike the hon. member for Trinity I am one Member of Parliament who appreciates deeply the approach which the minister and the government have taken. I do not hesitate to express my appreciation when I believe it to be deserved. I appreciate deeply the approach which the minister and the government have taken in this case, seeking to end this dispute and to get the industry rolling again rather than to produce a punitive piece of legislation.
It is within this framework that I believe the minister has proposed, in 7(2)(b), to give the arbitrator what appear to me to be powers wider than are appropriate in the circumstances. I understand the point which is worrying the minister and everyone concerned. I know a little-not very much-about the workings of these ports. I know, for example, that they are busy in May and June, relatively slow in July and August and the early part of September, and become busy again in September, October and November. What has happened is that the failure to deal with any tonnage during what would normally have been the busy months of the year, May and June, has meant that no funds, or only a very small fund, is now available from which to discharge the guarantee of 40 hours per week and 37 weeks work per year for which, as I understand it, the job security plan under the collective agreement provides. I can well understand that it should be necessary to allow for a period of time, whatever that period may be, during which funds might be collected and placed in the kitty, before the job security plan becomes effective. For this reason I have no hesitation about accepting section 7(2)(a) which gives the arbitrator the right not only to fix the date but to make those modifications which Eire necessary in reference to the date of the application of the job security plan.
However, it seems to me, and I should like to hear the minister on this point, that it is a serious error to give the arbitrator authority, as is done in 7(2)(b), to make changes in the entire plan even beyond the year 1972. I am not thinking about the unions, now, because the unions are not affected. It is the pocketbooks of the union members that are affected and this provision opens the door to serious and valid objection on the part of union members.
I must say, frankly, that if I were a longshoreman and a

member of one of these unions I would be very much upset by the proposition advanced in this clause, even if I were the most reasonable longshoreman-and obviously, Mr. Chairman, if I were one I would be reasonable. That goes without question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Don't flatter yourself.


David Lewis: I would accept the proposal that the arbitrator be given the right to set a date in 1972 when the plan was to apply, but I would feel that my rights were really in danger if the arbitrator were also given the right to modify the plan, as is done in the paragraph to which I have referred. The paragraph reads:
making such modifications to those plans and those provisions as in his opinion are required to give effect thereto on and after the date fixed by him.
The minister said yesterday, I gather, that these words were in some way confining. Perhaps I misunderstood him. I do not find them confining at all. The words are confined to the job security plan, but there is no limit placed on the modifications the arbitrator is empowered to make. There is apparently no limit on his authority to make changes in the plan. I ask the minister to give serious attention to this submission. I am prepared, if necessary, to move an amendment, but our proceedings have gone fairly fast this afternoon and I believe we have a few minutes in which to exchange views. I take the hon. gentleman back to his own statement, one which I not only accept but support, that he is not interested in anything punitive but only in getting these ports rolling.
I say that this paragraph contains an unjustifiable provision aimed not at the unions or something abstract, but at the livelihood of the longshoremen in the two remaining years of this agreement, 1973 and 1974. That kind of provision is provocative. I know the minister did not intend that, do not misunderstand me. I have the greatest respect for the very honourable way in which he has approached this problem, even though I had criticisms about the timing of his intervention. I know he does not intend to provoke them, but I tell him not only from logic but, if I may say so, from some conversations I have had that this clause is provocative and threatening to the longshoremen. I say it is not necessary.
As I said yesterday, the succeeding clause, Clause 8, gives the minister the authority to appoint an arbitrator to deal with any dispute that may arise. I am paraphrasing his statement. If it becomes necessary in January, February or March of 1973, because things develop in such a way the employer has not got enough funds to live up to the agreement and the unions say that he must, the minister would then have the opportunity to say to the unions and the company they must take this matter to arbitration. If they refuse to do so, then he would be able to do it.
I appreciate that I may be stretching the language a little because this arbitration clause may relate only to interpretation of the collective agreement. I am not at all sure the minister cannot bring things within that ambit if the occasion Eirises. In any case, I am not at all certain what I am saying about Clause 8 is entirely valid, and I freely admit that. I suggest to the minister that the width
July 6, 1972

of the powers given to the arbitrator in Clause 7 in respect of modifying the plan after 1972 is far too great, and will be provocative in the eyes of the persons to whom the minister is appealing. I join him in that appeal that they return to work, but I would very much appreciate, before attempting any amendment, to hear what the minister has to say about the point I have raised.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies to the hon. member for York South I should like to add a word or two to what the hon. member has said. I think this legislation should be confined to as little interference with the normal collective bargaining process as possible.
I understand that the matter of the job security plan, so far as it affects the years 1973 and 1974, was not in dispute during this whole period. It was assumed that the agreement, as it related to those years, was to be carried out and no one was raising that issue, yet this clause is broad enough in its terminology to unsettle that whole situation.
I just want to say to the minister that I hope he can yield on this point because I think it is very important, and would be consistent with the principles he announced, that this clause should be limited. It could be limited by saying that this is subject to the fact that the provisions of the agreement in regard to job security for 1973 and 1974 are not to be affected by this legislation.


Mr. Gleave:: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his courtesy. I support what the hon. member for York South has said for these reasons. It is generally agreed we are attempting what is a rather difficult thing, that is to bring the power and influence of Parliament to bear on an extremely difficult situation. I do not think we should ask those parties involved to modify the agreement they have reached any more than is absolutely necessary. I say that because of what is involved for us in the prairie part of Canada. Things nave gone about as far as they can without completely stopping the movement of grain through our St. Lawrence ports.
I directed questions in the House on June 7, June 15, June 21 and June 29 to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, and in one case to the Minister of Labour. I asked whether we were able to continue to move grain and the answer was that we were, in part. A news story of June 22 appeared under the heading "Small Ports Busy Shipping Grain". The article stated that Port Cartier, Baie Comeau and perhaps one or two other small ports with reserve facilities were continuing to move grain through the St. Lawrence and the lower part of the Seaway.
We know that lakers can come down to the terminals and, until such time as they are filled, the terminals can take the grain from the lakers. We have now reached the point where those facilities are being rapidly filled. Mr. Hurcomb, Manager of the Dominion Marine Association, has said publicly that this tieup is causing delays of up to six days in the movement of grain. This is the point we have now reached.
I made several phone calls the other day which led me to the almost inescapable conclusion that if this tieup continues we will see an end to the movement of grain through that route. I hope the minister will accede to this suggestion and limit the scope of arbitration to that area which is absolutely essential, with the hope that the par-
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
ties to the dispute will obey the directions of this House and put this very important trade channel back into operation.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I first want to say that I am in full accord, as the government is, with the desire to circumscribe the modifying powers of the arbitrator as they relate to the job security plan which is part of the collective agreement. This is an unusual power to confer upon an arbitrator, that is the power to modify the terms of a collective agreement. As I said yesterday, and as all of us realize, the normal functions of an arbitrator, within the framework of a collective agreement, is to interpret not to modify.
We are in an unusual circumstance where a very special job security plan is incorporated in an arrangement under the collective agreement, and the job security plan stands as an obstacle to the return to work. So, we need a mechanism for adjusting the job security plan within a circumscribed framework. We do not wish the arbitrator's authority to go one inch beyond that which is required. I believe we are all in accord on this. I was pleased to hear the representations along this line. In the first instance, the power to modify is confined to the job security plan and such related matters as are inextricably bound up with it. That is the first circumscription.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Yes.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Since the minister is striving for the same formula as everybody else, why not insert in (b) the words "making such incidental modifications" so that he would be tied down. Two lines down, he is given an option according to opinion. Accordingly this option is a circumscription, but I think if the word "incidental" were inserted it would fasten it down.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I am not sure whether the hon. member means the word "incidental" to refer to minor or incidental modifications in the job security plan. If it is the latter, I think it is abundantly clear that such modifications in fact are only those which relate to the job security plan. I think that is abundantly clear.


David Lewis: I have no doubt about that.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I do not see any doubt arising. The other point I should like to come to is that the authority of the arbitrator is to make a judgment at some point in time. Let us say sometime in the future or in the fall, for the sake of argument, he will make that judgment. At that time, he will fix a date. At that time also, he will be considering the modifications which in his judgment are required, and only those modifications as are required to give effect to the job security plan in the altered circumstances that the work stoppage has brought about. I believe the hon. member for York South would agree with me that the arbitrator has that single opportunity. It is not a recurring opportunity to make awards with regard to the job security plan down through 1972,1973 and 1974.

St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
The arbitrator has an obligation under this legislation to consider all the facts and make his award at a given point in time when he feels he is in possession of sufficient facts to know how the job security plan, particularly the funding operation, is working in view of the operations of the port. At that point, he will make his judgment in respect of any modification he deems necessary. I do not know whether there is any doubt in the mind of anyone concerning whether that is his point in time.
Again on the third point, it seems to me inappropriate to state now in this bill that when the arbitrator comes to making those modifications, being in possession of facts which we are not in possession of now, and having behind him some experience concerning the operations as they resume, he should be confined to December 31, 1972 in respect of those modifications. It might be his opinion that this delay ought to continue until March, April or the end of the first year of the agreement, or something else. He might find in his judgment, looking at the facts, that the putting of a date in the bill would be an obstacle to his making the job security provisions the viable instrument they are intended to be under the collective agreement. That is the reason we have not thought it appropriate to specify a date such as the end of this year.
I think I would be on good ground in going on to say- and I do not want to presume upon the role of the arbitrator-that in all likelihood any modification he is likely to deem necessary should, in fact, not be prolonged beyond the end of the year. The funding arrangements, as I understand them, are on an annual basis, but be that as it may, he is the one in possession of the facts and it is his judgment. I would not want these latter remarks I have just concluded to enter into his judgment when the time comes. I do say that as we stand here today expecting the ports to resume their operations, knowing that a busy season is still in front of the ports of Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres, it would be our hope that modifications would be as limited as they can be in time. I think that is what the hon. member for York South is really getting at. The duration of the modifications should be as limited as feasible.
I think in this matter we are entitled to have some confidence in the judicious decisions of the arbitrator as named in the agreement. He has a thorough understanding of the operations of the port, a thorough understanding of the collective agreements and a thorough understanding of the intentions of the parties, having been their permanent arbitrator for a number of years. He has also been the chairman of the conciliation board which assisted in the production of this particular agreement. He knows the history of the port and is familiar with its operations. In addition, he knows the parties concerned. In view of all this, I think we can have confidence in the judgment he would render and in his ability to make a judicious decision.
There is one further point in respect of the possible bearing on clause 7 of clause 8. The hon. member for York South raised the possibility that the minister, if neither of the two parties took action, might under clause 8 put into operation a regulation which would involve the possibility of modifying the job security plan at some future time after the arbitrator had made the ruling which we expect 
him to make under this legislation. I cannot read into clause 8 any such possibility. I doubt that the words can be stretched to mean that. That clause is there to cope with the normal exercise of an arbitrator's role under the collective agreement as it continues down to its termination three years hence-that is to say, the interpretation of matters which arise, and the settlement in a final way of disagreements which arise over alleged violations, and so on. It would not, in my view, extend the arbitrator's power to modify the agreement in any way but only to continue to interpret it. The experience we have had up until now is that at one stage neither party was willing to initiate this arbitration procedure. In light of that experience, this clause would give the minister the extra leverage of initiating a normal type of arbitration proceeding if once again neither party appeared willing to so initiate. I would not expect that circumstance to arise, but it did seem wise to incorporate clause 8 in the event that it might arise.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to follow up one matter. I know that I was criticized, and perhaps taken to task yesterday, regarding the date that had been set by the deputy minister in this matter, namely October 16, and I do not intend to pursue that. However, I notice that the minister continues to refer to the expertise of the arbitrator who would know what the circumstances are and therefore would set the proper date. I am wondering what is the background of the October 16 date because, as I understand it, tonnage is the basis upon which this fund is collected in trust. I wonder how long, in the minister's estimation, the port will be in a position to maintain a healthy fund. Perhaps I am wrong in my assessment but, as I understand it, the port of Montreal is now practically inactive. If the contributions to this fund are going to be based on tonnage, and not much tonnage is moving in or out-the tonnage is moving to Saint John, Halifax or even Hamilton-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And New York and Boston.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -I wonder how long he thinks it would take before the ports are operating to such an extent that the job security provision under clause 15 could come into effect. If he has any information in this regard, I would certainly appreciate it.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, it is quite impossible for me as the Minister of Labour, and I would say for any of us in the House, to anticipate a date on which that fortunate event would come about. That is why we have to put a person in a position to hear the representations from the parties, who can take a period of time to look into these questions which have become highly technical questions. I could not make that estimate.
What may be in the mind of the hon. member for Hamilton West is the date of October 15 which was suggested by the mediators when they were attempting to resolve the dispute without the kind of action through which we are now going. The date of October 15 has no status beyond the fact that it was suggested after four days of discussion, at which time it seemed reasonable to the mediators to propose to the parties that they might find October 15 a
July 6, 1972

reasonable date on which to resume the job security plan. One of the parties accepted it as a contribution to getting the port open, while no doubt running certain risks in so doing. The three locals accepted it or rejected it in varying degrees, and in each case with a condition. However, October 15 in the case of Montreal and September 17 in the case of the other two ports, were the best estimates of the mediators, not as a judicious date but as one on which they might get agreement. That is all the status it has and it should not loom in our minds as having any more status than, "a best effort basis" to get it going without an arbitrator's ruling. When the arbitrator comes to make his ruling, he will look at all the facts which are available at that time. It may be any date. We hope it is early for everyone's sake, but that is a judgment that only he can render.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I wish with all my heart that I could accept the minister's position, but I cannot. I think he has been in this dispute long enough to learn about longshoring perhaps more than I know, but I know enough about it to know that for many years this particular occupation was so uncertain, the job security was so lacking, that for many decades it attracted the transient type of worker who was available on the docks for a month and then disappeared. Someone else might be available for a week or for a season, and then disappear.
Not so many years ago the turnover of workers in the longshoring occupation was so high that every stevedoring company I met during some years of association with this industry would even then-and that was in the middle and late 1950's-complain about the fact that they could not have a secure and steady work force that knew what was happening, that was committed to the job and had loyalty to the work and to the employer. For all the years that I have known the situation, longshoremen have been fighting like hell-if you will permit me to speak plain English-to obtain some kind of job security in their work. As many of them said to me when I was associated with them in Hamilton and Toronto, they wanted job security so that those of them who wanted to do so could make the occupation of stevedoring a lifelong occupation, which they could not do if they could not be sure of having more than so many weeks of work a year. At that time the employer had the right to say whom he would or would not call, and how many days or weeks of work there were during which a longshoreman would be employed.
So, they have fought very hard for years, and this particular problem in Montreal is not the first one that has arisen out of job security arguments. Finally, they arrived at a collective agreement in April of this year which contains a job security program. What the minister is proposing in this legislation is that the whole of the job security program can be fiddled with by the arbitrator, every aspect of it, and the job security program is at the basis of the whole problem. The minister says-I am sure with utmost honesty-that this clause confines the arbitrator's powers solely to the area of the job security plan. Of course it does, but it happens to be at the heart of the matter. Giving someone an opportunity to pierce your heart, and limiting him to doing only that, will not help the minister's life. A pierced heart is enough to do all the
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
damage that he could possibly tolerate, and the job security program is at the heart of this collective agreement, at the heart of the relationship between the longshoremen and their employers in these ports, as it is in other ports. Therefore, what the minister is suggesting and insisting upon is that the arbitrator have the authority to change any aspect of the plan. There is nothing in the clause which prevents him from saying that instead of a guaranteed 40 hours a week it should be 35 hours a week. Instead of guaranteeing 37 weeks, he could guarantee only 30. He could do that with the powers given to him in this clause.
The minister says he has confidence the arbitrator will do the right thing. I am not throwing any doubt on that confidence. I do not know who the arbitrator will be. Unfortunately I suspect, although I hope I am wrong, that the fact this blessed hassle has gone on, and that Judge Gold has already been used and brought down an award that the unions have rejected, will mean the creation of a difficult situation. I understand that Judge Gold, whom I do not know, whom I have never had the pleasure of meeting or appearing before, is a really great chap who knows this area, knows the port and stevedoring operations, has a great deal of integrity, and a real concern for the situation, just as we have in this chamber. But that will not solve the problem. When you say to a worker or any ordinary person, "You can rely on this man," that does not satisfy him. You could not persuade me, if I were a longshoreman, that I need not worry about the fact that the arbitrator will have all the power necessary to break the basis of my job security. Even if you say to me, "Don't worry, he is a good guy; he is only going to amputate one of your legs not both your legs," I will still worry.
Yet this is the kind of thing the minister is placing before employees whom he is asking to go back to work. He is saying that the very basis of the collective agreement, the very basis of their livelihood, about which they thought they had some guarantee in the collective agreement, is now open to an arbitrator to destroy or to reduce to any extent he likes. I think the minister is unwise in doing that. I have the fullest confidence in his good intentions, but I do not have to remind him of a rather banal road that is paved with good intentions.
Let me make another suggestion to the minister. I am really doing my darndest to persuade him to do this, not only to protect the livelihood of the stevedores which I make no apology for trying to do, but also to make sure that the bill will have the best possible chance of doing the job he wants done. I hope he will take a few more minutes to think about limiting the arbitrator's power to modify just until the end of 1972, and give himself, as Minister of Labour, authority to modify the situation further if either side, management or union, ask him to do so because of complaints they have, or fears they have that the plan will not work. If he would consider some such approach, the workers could go back to work in the knowledge that their job security plan will not be interfered with beyond 1972, at least so far as the arbitrator is concerned. If the minister is worried about what might happen next year if there is not enough money in the fund, and I notice that according to the agreement a certain amount, $21 million, has to be there for 1973-74, he should give himself the

July 6, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
power, on the application of either the employers or the union, to appoint an arbitrator to modify the plan further for 1973 if that becomes necessary.
I am not interested in taking credit for moving an amendment, but I suggest common sense should caution the minister to move year by year. The minister says that an arbitrator sitting in September or October will have the facts before him. He won't, Mr. Chairman. He will not know what the shipping situation will be next spring. From long experience, I assure the minister that the Maritime Employers Association will come before the arbitrator with graphs, facts and figures to show that next year is not going to be good year. They will attempt to show that the agreement they arrived at last April is too rich for their blood, and they will present facts and figures to project what will happen next year. It is that kind of argument which the union and the employees will resent.
The minister would be better off to retain this power to appoint an arbitrator again in 1973 if the association, or a member of it tells him, "I cannot carry out my job security arrangements; will you please appoint someone under the authority you have, so that I can present my case to him." It should not take the minister's advisers more than 15 minutes to draft such an amendment. I plead with him that it is unjust to go to the workers in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City and tell them, "Go back to work; I have given an arbitrator total authority to fiddle with the entire job security plan that you adopted last April." There is great danger in that approach.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Once again I appreciate the line of argument advanced by the hon. member for York South. I accept the fact that he has been concerned with the situation on the docks for a number of years. I am sure he would accept the fact, in return, that no one has been more concerned with constructive relations on those docks than the Department of Labour over the past several years, and during the term of office of my immediate predecessor very significant improvements in working conditions were brought about by his personal intervention.


David Lewis: I fully agree.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Two officers of the department have been constantly available in a mediation process. Over the past two years they drew the two parties together to conclude this remarkable collective agreement, the heart of which is the job security plan, perhaps unmatched in any other port in the world. So, we have a united interest in doing the right thing at this particular point in time.
Now we come to the substance of the remarks. If I understand correctly, it has been suggested as an alternative that the Minister of Labour, through some additional provision in this bill, be granted the authority to appoint an arbitrator from time to time during the course of the collective agreement when one party or the other-the hon. member suggested possibly the employer-will come to him saying that they are unable to live up to the requirements of the job security plan because of financial embarrassment. I tried to consider that in the short time available to me, but it is apparent that in this case the

pleading would be made in front of the minister on the financial status perhaps-


David Lewis: Oh, no!


Martin Patrick O'Connell: -or other circumstances of the employers, and he would have to judge as to the merits in the case.


David Lewis: No, no!


Martin Patrick O'Connell: If he felt that the party appealing was justified, then he would appoint an arbitrator, the intention being to modify a collective agreement. I would consider that a very serious step, and I would not want to be in the position of hearing pleadings from one party or the other with respect to possible modifications of the agreement. I think it would build into the future the kind of insecurity that would be quite contrary to our best interests and the best interests of those parties. I think it would lead to greater insecurity.
In my view, the object we want, and which I think we will obtain through the present provisions is to have a judgment made. If we think about the position in which the arbitrator is going to find himself at times, it will be obvious that he will hear evidence which is a little overstated here and there. He will have to look at the facts and the past record, and consider that we will be going to a computer dispatch system in periods of greater productivity. He will have all the facts in front of him, but he will be unable to see down to 1974, yet he is going to make a judgment with the best perspective that he has. As I say, I do not want to get into the most delicate area of putting myself in the position of an arbitrator at this point, but I think it would be reasonable to assume that he would extend the time only so far as he felt was required to get the job security plan back on the rails and would introduce modifications only to the extent required. That is explicitly set out in the act. The circumstances are undoubtedly not such that this whole plan could be completely wiped out or drastic changes made in it. As I would read the situation, he is going to make a judgment that extends to the most limited time horizon possible, and the modifications will be circumscribed to only those required to make a viable job security fund.
I am, therefore, unable to accept the argument of the hon. member for York South, persuasive as he always is. I think the merits of the situation lead me to ask the House to maintain the position that is set forth in clause 7 as it is presently constituted.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister, over the supper hour, would look at what I think might be an anomaly between the legislation and the collective agreement. My specific reference is to the job security section under clause 15.08 of the collective agreement which reads:
Any disagreement which may arise from the use of the moneys mentioned in clause 15.06, will constitute a grievance liable to arbitration as per article 5 of the present collective agreement.
It seems to me that we might get into a situation of double arbitration under the agreement that is reached by the management and by the union. As everybody knows, the grievance procedure that they have decided upon uses
July 6, 1972

a panel of four of whom one is to be chosen, and Mr. Gold is the one prefered. If they went on to choose somebody else as the arbitrator to carry out the purpose of clause 7, and some shift were made which one or the other side regarded as objectionable, then they might come back at the minister under the subsection of the collective agreement which I have just quoted and ask that a second arbitrator be appointed. This*would place the whole plan for industrial peace in some jeopardy. It may be that my point has nothing to it, but I think it should at least be considered.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the situation would be that clauses 15.06 and 15.08, as quoted by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, are in fact suspended by the passage of this bill until the arbitrator fixes a time for their reinstatement. That would remove the potential conflict to which he drew our attention.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I quite realize the power of what I would call arbitrator No. 1, but once the provisions of the agreement go into effect, is it not at that point that either of these parties who feel aggrieved may ask for the arbitration that is set forth in that particular clause which I read into the record.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I am at a bit of a loss to see the problem. Once those clauses are reinstated and a grievance arises, it would be carried to the arbitrator named in the agreement. The collective agreement would then be back in force, and the normal arbitration proceedings would be available.


David Lewis: I am sorry to be badgering both the minister and the members of the committee, Mr. Chairman. Let me say, first of all, that the minister and his advisers certainly misunderstood me when they thought my suggestion that he give himself power to appoint an arbitrator at any time, next year or the year after, meant that he would have to make a decision on whether there was a case for appointing an arbitrator. I did not intend that, and I am not going to make a long speech because obviously if the minister does not agree, that is the end of it. I intended that such provision would be automatic. When one of the parties requested him to appoint an arbitrator he would do so, and the case would be in the hands of the arbitrator rather than in the hands of the minister.
Mr. Chairman, I just cannot buy the minister's reaction of equanimity to this proposition. He says that the arbitrator will make those modifications that are needed, and only to the extent required. I say to the minister those are just words. All the time that I am arguing here, figuratively I am sitting in the hall where the longshoremen meet in Montreal. As a longshoreman, when this bill is read to me and when the minister or somebody else tells me that the arbitrator is going to do it only to the extent required, I ask myself and I ask him what in Heaven's name is the extent required? He cannot satisfy me by using those general, syrupy words. What is involved is not something abstract. What is involved is my job security next year. What is involved is the question of whether or not I will get paid 40 hours a week for 37 weeks in 1973, and 40 hours a week for 37 weeks in 1974. That is what is involved for me, as a longshoreman, not some abstract
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
query. When you say to me I should accept this law, I will, as a law abiding citizen, accept it; but, let me tell you, I am good and mad because you are giving this arbitrator this kind of power. Do not come back to me again; I am not going to listen to you, because you are selling me down the river. It may be that you are right, and the arbitrator will do me justice; but you cannot guarantee that. I do not know how much he will listen to my employer or how much he will listen to me.
These are practical considerations which anybody who has been in any way involved with the ranks of the working people knows enter the heads of working people. This, after all, is important to the worker's life, to his future and to the future of his family next year and the year after. You cannot persuade me that this arbitrator needs any more power than to set a date and to make modifications for the year 1972. And, if I am an objective longshoreman, I will have to admit that my being out on strike for eight weeks has destroyed the job security plan for this year.
I do not suppose I am getting anywhere with the minister, Mr. Chairman. Let me say this to him, as if I were speaking still as a member of the work force: Last April my union made a collective agreement with management for that job security plan. Last year management did not know exactly where the money was to come from; they do not know where it is to come from this year, let alone next year. Why are you giving anybody the authority to deny me any part of the job security plan in 1973?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


David Lewis: Certainly.


Mr. Deachman:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there have been some discussions and I think there is some disposition to continue debate on the present bill and, for the moment, to delay private members' hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the statement just made by the government whip is correct, so far as we are concerned. We would agree to your not seeing the clock at this time. If we were to finish consideration of Bill C-230 before the hour is up, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) would like to use the remainder of the hour for the consideration of the motion in her name.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Is this agreed?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Chairman. I think some of the questions that have been raised this afternoon are of such importance that I think we should look at them during the dinner hour. There is no difficulty, so far as I can foresee, in giving the bill third reading tonight and sending it to the Senate. I respectfully suggest that we carry on with private members' business.


Gérald Laniel: There is not unanimous consent.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I think it ought to be noted in Hansard and in the press that

July 6, 1972
U.S. Internal Food-Aid Program
the hon. member for Trinity who now sits all by his lonesome self in the corner, is the person responsible for this committee's not being able to carry on its work at this time. That responsibility does not rest on anybody else in any part of this House.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This might be an opportune time to indicate to hon. members the questions that are to be debated this evening at the time of adjournment. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight)-Transport-Leasing of United States boxcars to move grain-Purchase of additional hopper cars by railways; the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe)-Regional Economic Expansion-Request for designating Sherbrooke as "special area"; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)- Consumer Affairs-Alleged delay by automobile manufacturers in recalling cars with defective parts until warranties have expired.
It being after five o'clock, this House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Winona Grace MacInnis: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report undertaken in the Department of Agriculture on the United States Internal Food-Aid Program and its application to Canada.
She said: Mr. Speaker, as my party's House leader suggested, I would have been perfectly happy, in view of the serious nature of the legislation before the House this afternoon, to forgo my opportunity to participate in private members' hour. I am sorry, for my part, that in these circumstances we are proceeding with private members' hour. However, that is what the House has decided, and we must go along with that decision.
My notice of motion for the production of papers refers to something I have wanted to obtain for some time, a copy of the report or study undertaken in the Department of Agriculture with regard to the United States internal food-aid program and its application to Canada. A number of similar requests have been made and refused. I made a request last week which was refused. I suppose

the government, in its own mind, can make a case for not releasing documents which might cause trouble for members of the government or others if they were released. However, I cannot for the life of me see that there could be any such objection to this report being released. Certainly, it has nothing to do with internal security. I cannot see how it could affect our relations with the United States.
The documents in question merely have to do with the reaction of the Canadian Department of Agriculture to the internal food-aid program of the United States. I think our great neighbour to the south may be flattered to learn that we are looking at what it is doing in supplementing the diet of low income people. I cannot understand why this report should not be made available to us, unless of course, the government does not like the nature of the report that officials of the Department of Agriculture have made. It may well be the report indicates that a government program ought to be set up for distributing food to low income groups in this country who, because of their poverty, are genuinely undernourished. It may be that there are things in the report the government did not wish to make public, in view of possible public reaction. Frankly, I do not see how anybody's nose could be put out of joint if the report were made available to us. It would not hurt the officials concerned or the government.
There is another possible reason behind the refusal. Possibly this report is not being released because of this government's deplorable tendency to secrecy. It wants to hide all such reports which have been compiled simply because taxpayers' money was available for compiling them. The taxpayers of this country have spent much money on studies, on committee reports, reports of commissions, and all the rest of it. When the government gets these reports, either because it is not inclined to do anything about them or because it is afraid of the reaction of the public if the facts were made known and the government did not act on them or because it is arrogant to the point that it wants to keep these reports as its private property, it refuses to allow the public to get the facts. This is a completely indefensible attitude. This government sits on these reports so long that, after a while there are leaks from one place or another, whether natural or inspired I do not know, and this indicates that the policy does not sit well with the public.
I want to emphasize that the taxpayers have a right to see the results of this report. We, the representatives of the people, also have a right to see the report. Just this afternoon, questions were asked about a report on housing. This whole field badly needs attention. The government has had a whole flock of reports on this situation. We know that the translations of many of them have been prepared. By what right does the government hold these and keep them under wraps? It is simply because they have more members and a greater club. That is wrong. If we cannot do anything else in this House except get rid of the secrecy surrounding the production of reports which are paid for by the taxpayers of this country, we will have done something good. Why do we have Information Canada? Information Canada releases only things which the government wants released. They stand solid and do
July 6, 1972

not yield anything that the taxpayers should have in order that their elected representatives can make judgments.
I now come to the report. The worst of it is that we do not know what is in it and we have no means of telling. We do know that the Department of Agriculture has made a study of the United States internal food-aid program and its application to Canada, but we have no evidence as to what is in the report. The United States has made efforts to get food to low income groups by the food stamp plan and other plans. This government has not lifted one finger to get food to the low income groups who need it. If the government has made a study of the United States internal food program, it would be highly desirable for the public to know what our great neighbour to the south has been doing and what the officials of the Department of Agriculture think about it.
I wish to quote from an article in the June 15 edition of the Globe and Mail:
-the U.S. Department of Agriculture has thousands of "nutrition aides" who give basic nutritional advice to mothers; it prints and distributes literature on the subject; a few school systems and universities provide some training in nutrition. But most do nothing. And nowhere, to my knowledge, is there a co-ordinated approach to teaching the subject of nutrition.
The United States has not gone too far in that direction, but it has at least reached the stage of having thousands of nutrition aides. What is a nutrition aide? Presumably it is a young person, not a college graduate, but one who can grasp the basic essentials of nutrition and can indicate where literature, officers and information can be found. If this government was looking at ways and means of providing jobs for young people, it could hire nutrition aides. We have nurses aides and teaching aides. Hopefully, if there is another government in power, we will one day have day care centre aids. This government does not have the stamina or willpower to open these. The United States has at least created the position of nutrition aide.
We know that Canada's low income groups need help in getting a proper diet. Let no one tell me that there is poor nutrition in all groups. I know that. However, the difference between poor nutrition in upper income and low income families is very great. Those in the upper income groups can read and study what is nutritionally advisable if they wish. No matter how those in the low income group study and read, they cannot have a better diet because they do not have the financial resources.
At the risk of boring some members, and I find some are easily bored when it comes to problems affecting the family in this country, I want to refer to a very important editorial that appeared in a recent edition of the Globe and Mail. This is an article about a remarkable woman, Agnes Higgins, the director of the Montreal Diet Dispensary. For years she has been conducting research into diet deficiencies in low income groups who require social assistance. I and other members in this House have been quoting the findings of Mrs. Higgins for a long time. Mrs. Higgins has now made an important study about the nutritional needs of Canadians. I will not go over all the knowledge on which this is based, but this report of Mrs. Higgins and her colleagues on their Montreal experiment was one of five nutrition papers chosen for presentation to the International Congress of Endocrinology in Washington. That is what the world thinks of Mrs. Higgins,
U.S. Internal Food-Aid Program
even though Canadians have not been fortunate enough to know her studies exist because of the failure of this government to inform them. I quote:
Mrs. Higgins based her work on the research of others which had proved, among other things: that it was risky to the baby to try to keep the mother's weight during pregnancy fashionably down; that mothers who were well nourished during the last 15 weeks of their pregnancies produced bigger babies; that bigger babies (7 to 81 pounds are considered the best weights) tend to have more brain cells than smaller babies; that small babies have drastically increased rates of stillbirths, deaths in the first weeks and months of life, cerebral palsy, mental retardation and lowered intelligence.
Functioning from this knowledge Mrs. Higgins and her colleagues went to work on some of the most deprived mothers in Canada, women from two public clinics in poverty-stricken areas of Montreal.
Between 1963 and 1971 their study group included 1,725 mothers. Of these, 1,055 had five years of education or less, 1,164 were so poor that they were entitled to food supplements, 515 of the pregnancies were illegitimate. Not a promising group, one would have thought; yet only 5 per cent dropped out of the course.
On her first visit to the clinic each mother was assessed on the basis of income and diet. If her income was large enough, she was told what she should eat and given a standard mineral and vitamin supplement.
If her income was too small-and the incomes of 67 per cent of the mothers were too small-she was given food supplements of milk, eggs, oranges and the standard minerals and vitamins. Her needs were carefully calculated to take into consideration underweight, protein deficiency, shortage of calories and special conditions of stress.
All mothers were visited at least once in their homes.
They received the same medical attention.
The average birthweight for these babies was the same as for babies born to private patients at these hospitals. The record with respect to premature births and early death was as good as that for private patients, and significantly better than for other public clinic cases who had not had the diet treatment, and significantly better than the Canadian average.
Now, I come to the part which I hope will touch the cockles of the hearts of even the hardened people who make all their judgments on the basis of how much it costs or how little it costs or how much they can get away with.
A single family can perhaps most graphically paint the picture. A 29-year-old mother had borne 11 children. The first eight were born without diet assistance, and all had small birth weights. One died at the age of one month. For her last three pregnancies the mother had diet assistance, and these three babies all weighed within the ideal range.
A physical and mental assessment of all the children was done at Montreal Children's Hospital. The last three children were found to be normal. All of the others were found to be disadvantaged and likely to require support off and on through life.
Now, I get to the nub of the thing.
It cost the public $125 to give the mother diet assistance, including the free milk, oranges, eggs and vitamins, for each of her normal babies. The cost to the public of maintaining a defective child throughout life in an institution or in the community is more than $100,000.
So, there you have it in terms of actual cost-$125 to produce a healthy baby and $100,000 to keep a defective child in an institution for life. It would pay us a thousand times over in dollars and cents to apply Mrs. Higgins' good sense and compassion whenever circumstances call

July 6, 1972
U.S. Internal Food-Aid. Program
for it. This is why I want that report. I want to see whether there is anything in it which would supply further evidence of the need to supplement the diets of poor people, people living on social assistance and low incomes. It is no use saying we should wait until the results of the nutrition survey are known. The report will not be completed until this fall, and the best we can hope for is that it will be available next spring. Next spring we shall be told we cannot have it because hon. members on the other side are sitting on it. Why wait for spring? Do it now! Let us begin right away to learn all we can from what our neighbours in the United States have done. Let us get ahead on the basis of what we can learn; let us get going right away and supplement the diets of the people in this country who most need assistance.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Vaneouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) for her work in explaining to us the situation and also for giving us the opportunity of talking about the feeding habits in Canada.
Some may have bad eating habits, even if they have a rather high income. It is not the income of a person which gives him good eating habits, but mainly the way the mother buys the foods and prepares them for the family.
In my capacity of chairman of school boards for many years, I had the opportunity of surveying the eating habits of large families, particularly children attending school, and I am convinced that Canada is a rich country from the standpoint of foodstuffs; we are mainly producers able to supply adequate food to Canadians.
One can spend $50 a week feeding a family of four or five children and even then not eat properly. Indeed, one can buy all sorts of things like hot dogs, as was pointed out earlier, and live on hamburgers just as well as abundant farm products.
Undernourishment should be studied because in Canada, as I said before, people suffer from it, not for lack of money but for lack of selecting the proper foods to be eaten. I have studied some family budgets. In fact, after a discussion with a housewife who told me, to my astonishment, that she fed her five children and her husband on $50 a week, my first reaction was to wonder if my wife managed my budget properly because I know how much it costs to feed my family.
Evidently, when we have the means to buy products of the highest quality or some luxury goods, we can spend more for food, but it does not necessarily mean that we are better fed. If we closely consider the problem, we realize, for example, that we have not yet reached the point where it is urgent to carry out the American program in Canada.
If on the other hand it has been deemed necessary to study what was going on in the neighbouring countries to determine whether the food aid programs were better than ours, we necessarily had to turn toward the United States to get information on food.
Apparently, under a certain program, the people can buy food in groceries with coupons. Customers cannot exchange these vouchers for money because this is forbidden. If it should happen that the value of their vouchers

exceed the value of their purchases, the retailer would be required to deliver some kind of receipt that they could use again.
The system, which was established by legislation passed in the United States in 1964 and amended on a few occasions, and particularly in January 1971, costs the American Treasury $2 billion and perhaps today more than $3 billion.
Of course, when you distribute the cost among 200 million citizens, you do not reach a fantastic sum per capita, but when you want to apply this system in this country, you have to multiply this figure by 10. We then find out that for a food program similar to the American effort we would have to spend more than $250 million. Therefore, if the federal government had to make such an amount available, over and above what it already pays through cost-sharing programs and other social measures, we see readily that astronomic amounts would burden the budget of assistance to underprivileged persons.
It must be realized that Canadians engaged in food production far outnumber those in the United States. We must also realize that the American economy can support measures that we could not add to those already in force. Their effects on the sales of food must also be assessed. What would happen if the people that we are now assisting through social measures benefited from increased assistance under a coupon distribution program?
These are effects that we should consider beCause of their short, middle and long term bearing. However, I am interested in one aspect of the American program: in Canada we grant direct benefits to the needy through social measures. Considering their skills I sometimes wonder if they properly use the money given to them.
Would a coupon system or something else which would compel them to allot part of their budget to food not be preferable to the present system? It is a question which deserves consideration and further study. We are not now in a position to take such a quick decision on a program which could entail large federal expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, there is another point that should perhaps be considered. Some may think it is rather sophisticated, but a family food-aid program might be conducive to serious abuses. Very often, when money is not available in some families, the coupons distributed under all kinds of forms could be exchanged for money which could be applied to other purposes.
In Canada and in the United States there are quantities of foods rich in protein, such as eggs, poultry, etc. For the last twenty years, the price of these foods have declined sharply. Low income families consume much of these foods. One cannot say that in Canada it is impossible to find protein-rich foods at reasonable prices.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to talk about another aspect. I would like first to indicate that I am not at all opposed, to having now and in the future as many studies and surveys as possible on our national diet. We will have to deal with this problem sometime, hopefully with a great deal of care and attention. I am convinced that there might be a distribution of food in Canada. However, the
July 6, 1972

main problem remains the economic situation of producers. In cases of overproduction, producers are seldom in a position to break even. Insofar as producers are concerned, the distribution of surplus foods products in the homes will not actually resolve economic problems. Surpluses are shipped to another area. A tremendous effort could be made so that producers may be in a better situation and that they may earn at least a decent living which will enable them through taxes to contribute to other programs intended for poor or low income people.
We must export our food surplus. I would be remiss in my duty if I did not comment on the assistance which Canada is extending to developing countries. We are still not doing all we could and should in this field.
I do not think Mr. Speaker, that French Canadians have to eat like the Americans and conduct surveys, in view of the fact that they are in a position to eat with the commodities at their disposal.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is no scarcity of food in Canada. We know that all food and agricultural areas in Canada are showing huge production surpluses. We know also that every farmer and industry which is involved in food production only wish to have more consumers buying their products.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by complimenting the hon. member who has just concluded his speech. I assume from the interest he has shown in this debate that he is in favour of the production of papers in respect of the internal food-aid program which for a number of years has been carried on in the United States. I wish, also, to compliment the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) for her excellent outline of some of the difficulties surrounding nutrition in the Canadian setting. I hesitated to take part in this debate because I have no experience of pregnancy; therefore I shall confine my remarks strictly to questions of food, food consumption and nutrition.
The hon. member on the other side of the House pointed out that a program such as that being carried on in the United States jvould cost $250 million to implement. That may well be so, but it would be extremely helpful if the representatives of the Canadian people could consider the information on the United States internal food-aid program and the views of our Department of Agriculture in respect thereto. Perhaps then we could come to a conclusion as to the cost and, what is far more important to us as representatives of Canadians, the benefits to Canadian citizens.
If the hon. member was speaking in terms of overproduction, let me point out that we who represent western constituencies face the problem of overproduction in terms of wheat. Like the farmers in Quebec who have overproduction in a certain area which I will not go into, nothing would make us happier than to have a program carried out by the Department of Agriculture to increase the number of consumers. If the figures the hon. member mentioned are correct, this would pour some $250 million into the agricultural sector of the economy and give our farmers a reasonable return on their production, as well as increased internal consumption.
U.S. Internal Food-Aid Program
As representatives of the agricultural sector of our economy, we are fundamentally interested in any kind of food program which would enhance the internal markets of Canada such as the program undertaken in the United States. If we could put $250 million into our agricultural sector, I would be most happy and excited about such a program. It would get the economy rolling in terms of putting money into the hands of western and eastern producers, to be followed by a flow of money into the hands of the industrial sector as a result of increased purchasing power.
In order to make decisions, we as Members of Parliament must be able to examine studies undertaken and documents relating to them. Many studies which have been made of the agricultural sector in relation to food and food consumption have been hidden in the offices of ministers; Members of Parliament have not been allowed to look at them. One such study was made for the small farms development consolidation program, papers in respect of which I have asked for in a motion for the production of papers that has been on the order paper for months. These papers have not been produced-yet members are asked to deal with legislation such as Bill C-5 in connection with agriculture.
Documents are sent to provincial governments and are looked at by federal civil servants. Members of Parliament and the Canadian people, however, are not allowed to examine such documents. If we wish to take another example in terms of the agricultural sector, the Department of Agriculture and the Wheat Board, we need only consider the whole question of national transportation and the policy drawn up, with the involvement of the Canada Grains Council, the Canadian Wheat Board, the railroads and the line elevator companies, which has been turned over to the provincial governments and which the minister in charge of the Wheat Board said last spring would be tabled in the House of Commons very soon. That transportation study has not yet been tabled in the House of Commons for consideration by Members of Parliament.
I can see great possibilities, in terms of business, in a Canadian internal food-aid program. Western producers, above all other groups, I suppose, in terms of grain, have faced great difficulties in certain years because of their dependence on the international market. A vast percentage of the grain and wheat sold from western Canada and, I suppose, a great percentage of eastern soft wheat, is sold on the international market. If an internal food-aid program would enhance the domestic market for farm produce, this would be a way in which western and eastern producers could see an improvement of their financial position and encouragement in their desire to remain on the land.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway did an excellent job in pointing out some of the difficulties in terms of proper nutrition and proper diet for child raising, and so on. I shall not go into that matter. I hope that when I resume my seat the question of producing this report for those of us who represent farmers, and for the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and my friend across the way, members who have an interest in nutri-

July 6, 1972
U.S. Internal Food-Aid Program
tion as well as the income of producers, will be considered favourably.
I hope, also, that when I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, you will either allow the question to come to a vote or there will be unanimous consent of the House that this document be produced. I rest my case on the good graces of government members.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? [Translation]


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) for introducing this motion. I have listened very carefully to her comments and more often than once, I was reminded of the days when I was a student in agricultural sciences at the University of Montreal attending nutrition courses.
I commend the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway for having drawn the House's attention to this ever important situation. I also wish to congratulate her for her work in various committees. I have seen her at work in the Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Committee where social problems were considered as well as problems related to packing and consumers' protection. It is my wish that after the forthcoming great event, the Liberal party will include several female members.
Having said this, I cannot however agree with the comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway in connection with the tabling of the documents mentioned in her notice of motion. I would invite the hon. member to read the reply given to her by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome) as recorded on page 1280 of our proceedings of November 18, 1970, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture I may advise the hon. member that no formal report has ever been made by the Department of Agriculture on the United States internal food aid program and its application to Canada.
I suggest that this was not a report, but rather a draft study, and, as pointed out by the Parliamentary Secretary, various departments when it comes to drafting important legislation, usually consider pilot projects so as to determine the feasibility of any specific program.
I think hunger always raises problems, and no human being can remain insensitive to it. Therefore, I would not like the hon. member to think that members of this House are insensitive to the situation which she brought to our attention.
Now, as far as the report is concerned, there are several studies in the United States which deal precisely with the experiment with food distribution, and those studies are available to the public, providing the hon. member can ask for them.

At the present time the United States operates four major food-aid programs. The first is the commodity distribution program, the second is the national school lunch program, the third is the special milk program and the fourth is the food stamp program. All four programs are administered by Consumer Food Programs of the USDA Consumer and Marketing Service. The special milk pro-

gram and the food stamp program are examples of food assistance programs which operate on a cash grant for local food purchases. Under the special milk program, federal cash grants are utilized to reduce the cost of milk to children in elementary and secondary schools.
The food stamp program, on the other hand, enables needy families to purchase food stamps which have a redeemable value greater than the purchase price. The difference between the purchase price and the redeemable value represents the federal cash contribution. Both of these programs are based on the assumption that if the food purchasing power of the recipient is increased, food consumption will also increase provided that provisions have been made to guard against substitution for regular food purchases.

To come back, Mr. Speaker, to the problems raised by the hon. member, I do not think we should compare this program with the situation which prevails in the United States and Canada, precisely because of differences in the social policies of those two countries. In Canada, we have a highly developed social policy, including a family allowances policy established for the benefit of school-aged children. If some provinces want to experiment with milk distribution in schools-and I think this problem has been raised on many occasions in Quebec-this comes under their own jurisdiction. If they want to distribute milk in schools, they are entirely free to do so.
The main issue raised by the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Corriveau) is that of budget administration. If a family lives on a weekly budget of $75 or $100, its wellbeing will indeed depend on the nutrition value of the products the housewife can buy. As underlined also by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, more information should be provided at the level of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and at the level of the various associations and citizens' committees. The caisses populaires are now doing excellent information work on the nutrition value of the farm products.
Considering their energy and protein value, farm products are available to the consumer at quite reasonable prices. According to an opinion often voiced by the producers, Canada is a "cheap country for food". If we consider prices paid in recent years, broilers sold at 18 cents a pound, eggs at 30 cents a dozen and pork at 24 cents a pound. These are certainly not exorbitant prices.
Our aim should indeed be to try to disseminate more information on nutrition through foodstuffs and especially on comparative prices for various beef cuts. While a student and working in a butcher's shop, I could see to what extent the housewife was poorly informed on meat; she bought some cuts priced at $1.50, whereas, considering equivalent nutrition value, she could have purchased others costing three times less. The question is rather that of educating the consumers on the nutrition value of foods, on the various meat cuts and on the price. I believe we should center our efforts in that area.
I shall refer the hon. member to several departmental publications which are designed to further inform consumers about the purchasing and unit price of various
July 6, 1972

consumer products. Some booklets are available at the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and there are a few excellent ones as well in the Department of Agriculture. Various agricultural television programs were produced with a view to assist the housewife, so that she may get at a fair price several agricultural products, such as poultry, milk, eggs, fruit or vegetable. If such was the case, we should only have reached part of the hon. member's objective.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should consider very carefully the whole thing, because, as I stated earlier, we, as human beings, cannot overlook the problem of hunger in the world.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) spoke about the grain production. I shall only refer to the assistance given by Canada to under developed countries. As far as international food-aid program is concerned, the contribution of Canada amounts to about $95 million. I suggest that we should increase this amount, but once more, we should do it according to our ability to pay.
This was an outline of the situation, and as I stated at the outset of my remarks, I cannot agree with the remarks made by the hon. member about the motion now before us, which reads as follows:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report undertaken in the Department of Agriculture on the United States Internal Food-Aid Program and its application to Canada.
It was rather a survey. I do not object that these compilations be used as a work paper by the ministry and its officials in order to eventually implement, if such implementation is deemed really important, a program similar to that which has been tried in the United States. To me, this was more of a survey than of a report.
Here again, Canada has played its part in the field of assistance provided to needy families. But I think that the situation is quite different from that which prevails in the United States. We have a social policy, a family allowance program directed to children, but I think that we should put great emphasis on information and popularization so that housewives would know not only the unit price of the food products they buy, but also their nutrition value and protein content.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I think that this situation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time appointed for private members' hour has expired.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-230, to provide for the resumption of the operation of the ports of Montreal Trois-Rivieres and Quebec-Mr. O'Connell-Mr. Boulanger in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: Order. When the committee rose at five o'clock, clause 7 of the bill was under consideration.
On clause 7-Postponement of job security plan.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, when we ended our discussion at five o'clock I had been trying to point out to the minister and to members of the committee the difficulties which in my opinion face the longshoremen in the powers which apparently the minister insists on giving to the arbitrator with regard to the job security plans now in the collective agreement.
I do not want to speak any longer because no purpose can be served by repeating the arguments. I merely say to the minister that management and the union agreed to the job security plans last April, before this year's shipping season started, and the longshoremen have the right that those provisions be retained in full next year. There is no reason why the abritrator should have the power to change those provisions so as to weaken the job security plans for the years 1973 and 1974. I have said all I could say. I had hoped the minister would agree to bring in a proposal to deal with this question, but since he has not I move the following amendment:
That clause 7 be amended by changing the period at the end of line 28 to a comma and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"provided that he does not make any modifications in the plans
set out in the collective agreements as such plans apply to the
years 1973 and 1974."


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will make a few comments on the proposal made by the hon. member for York South. I do not want to repeat the arguments which were made this afternoon when it was pointed out that the agreement worked out between the union and the employers provided a formula for job security for the years 1972, 1973 and 1974. Difficulties have arisen in implementing the plan for this year because several important months, in terms of work on the docks and therefore of payments into the fund from which the work guarantee would be provided, have gone by.
I cannot see why there should be any proposal by the employers or by the government that any person, be it the government, an employer or an arbitrator, should do anything to vary the agreement which has already been worked out and which was agreed to by both employers and employees in reference to the years 1973 and 1974.

July 6, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
Mr. Chairman, in recent months the people of Canada have heard a great deal about the supposed exorbitant, unreasonable demands made by various labour groups. I point out to the minister and to members of the committee that the guarantee which the longshoremen will get for employment and earnings is something like $167 a week for 37 weeks a year. My arithmetic shows that to be just over $6,000 a year. Montreal is the largest city in Canada and its cost of living is amongst the highest of any city in Canada. I suggest to the minister and members of this committee that a longshoreman or any other worker who has to live in the city of Montreal on just over $6,000 a year in 1973 or 1974 will not have a very affluent life.
Mr. Chairman, I simply cannot understand why the minister should now be proposing that an arbitrator might be able to reopen the agreement which has been reached, and to scale down what I consider to be a very modest income guarantee for any worker in the year 1973.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I want to add just a few comments. I have listened to my friend, the leader of the New Democratic Party, and I recall that he said that I fumed and fumigated for about half an hour trying to point out the value of the public interest and what that should mean not only to labour and management but to the public in general. It is in this area that we must accept our responsibility. It seems to me, however, that the leader of the New Democratic Party is attempting-I charge him with this and I hope we can still be friends, as he indicated to me earlier that he hoped I would be friends with him after he had berated me somewhat-to weaken this bill.
Surely we have now reached the stage where it is necessary that this bill be brought to Parliament, that that is our wish. Surely that was the last wish we had, but it seems to me that the very issue we are talking about, job security, is the one that has brought about deep confrontation between the two parties. They had a collective agreement and it was up to them to use the provisions therein to reach a rational conclusion that would be acceptable to all. In their confusion and frustration they failed to do this.
I am impressed with what the minister said, that what we need now is for the arbitrator to set the date on which the job security plan will take effect.


David Orlikow: What year?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Who knows how long? This is the problem. We just hope that in the circumstances, whoever is the arbitrator will decide on an early date; but once he sets that date I would refer the hon. member to the explanation that was given earlier by the minister, who said that once the arbitrator sets the date, at that time he would know all the circumstances and we would not have to worry about the year 1973. But perhaps the circumstances will not be completely known to him at the time he sets the date and he may need more time. That is the position the minister was trying to advance, and I buy that. We are trying to make this a meaningful bill in order to have industrial peace.
I know the leader of the New Democratic Party says that if we accept his amendment such a step will not have

to be taken, but surely labour and management must understand now that we mean business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They have had the opportunity to play around for seven or eight weeks. I do not accept the weakening of what is a very weak bill in the first instance. I say, with all due respect to the leader of the New Democratic Party, that his theory is good but it is not practicable and it should not be accepted at this particular time. This is a bill which has been brought before Parliament, not for the benefit of labour, not for the benefit of management, but for the benefit of the people of Canada as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As long as we keep that in mind I think we have to proceed. I know the bill is not the best: it is weak in certain areas; it has no sanctions but no penalties. For the penalties you have to refer to other legislation. But the bill as it stands should not be weakened. Accordingly, on behalf of my party I say that we will not vote for the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: Is the Committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, before this amendment is put to the committee I wonder if the minister could tell us whether he has any estimate of the extent of the damage that has been caused by the strike. Does he have from his department, from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, any agent of government or any independent source a projection of the consequences of the shutdown which has occurred in the last few weeks?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You tell us.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is apparent, Mr. Chairman, that not only has there been a considerable disruption of shipping but there has been a serious loss of confidence in so far as the St. Lawrence ports are concerned, which has influenced shippers to a considerable extent. Before having to decide on this amendment I would be interested to know whether we have any assessment at all of what the long range consequences of this strike are likely to be, so that we may exercise our judgment on that basis.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I regret to have to say that I think the hon. member for Trinity is drawing a red herring across our path at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Patrick O'Connell: It is not for me to try to make an estimate in statistical or measurable terms of the extent of the damage occasioned by this strike. We all know that we are here to confirm and further the public interest in the settlement of the strike.


An hon. Member:: Now you are catching on.
July 6, 1972


Martin Patrick O'Connell: The strike has gone on too long. We know that the public interest is damaged not only because of the economic injuries that have resulted to these communities, ports and the country at large but also because the two parties have failed to find a way out of the impasse that they have created. That, too, is a matter of public interest.
Again I might point out that when the proper processes were used, that is when the services of the arbitrator named in the agreement were employed. He brought in his ruling and we were all in a position then to judge the legalities concerned. At that point the public interest was even more acutely engaged, when the parties found themselves in an impasse notwithstanding the ruling of the arbitrator and notwithstanding the damage that was accumulating as time passed. I do not think it would be appropriate at this time to make an estimation in economic terms of the damage. We should get on with the business of passing this bill and getting these ports into operation.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak again because earlier I made all the arguments that I thought could be made in the proposition I put before the committee. However, I am forced to say a word or two because of what I can only describe as the demagogic remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton West.
I am as aware as he is that this bill is before us because of the public interest. He need not read me or any other member of this committee that kind of lecture. It may give some of his colleagues an opportunity to bang their desks but it does not touch on the subject at all. All I can say is that if the hon. member for Hamilton West is right, then we are really in for trouble and for real injustice. As I understood the hon. member for Hamilton West, he interpreted the minister as having argued that he wants this arbitrator to set the date, not in 1972 but well into 1973; that is when he should set the date.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I did not say that.


David Lewis: With respect, the hon. member for Hamilton West said just that.


An hon. Member:: He said it may not be necessary to do that.


David Lewis: I do not think the minister meant that. If he did, he had better think again before he places this bill before the people concerned. That would be the height of injustice to the working people in this area.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: The hon. member for Hamilton West says he wants a tough bill. Tough in what respect, Mr. Chairman? Does he want a bill tough enough to deprive the workers at the docks of the benefits of the job security plan, benefits which they negotiated last April, even in 1973 and 1974 when there will be no reason to expect trouble, when everyone hopes there will be no interruption of work? We hope that the accumulation of money necessary for the job security plan will take place in 1973, just as last April
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
it was hoped and intended that that accumulation would take place in 1972. The only damage that has been done- and it is serious damage-is that occasioned by the eight-week strike which made it impossible for the money to be accumulated to meet the job security plan in 1972.
I do not oppose, but support the proposition in the bill which gives the arbitrator the right to set the new date when that plan will come into effect, so long as that date is in 1972 and so long as the people who are engaged in that hard work, in that unpleasant work which is not very creative, will get the benefit of their collective agreement in 1973 and 1974-unless, of course, they again indulge in the kind of irresponsible action they indulged in this year.
That is what I am pleading for, that is what the minister should do and that is what the amendment seeks to do. That is all I am pleading for, namely, that the arbitrator should not have the right to cut down benefits which are now in the collective agreement for the years 1973 and 1974. Perhaps he will not do it, but there is no guarantee that he will not. Therefore, when we order people back to work there ought to be some justice in that order.
I have no hesitation in saying and in underlining-I made my position very clear yesterday-that the unions as well as the employers and workers who have engaged in this eight-week illegal strike have acted in an indefensible way. I say that as one who has dealt with these people over the years, and I am not prepared to defend their action in the slightest degree. But that has nothing to do with the welfare and livelihood of these people and their families in 1973 and 1974, when we hope there will be industrial peace. Only thoughtlessness can put in jeopardy their welfare during those two years-and that is what this law does! That should not happen. There is no reason in fact or in theory for putting these people in jeopardy; and that has nothing to do with the public interest that the hon. member for Hamilton West talked about.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am interested in the public interest.


David Lewis: So am I; and so is everybody here interested in motherhood. I have four children, and I believe in it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have only one, a 22 year-old.


David Lewis: I am interested in virtue-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérald Laniel: Order, please.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I hope you are not going to deprive me of this opportunity to emphasize support of virtue.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Carry on.


Gérald Laniel: Order. It is very difficult for the Chair to hear the hon. member's explanations; I wish hon. members would kindly refrain from making comments and let the hon. member who has the floor continue his remarks.

July 6, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill


David Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As usual, you are very kind.

I was saying, Sir, that this is not a question of the public interest.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, it is.


David Lewis: The public interest will be hurt if these stevedores are unnecessarily hurt next year and the year after that. And if they are, my friends of the Conservative party and my friends of the Liberal party will be responsible. The arbitrator, says the minister and says the hon. member for Hamilton West, will not have all the facts before him this fall and, therefore, what will he do? He will cut down all the benefits that would be available to the dockers under the collective agreement in 1973! Is that the proposition being put forward?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Who made this bill necessary?


An hon. Member:: Read the bill.


David Lewis: I have read it. The hon. member for Hamilton West asks, who made this bill necessary? Therefore, he is ready to punish these people in 1973 and 1974.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No.


David Lewis: For him, that is serving the public interest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Let him say that to the workers in Montreal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -in Hamilton or elsewhere.


Maurice Dupras: The hon. member is playing to the gallery.


David Lewis: Nuts to the gallery, and nuts to the hon. member. I speak plain English.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I think it would be better if hon. members allowed the hon. member who has the floor to make his speech. It is very difficult for the Chair to follow what is going on.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member has taken almost two hours of the committee's time.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I have not much more to say.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Filibuster!


David Lewis: I must emphasize and underline that these interruptions and interjections merely show the direction of the thinking of some members of this committee.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member, I must say, has a lot of nerve.
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman,]


David Lewis: I say that the objective of the bill is not being served. In some respects we are jeopardizing the bill, and I hope it will not be jeopardized by giving the arbitrator power that he does not need. He is being given power to do things that are unnecessary, and that may harm the welfare of the people involved. That is why I am pleading.
I did not put my amendment in for nothing. I hoped that the minister and his advisers would come forward with a much better amendment which would do in a better way what I am trying to do. I am certain that this is the right thing to do. I am also certain that it is wrong and improper to interfere with the plan in the years 1973 and 1974. That is unnecessary and unjust, and that is why those powers ought to be limited to this year.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, we went over this ground quite extensively this afternoon. The hon. member for Winnipeg North was not present to hear the exchange, but he will find the explanations in Hansard that I gave then to support the provision set out in clause 7. I have given a good deal of thought to this matter and have looked carefully at the proposition the hon. member for York South has brought forward. We have considered it most carefully. We have considered the equities involved and after a brief excursion down that road, which has its attractions, we have returned to favour the present proposition as being one that provides the greatest justice. We must remember that we must provide justice for both parties; there must be equity for both parties. That will be in the best interests of all in future.
The hon. member for York South has brought forward an amendment. However, I must confess to some puzzlement because in speaking to it he opened up another door, and when you go through that door I think you will find that you are going beyond the whole purpose of this bill, certainly beyond the provisions with respect to the arbitrator's authority as provided in the bill. He would be putting the working people, for whom he has expressed concern, into greater jeopardy in the years 1973 and 1974 than any that might be contemplated in this bill.
If I understood the hon. member correctly, at the close of the debate this afternoon he was saying that we ought to make a provision in the bill so that the minister, on petition of one of the parties to the collective agreement, would automatically be able to appoint an arbitrator to modify the agreements in 1973 and 1974. We are not giving any such right for modification of that kind in those future years.
As I understand it, there would be the automatic appointment of an arbitrator of those collective agreements if certain events arose. What are those certain events? As was suggested this afternoon, it might be the plea of the employers that for one reason or another they could not live up to the income security plan, the plan that pays for 37 weeks whether they work or not under the new regime; they could not pay for it and they would be financially embarrassed. Am I to then appoint another arbitrator to open up the whole matter again? Are we to be in continual insecurity in this one field of arbitration? Even if we agreed that was a good proceeding-and I immediately say it is not-would we not be going beyond
July 6, 1972

the whole purpose of this bill, which is not to cure hypothetical events which might occur in the future? What the bill is intended to do, and I read from its title, is as follows:
An act to provide for the resumption of the operation of the ports-
Our whole objective is to provide for the resumption of the operation of the ports. Surely we would be going beyond what we agreed to on second reading, the principle of this bill, in providing in addition that in some future eventuality which we are unable to foresee at this time we should open up and modify the collective agreement.


David Lewis: That is not what my amendment says.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: The hon. member says that is not what his amendment does. I am glad he has retreated to the confines of his amendment. When he spoke, he went beyond that. We ought to have that perfectly clear in our minds if we are seeking the best interests of the men as well as of the employers, as we must. If it is to be a viable agreement in the future we should not introduce into anything we do any jeopardy down through the succeeding years.
I earnestly hope that the decision can be made soon. I do not mean five months from now, or next year; I mean very soon-as soon as the arbitrator is in a position to judge the operations and, therefore, the facts of the case to make the job security plan viable. All that we are providing at this point in time is that at the earliest possible moment the arbitrator will make his decision. That is his "once only" decision with regard to income security; he will not have another opportunity. He will look as far into the future as he is able to do objectively and he will make his judgment.
I earnestly hope, and I think it is the hope of all members, that when the arbitrator fixes the date for the start of the job security provisions it will be the earliest date feasible, and when he fixes the terminal date beyond which the modifications will not apply that will be the earliest feasible date to make this a viable plan as required in clause 7. It is quite conceivable that it will be in 1972; but I am entering on delicate ground and I know that none of us would wish that. That is for him to decide. However, in the nature of the circumstances I think it is quite reasonable to expect that he will know what we consider to be an early decision, an early date to begin and an early date to terminate the modifications.
If we in Parliament set a date either to begin or to terminate, we take a judgment upon ourselves that we know something about the facts, something about the matter of dispute and we are capable of saying "the end of this year and no longer." It may be longer. I earnestly hope it will be shorter; I expect it will be. However, that is territory upon which it would be imprudent for us as Members of Parliament to trespass at this time in considering this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister how he finds it more imprudent to accept the amendment of the hon. member for York South than to accept the impru-
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
dence that is in the bill as it now stands. I am certain that the minister is more up to date and more aware of the situation than I am, as is the hon. member for York South. What would happen in terms of workers who had struggled for decades and finally got a negotiated settlement last April? What is implicit in the minds of those workers, if not in the minds of the minister and his advisers, is the provocation of what is in the bill and the fear they will have of the provisions of clause 7.
If the minister thinks it is imprudent to accept the amendment of the hon. member for York South, surely what is in clause 7 is equally imprudent. What is to say that the bill as now drafted will not cause more than 3,000 men, after 30 years of fighting for this, to end up in jail? Is there not some imprudence now in the clause that the minister is promoting? If the minister feels that he cannot accept the amendment of my leader, the hon. member for York South, has he given any thought to something more than what is now in the clause?
Would the minister be prepared to accept an amendment that would limit the arbitrator to adjustments in the job security plan providing that he could not go beyond March 31, 1973? Has he even looked at something in between what he wants and what the hon. member for York South is suggesting? I am not sure if that is feasible or advisable. Surely the minister is going beyond prudence in what is now in the legislation. The amendment does not ask for very much. What is now in clause 7 goes beyond the purpose of the bill on which we all agree, that is, to get the ports operating and the men back to work. Clause 7 goes beyond that. I believed the minister when he said yesterday that he does not go beyond that purpose.
If the amendment put forward by my hon. friend from York South is not what the minister's advisers like, one of whom disappoints me somewhat, have they thought about any other kinds of amendment that he himself would be prepared to move which would in some way provide what is needed in clause 7?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak for just a few moments before the amendment is put. In my view, the minister's belated concern for the public interest has a hollow ring. If he was as concerned about the public interest as he appeared to be from his interjection a few moments ago, I would have expected action on his part some weeks ago before the crisis reached its present proportions. I would have expected him to have introduced, not the labour bill which was sneaked through this House last Friday, a bill which would have been more appropriate to the nineteenth century, one which does nothing to resolve these paradoxes which arise from time to time in relations between management and labour-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I say the only job security there is in Montreal and the other ports arises from the continuous operation of those ports during the shipping season. I say this to the hon. member for York South: it is not correct that the only damage which has been done is the damage caused during this eight weeks' strike. The effect will continue for some time into the future. Additional damage will be
3848

July 6, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
caused as a result of loss of confidence. It will take some time to overcome the disruption caused by the strike and to restore the confidence necessary if shippers are to return to their former practices.
I agree with the minister to this extent: I think we should get on with the bill. But I believe there must be a more enlightened approach to these issues than has been shown in the past by the government or than is evident at this time.


Gérald Laniel: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Lewis moved:
That clause 7 be amended by changing the period at the end of line 28 to a comma and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"provided that he does not make any modification in the plans
set out in the collective agreement as such plans apply to the
years 1973 and 1974."
Amendment (Mr. Lewis) negatived: Yeas, 12; nays, 63. [English]


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 7 carry?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I wish to speak on clause 7, Mr. Chairman. I was disappointed with the amendment put forward after the dinner hour by the leader of the New Democratic Party, But before dinner I thought some members on the opposition side were making a point which was most interesting. I should like to submit this view to the minister. If modification means making partial changes, I cannot but agree that neither the union people nor the employers, after all the agony they have been through, should be willing to accept modifications, partial changes in the agreement they have reached. I beg the minister to consider putting the word "temporary" in front of "modifications" in the clause because I think this is what he is really getting at. I do not believe anybody wants to force the parties concerned down an alley from which they cannot escape.
I do not wish to put forward an amendment since it is obvious that if the government is willing to accept an amendment it will do so, and if it does not wish to acdept an amendment it will not do so. I do not want to play games. I beg the minister to consider making this slight change in clause 2(b) which would let both the parties off a thorny hook. If there is no money available, neither party can live up to this agreement; but if money looks like becoming available one cannot, surely, expect the longshoremen or the employers to accept modifications which might be permanent. I ask the minister to consider this point.


Gérald Laniel: Is clause 7 agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Gérald Laniel: Carried on division.
Clause 7 agreed to.

On clause 8-Where Minister of Labour may initiate arbitration proceedings.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, there is a tricky legal . phrase here. Would the minister care to put on record his views with respect to it? Clause 8 reads in part:
-in a time that, in the opinion of the minister, was reasonable having regard to the nature of the dispute.
What does the minister understand by "reasonable time"? Does it relate to an indication from either of the parties who may for one reason or another not want to move? In other words, will the minister react to such a clear indication, or will he have some other reason for determining what is the proper and reasonable time to move under this clause?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, that is a very difficult, indeed an impossible question to answer. It anticipates an event which I trust will not arise again. It might, but I hope it will not.
The opinion I have is that a reasonable time should be taken "having regard to the nature of the dispute". So regard must be paid to the nature of the dispute, its gravity, its duration, its extent and so forth. These would all be factors in arriving at this notion of a reasonable time. It is most unusual-I do not know of any other instances, though there may have been some-for one or other of the parties not to resort to arbitration when a grievance arises. We did run into that in this case and we put a caution in there. I would say that the length of time was entirely unreasonable in this particular instance, having regard to the nature of the dispute and the availability of the arbitrator to get an agreement on a standby basis. I think that is a judgment one has to exercise in a situation as it emerges, and I will have to resist the temptation to comment about the particular length of time.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister does not interpret the words "reasonable time" to mean that he should take the most unreasonable amount of time he has taken to move in this particular situation.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I think I am entitled to reply to that remark. The unreasonableness in this dispute should be laid on the parties to the dispute. If any members still think the minister took an unreasonable time, what they are saying is they would have preferred the minister to go around the procedures of collective bargaining in certain circumstances and open up the agreement. We know that agreements are closed and that this has become a tradition in Canada. It is a most serious thing, indeed, for any minister of the Crown-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He was only kidding.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I am told that the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East was only kidding. I do not take it as kidding, because it is a very serious thing to suggest that the government or the minister should intervene when the only manner of intervention would be the seeking of renegotiation of an agreement, particularly when what is required is not renegotiation or a reopener but, rather, interpretation of the rights in an agreement. That
July 6, 1972

is why it was an unreasonable length of time to be taken by parties to do that which they were required to do by law.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that what I have in mind should be covered by this type of bill. However, would the minister indicate whether the length of time aspect would cover vacation pay, which was recommendation No. 4 of the deputy minister and other officials? This question was in dispute at the time the meetings were being held. I am wondering if it is one of the matters that could be settled under this clause.
The recommendation was that vacation pay be paid to employees as soon as it is possible for the staff to issue cheques. Is this one of the matters that may be involved? If so, I am curious to know why it was such an important part of the settlement and why it was an issue in the recommendations for settlement. I am wondering whether this is one of the matters the minister envisages as having to be settled within a reasonable period of time.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the hon. member for Timiskaming is no, we did not have that particular question of vacation pay in mind when drafting clause 8. We did not know of any particular difference of opinion that existed on this question at the time we drafted it. To the best of my knowledge, vacation pay was satisfactorily resolved in the mediation process. I do not know whether it has slipped out of that position now, but it would be only right that I point out that it is the kind of issue which is arbitrable. In the normal course it could indeed come into the arbitration proceedings. This protection in clause 8 was required in order that we will not be caught again in the impasse that locked us out of the action when neither party would initiate that arbitration proceeding.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: I understand that clause 5 was stood. The committee will now revert to consideration of clause 5.
On clause 5-Persons bound by collective agreement.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, clause 5 was stood, and I think we owe it to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East to provide an answer. If my memory serves me correctly, I was asked whether clause 5 would apply to any other union which may be working on the docks and would we, in anything we are doing here, affect the rights of other unions in these three ports. The answer is no. A clear understanding of this measure is that it will apply only to those unions mentioned in the collective agreement, that is to say, the three locals of the International Longshoremen's Union, No. 375 in Montreal and the two in Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City respectively, but not any others: they are untouched by this measure.


J. Michael Forrestall: Do I understand the minister to give me the assurance that other unions such as those governing checkers, freight handlers, and so on, who may be working under certification and within the terms of agreement between the Maritime Employers Association and the ILA
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
will not be affected by the legislation we are about to pass in committee?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I am not in a position to say whether they have an agreement with the MEA. Indeed, they would have an agreement because it is the bargaining agent for these companies. But they are in no sense under the umbrella of this measure. They have their own agreement, although there may be matters in common. Their agreements exist in separate compartments and we do not trespass into them with this measure.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr.   O'Connell moved@: the third reading of the bill.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, before the adoption of the motion for third reading of this bill, I would like to say a few words.
As I was telling the House only yesterday, we are certainly very reluctant to have to pass this bill which, we hope, will bring about peace, stability and prosperity to the St. Lawrence ports and will permit longshoremen involved in this conflict to earn their living.
Mr. Speaker, while this bill was before the Committee of the Whole, I was surprised at the motion introduced by the NDP. We voted on this motion which was defeated. I voted with the majority and I feel I must explain why I voted against this amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that we cannot re-open the debate concerning a question already put to the House.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I accept your remarks.
Before this bill is read the third time, I must say that the discussions we had today do not question the ability and the qualifications of the arbitrators who will be asked to decide upon the present litigations in connection with the situation prevailing now in the Quebec ports.
A while ago, Mr. Speaker, some remarks have been made during the debate on this bill to the effect that the government had delayed its decision in order to find another solution to that conflict.
I must remind the House that not so long ago-and I am surprised it took the government so much time to introduce a bill-when the country was almost paralyzed by striking air traffic controllers, barely 24 hours after work stopped the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) said something to the effect that if the strike was not settled within a matter of hours, the government would consider introducing special legislation.
We passed a bill on second reading today; that proves the need for the government to act, in view of the seriousness of the problem. Were the strike to continue much longer, its effects on the ports would be disastrous.
25319-57a

July 6, 1972
St. Lawrence Ports Operations Bill
An hon. member-I believe it was the hon. member tor Trinity (Mr. Hellyer)-asked about the harm done to the ports. He also asked the minister if his department had made a study of some kind to know the real extent of the harm caused by the work stoppage.
Mr. Speaker, obviously that work stoppage has done great harm, from the point of view of the economic future of the port of Montreal as well as to the life of the people involved in this conflict. I believe this bill was warranted and will serve the purpose it has in view, namely to settle the conflict. I think it is appropriate to say that as the representative of a constituency that is especially affected by this strike as it is in the geographical ambit of the port of Montreal and because I know many of the people caught in this conflict and I am in contact with them all the time, I must say that most of the longshoremen I have seen and who came to me for advice were really anxious to go back to work.
The special legislation will not be considered as a punitive measure but as one to bring order, to straighten out things in the ports, to enable the longshoremen to go back to work, to earn a livelihood for their family and provide for a better economic future for the three ports concerned, especially that of Montreal.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, had you had been present during the discussion in committee of the whole you would have heard me do all I could to persuade the minister to amend one of the clauses of the bill. Despite the fact that I was unsuccessful, it still remains necessary for this Parliament and for every Member of Parliament, in my opinion, to support the bill so that the expression conveyed to both sides to the dispute in the three ports concerned is a unanimous expression of the will not only of this Parliament but of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I regret, as I know the minister does, that the two parties to the dispute, the union as well as management, acted in a way which made it necessary for Parliament to take this action. It would have been much better for Canada and much better for the welfare of the people concerned in the ports, as well as much better for the welfare oflabour relations in Canada, if the union and management had lived within the collective agreement they had signed and set an example of the kind of industrial relations a modern civilized society ought to have.
It is a great pity they continued on their obstinate course for eight weeks, causing a great deal of harm to themselves, to the employers on one side, the members of the union on the other and to the communities concerned. As the minister rightly said earlier-I am not quoting him, but I got the sense of what he said-this caused a great deal of harm to the notion of industrial relations and collective bargaining and the value, strength and application of collective agreements.
It is, therefore, not with a light heart that we support this bill. I am sure I also speak for all members of this House. I am certain I heard the minister say that is the way he feels about it. It is not with a light heart that we

support this bill, but because in our view, and I hope in the view of every member of this Parliament, the impasse created by the obstinacy of the two parties at these three ports has to be broken for the benefit of the country as well as for the benefit of labour relations. This bill is the only agency which can break that impasse and therefore it was inevitable and necessary even though the need for the action is regrettable.
I think the time has come to vote on third reading stage. I hope we are able to pass this bill tonight so that it can go to the Senate-I am getting tired of saying "the other place" and be dealt with so it can come into force as soon as possible and work may resume at the three ports, I hope not later than next Monday, even though it may have to begin in a small way.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall not take any more of the time of the House except to repeat that I am sorry this action was made necessary by the behaviour of the parties. I hope with all my heart-I repeat the appeal I made yesterday-that the management and the members of the union will obey this law without cavil, without hesitation and without creating an even more difficult situation than the one with which Parliament is now faced. I am sure they will, as Canadians, and I know that if that happens Parliament will have done the right thing in adopting this bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have not participated in the debate so far but I want to make a few remarks now. I note that the hon. member who sits behind me thinks that so long as someone from his party has spoken, anybody else should shut up. That is their attitude. They have had their say and everybody else should be quiet. However, I will say that I deplore the fact that this Parliament has had to engage in another example of scrambling "ad hockery", because that is what this bill is.
When we were considering Bill C-183 I made several speeches to emphasize what I consider to be one of the greatest gaps in the Canada Labour Code, and I reemphasize to the government that the biggest gap is that there is no provision to take care of the public interest. As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said, the public interest in this case overrode the interest of management and of collective bargaining.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The individuals over there who sit like crows on a fence and shout "Sit down" should make a contribution other than sitting in their place. But they do not. All they do is delay this matter further, because we will have our say.
As I said, the biggest difficulty that faces the country insofar as labour relations are concerned is that there is nothing here that permits the government to act when the greater public interest is being pushed aside or suppressed. We had the example of Parliament sitting right up to the eve of Christmas because of the strike of airline mechanics. The same sort of thing occurred when electronics workers in the public service were holding to ransom the greater public interest.
July 6, 1972

Some people ask, "Are you going to impose compulsory arbitration?" What is this but compulsory arbitration? This is forcing people back to work. Parliament, after it is pushed and prodded, takes action far too late. Millions of dollars are lost to the dockers and to their employers and the economic future of the port of Montreal is placed in great jeopardy.
I was amazed at the temperance of my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), in his criticism of the government. He was very moderate in his criticism of the minister. He should have climbed over there with spurs to deal with the government which, quite frankly, has been very lax and very slow in dealing with this matter. I support my colleague, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), who suggested that what should apply in a strike of this kind is a mandatory secret ballot. I understand that the secret ballot was used in two of the ports, certainly in the port of Quebec, and there was less trouble there. There is certainly far less trouble when there is a secret ballot, and in matters of this kind it is mandatory that it be a supervised ballot: the public interest demands that.
This bill does not impose any penalties for non-compliance. Someone asked why these should be necessary because penalties are already provided in the Criminal Code. We saw in this morning's press that some penalties have been imposed with regard to this dispute. But how were they applied? They were applied under a very contentious provision in the law, namely, contempt of court. I know that organized labour does not like the provision of contempt of court, but we are relying on that and I think it is a very shaky base. The Criminal Code also deals with the individual. It seems to me that in this legislation, or in the labour code, penalties should be defined far more clearly in respect of union organizations or employers of organized labour so that if in the public interest action must be taken, it is spelled out and everybody knows what it is.
It seems to me that this debate has been an exercise of two days which should not have taken place. I am not assessing blame to one side or the other: I suppose that both sides are to blame. But I do complain because Parliament has had to engage in what I call a scramble of "ad hockery". This may happen more frequently during this year. That is not the way to deal with this type of labour dispute. I am hopeful that everybody will have some sense now and that they will repair as quickly as possible the grave economic damage that has occurred to a section of the country.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I would feel guilty if I did not say a few words concerning the bill now before us. We did not participate in the debate in the Committee of the whole, presented any argument nor discussed the amendments which were moved, because we considered that this government was entirely right.
Mr. Speaker, as many other people, we want a prosperous, live and progressive economy. We have also felt that the unions had carried things too far, and when this happens, somebody must call them to order. It therefore rested with the government to restore order. The situation
Family Income Security Plan
prevailing in the ports has caused heavy damages to the Canadian economy but they are rather difficult to assess.
We appreciate what the government has done in that connection. It was high time it intervened to settle that conflict which should not have lasted so long. It should have been settled well before today. In my opinion, the government has given all possible freedom to enable the two parties to come to an understanding before intervening. And as I said a while ago, when things have gone too far, someone must restore order and intervene. It was the duty of the government to assume its responsibilities.
I should like to express all my admiration for the Minister who has so ably stated the whole case, defended this bill and taken his responsibilities. This is why we did not participate in this debate, but are 100 per cent behind the government in this case.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY PLAN


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro that Bill C-170, to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, be read the third time and do pass, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) (p. 3655).
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation about which no one can be happy. We have observed that the minister himself has become increasingly unhappy with it. As a matter of fact, listening to him on certain broadcasts he seemed really desperate in his stridency, trying to apologize for the legislation. Social workers across the country are not happy about this legislation. The opposition parties, for various reasons, are not happy about it. The one million mothers from whom family allowances will be withdrawn are not happy about it. Taxpayers who have really studied the matter are not happy about it. With all these people unhappy and worried about this family allowance bill, one is driven to inquire why the government introduced a bill of this type.
The government took a long time to get around to it. The government examined the matter and introduced variations of this bill. Finally it reached the tail end of this session and, with great reluctance, the government introduced the bill knowing that nearly all the people concerned feel miserable about it. If all this is the case, why has the government sought to push through this legislation at this stage? It is for the sole and simple reason that the government is unwilling to deal with the question of poverty in the way in which it should be dealt with; it is

July 6, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
unwilling to take the type of measures which should be taken if poverty is to be eliminated.
The government is unwilling to face up to the need for a proper quaranteed income plan, a plan whereby people are quaranteed jobs and can make a living according to their abilities. Above all, the government is unwilling to introduce a fair system of taxation by which it could pay for such measures.
This is a crummy piece of legislation, a crummy way of dealing with family allowances. It is unworthy and inadequate no matter what way you look at it. In fact, what the legislation is doing is taking advantage of the desperation of poor people in order to appeal to the sympathy of other elements to get this thing passed. It is an inadequate thing; it is unfair; it is unjust; it is a poor piece of planning. Yet the government is leaning on other sections of the population by appealing to the desperation of the poor people who need more money.
There is no doubt that poor people need more money, and the government is telling the poor people that this is the only way they can get more money at this time. The government has gone to the anti-poverty organizations, to people on low incomes, and said, "This is your only chance for more income." Naturally, people who are on social assistance, people in low income brackets, are frightened silly. In turn they say, "If this is the only way the government will give us any more revenue, then we have to pass this bill." They have sent desperate wires to all members of this House urging us not to stand in the way of their getting more money at this time. I think that is completely unworthy of the government.
The government is counting on people outside this House not knowing the facts. It is telling them that this is the only way to get started on a guaranteed income scheme. Mr. Speaker, this is as far from a guaranteed income scheme as is the city of Ottawa from Timbuctoo. It has nothing to do with a guaranteed income scheme. The principle of a guaranteed income scheme is the establishment of a definite income floor below which nobody will be allowed to fall. This bill is a handout, a pittance to the poor: it has no resemblance at all to a guaranteed income scheme. This is no way to get started on a guaranteed income scheme. In fact, this is a way of avoiding putting a guaranteed income scheme into operation. It is an obstacle in the way of facing up to a guaranteed income scheme.
If you look at the areas which are desperate to get this legislation passed, they are the areas where there are people who desperately need money. The government has turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to them in their poverty, and they see this bill as their one remaining chance. What the government is not telling the poor is probably more important still. It is not telling poor people that under this proposed scheme the new levels of payments cannot be made for at least a year. When the minister introduced this scheme he was confident that the new rates would come into force this summer. But as his officials began to experiment with the procedures necessary to make the legislation effective, they found that the appalling processes of red tape and the complications of administration were putting the legislation farther and farther away from coming into operation. Today the departmental offi-

cials tell us that it will be at least a year before the bill can come into operation. That is something which the government is not telling poor people. It is not telling them that their desperation for more money must continue for at least another year.
Further, it is not telling them that the new schedule of payments will not even have the buying power of a 1945 family allowance cheque. Between July, 1945, and September, 1971, the consumer price index rose to 230.7. This means that the family allowance for a child 11 years of age should have risen from $7 per month in July, 1945, to $16.15 in September, 1971. Instead, under this bill a child of 11 will get only $15, and only if it is a single child and the family income is less than $4,500.
A family with a working wife will be penalized. If a husband is making $4,000 a year and his wife supplements his income by a mere $1,000, and they have only one child, then the baby bonus will decrease. This new scheme is not only a pittance to the poor; it is a guarantee that they will lose all incentive to work their way out of the trap of poverty. That is what this baby bonus amounts to.
This government is not telling the poor that in this legislation there is no protection against the provinces cutting off their social assistance by the amount that this family allowance would raise it. There is no protection in this legislation to ensure that poor families will get the full amount. The provinces are perfectly free under this legislation to cut down the allowance for social assistance by the amount that this family allowance would have increased it. Let me point out what this means in.practice. Recently I received a letter from some poor people in the city of Calgary, the Anti-Poverty Organization, who wrote:
The bill provides for a redistribution of family allowance payments. Poorer families will receive an increase in family allowance. Because of the increase in moneys involved, there is a proposal that family allowance now be treated as an income, and income tax be paid. In certain areas we feel this to be fair and just. But in other areas, it is not. Particularly when a family is forced, by circumstance, to subsist on social assistance.
Traditionally, the family allowance payments have never been viewed as income. Therefore, they have been exempt from being so considered by welfare agencies and have not been deducted from assistance cheques. Should they be now viewed as an income they will be deducted. In simple mathematics this might mean that a woman with six children today receives a total of $40 from family allowance per month. Her monthly social assistance maximum cheque might possibly be $275. This gives her an actual cash flow of $310. This is true under present administrative policies. Yet, with an increase payment scaled to her over-all income, this mother may now (under Bill C-264) receive about $160 monthly from family allowance. Viewed as an income it then would be deducted from the $275 social assistance cheque; she would now get $160 in family allowance and $125 in social assistance for a total of $275.
In other words, in Edmonton or Calgary she now gets a total of $310 but when this bill goes through there is nothing in the world to stop officials cutting her, with her six children, down to $275.1 raised this point in committee on May 24, 1972, when the matter came up and I should like to quote from the proceedings so that people will see what the government is not telling them. At page 9:21 I said:
I want to know whether any attempt has been made to ensure that
July 6, 1972

in any discussions with the provinces that when the people get this family allowance legislation, that people in social assistance families getting this amount will not be taken off the rates that are set for social assistance. Have there been discussions with the provinces on this? I know in my own province there would be very great danger that in getting the social assistance rates this particular form of income would be taken into account and deducted from what otherwise would be given.
The minister replied:
There have been discussions to the degree that I have expressed to the provinces when we have talked about this principle of selectivity and getting larger benefits to those in the lower income groups the hope that it would not be deducted dollar for dollar from social assistance levels that are now being paid to families in Canada. It seemed to me that I received protestations from many social welfare ministers that this would not be the case. They would not do this.
I pressed the minister still further and he replied:
That is the only way you can do it. You can hope that that will not be the case. Provinces, as you know, have jurisdiction in this field in terms of the administration of social assistance, and we cannot tell them what to do. We can only hope that they will not do it. So I can only express my own view, I do not think they will do it.
I then pointed out that when dealing with the province of Quebec the minister went throught the whole painful negotiation to ensure that certain points would be observed in the legislation in order to suit that province. I said I could not see, if he could go through the process of negotiation with the province of Quebec in order to get certain guarantees, why he could not go through the process of negotiation with other provinces. He should make sure that the full amount that was being given under the new family allowance would go straight to those people on social assistance for whom it was intended, and that it would not be cut off by the provincial authorities in setting the social assistance rates. The minister insisted that this could not be done and that he was hoping the authorities would not do it in the provinces.
Yesterday in a statement the minister pointed out that in the case of the old age pension the regulations under the Canada Assistance Plan had been altered so that the provincial authorities could deduct those rates. I am pointing out that it is only a matter of time until the provincial authorities also cut down the family allowance to the point where the people might as well not get it. The government is not telling the poor people that they are completely unprotected, as far as Ottawa is concerned, in the new family allowance rate. In my view this is not honest and it is not playing fair with the people for whom this legislation was designed.
Another thing they are not telling the poor people is that this legislation means perpetual paperwork on their part. Every time a child moves from below age 12 to above age 12 a report has to be made. Every time a child moves beyond age 17 a report has to be made to the authorities. Every time a child is born there is a report to the authorities. Every time a child dies there is a report to the authorities. Every time there is a change in the family income there is a report to the authorities. Every time a wife goes out to work for income there is a report to the authorities. Every time a husband goes on unemployment insurance there is a report to the authorities. What is being added to the arthritis of government procedures?
Family Income Security Plan
We are getting a Saint Vitus's dance of administrative complexities added, making this into a complete mess.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: 1 think this is the height of dishonesty when it comes to dealing with people, particularly the most vulnerable element of the population. Above all, what the government is not telling the people is that in order to get this pittance for the poor it was completely unnecessary to replace a good, universal plan. We in this party have an amendment and we have been prepared to compromise by placing one amendment now before the House. We have said, "All right; you are insisting that you cannot do this in the right way, so keep the universal family allowance for everybody and then add for the poor people the new amounts. If you are serious about the poor people needing this, and if you will not do anything else, then our amendment says keep the universal scheme and add on the amounts for the poor people who qualify." But the government will not accept that amendment either. We appeal to them to accept it if they will not accept anything else.
I want to make a last appeal to the minister. It is a very serious thing to wreck this universal scheme that we have had. There are only two things wrong with it. First of all, the amounts are away out of line with what they should be. There is another thing that the government is not telling the people, Mr. Speaker. There is no escalation clause in the family allowance scheme such as has appeared in legislation for veterans and old people.
The inflationary factors that are working against all the people will work against those being paid benefits under this plan. What is wrong with the legislation is that the amounts provided are far too small and there are no provisions for escalating them as living costs rise. Also, no attempt is made to distribute the burden fairly. Taxation will not fall most heavily on those who can best bear it. Actually, a great many families that are being taxed to provide moneys for family allowances will never get any. The million mothers who are to be denied benefits will pay for this measure in taxes. As I say, they will not get any benefits at all.
This plan is a far, far cry from the plan of 1944. The Liberal government of the day then introduced the universal family allowance scheme. They were proud they had introduced it and held their heads high, even though they had been prodded from behind by the party I support. They were proud because the principles underlying that legislation were good. The government recognized that families with children had special needs. That was no attempt at dealing with poverty in any sort of bad way because the payments were directed to all the mothers of this country. We recognized that they were doing a service for Canada and we were prepared to help them perform that service.
I have met university graduates in the last little while who have told me that it was family allowances saved over the years which helped to pay for their education. That, of course, was part of the original intent. We also intended to ensure a greater measure of equality for all

July 6, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
children in this country. We intended to help ensure an adequate income for social insurance and social assistance recipients with children while at the same time avoiding grants that would diminish incentives to work. Further, we intended to create a substantial program for maintaining high levels of income and employment in the post-war period. This program worked well for years.
As I suggested, if the minister had been content to increase payments and bring them into line with today's living costs, if he had included an escalation clause to take care of future developments and had introduced a fair taxation scheme to be implemented either by way of general taxation or special, selective taxation as the Canadian Council on Social Development proposed, we would not harbour sad or unhappy thoughts about this legislation. That, however, has not been done.
Furthermore, we now see this universal scheme going the way of the former old age pension universal scheme. Again I say, the million mothers who will not get benefits will feel keenly the injustice of their position. Remember, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended increased family allowances, as has committee after committee and commission after commission in this country. They said we should not withdraw family allowances from some but, rather, should increase them for all.
Carrying out the program will be an administrative nightmare. Altogether, this will be a ghastly failure. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) predicted some time ago, I too predict that it will not be many years before this government-or, what is more likely, the government that will succeed it-will look with shame at this type of allowance as being completely unworthy of the families, households and firesides of this country. Then they will say, "What in the world were they thinking of in 1972?"
We are living in a rich country. We are boasting every year of our increasing gross national product, of our increase in productivity. We boast of our standing among the nations of the world. Practically all nations which call themselves civilized have adopted universal family allowance schemes. But Canada is going back and joining the underdeveloped countries in this regard. I am ashamed of that and I feel sure that in his heart the minister shares that feeling of shame. He, too, is disappointed.
With these words, I again appeal to the minister to look again at this program. It is not too late to change. Often at the last minute people have drawn back and changed their minds. History has shown that they had the courage to do what their conscience dictated. They came through the immediate ordeal and were looked on as men of courage and vision.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, whether or not the revival of Bill C-170 will bring about the desired results will depend on the attitude of all Members of Parliament towards its objectives, which are to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children. I see no purpose in repeating again the many weaknesses and inequities in the bill. My main purpose in speaking on the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is to remind all hon. members that, while we procrastinate in

continuous debate on the bill, hundreds of thousands of Canadian children are being denied the increased benefits provided for under the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), who I realize feels very strongly that the bill is acceptable in its present form, has shown a stubborn attitude in not accepting some amendments which my party introduced during the report stage and which would have improved the bill. It is obvious now that he will not relent and accede to these requests. For example, Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why the official opposition's amendment to have cheques made out to mothers was not acceptable, since we would only be repeating what was contained in the old Family Allowances Act. Neither can I see the reasoning behind the government's refusal to accept an amendment which would only fulfil a commitment made by the government under Bill C-264, namely, that increases in benefits would be payable as of May 1,
1972.	Although I have repeated this many times, I will continue to repeat it: the government made a promise to the families involved and they failed to keep that promise. The promise was that whenever this bill became law the government would owe Canadians who qualified some $13 million a month since May 1, 1972.
Another serious fault is that the minister has failed to ensure that provinces will not include income under FISP and set that off against social assistance. Unless remedial action is taken before FISP is enacted, the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan could undermine completely the stated objectives of FISP, which are to fight poverty. The problem, in a nutshell, is that under the Canada Assistance Plan the provinces are perfectly entitled to lower their rates of welfare assistance to families in proportion to the higher family allowance payments that these families will be receiving when FISP becomes law.
Under section 2(b)(iii) of the Canada Assistance Plan there is provision that the provinces, in determining the degree of need and in making arrangements for social assistance to applicants for welfare, shall take into account all income maintenance payments made through unemployment insurance, old age pension security payments, the Canada Pension Plan and guaranteed income supplement schemes. However, it is optional for the provinces to take into account family allowances and other schemes. This is a decision for each individual province to make.
Certainly, not one of the provinces calculates family allowance payments as income for purposes of social assistance. However, it is entirely possible that when the new, higher benefits to poorer families are paid after FISP becomes law, some provinces may start to include FISP as part of the welfare applicant's income and will lower family social assistance payments correspondingly. It is especially likely that the poorer provinces which have long felt hard pressed by the inflexible 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement entered into with the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan will unfortunately feel compelled to make such a revision.
July 6, 1972

Family allowances seem to be making some headway in dealing with regional and individual poverty, but this problem threatens to erode the gains made unless agreement is reached between the two governments. I hope that in the time available to the minister he will ensure that arrangements are made and agreements are reached with the provinces.
Another matter that has not been mentioned so far is the appeal procedure. This should be revamped. The plans for appeal under a new FISP, clause 11 of Bill C-264, are for a government-appointed, government-run tribunal to hear complaints about receipt and amounts of benefits. To ensure that the appeal procedure is conducted in a fair and just manner the tribunal established to hear appeals should instead be quite independent of the government and should not be merely another subsection of the government.
Many members who spoke in the various phases of the debate have pointed out other weaknesses in the bill, but at no time has there been a satisfactory explanation as to how the government will deal with drastic changes in income each year for citizens such as fishermen, farmers and independent truckers. The income floor will be based on the previous year's income. Let me give an example of a fisherman who qualifies for the maximum benefits during a bad fishing year. In the second year he might have a reasonable income. This might put him over the basic income floor. After the fishing season he may find that, based on his income, he will not qualify for that year. In the third season he might have another bad year with little or no income. He may have to resort to unemployment insurance or even welfare. This means that fisherman would have to repay the government for the previous year's benefits when it would be impossible for him to do so, even with the fancy computers available to figure this out for the government. What will this fisherman do?
My concern is that while this bill has dragged on, we have failed to realize the intent, that is, to provide increases in benefits to those with children who are on the no-income or low-income scale. No one seems to be particularly concerned that while we procrastinate, at this very moment hundreds of thousands of children are suffering from malnutrition because of lack of proper food. At this very moment thousands of Canadian children do not have a decent bed on which to sleep. They huddle for warmth in corners of substandard homes, cold and miserable, because the government has failed to provide decent housing for Canadians.
No one seems to want to realize that at this very moment thousands of parents in this country are sacrificing their health from undernourishment in order to give a little extra to their children because governments have failed to provide for them. These parents sit and wonder why we, who are supposed to provide them with care when they are unable to do so, have failed over the years to deal effectively with poverty when, as everyone admits, this should be the most prosperous country in the world.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the House agree to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, on April 21 I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) a question relating to the leasing of United States boxcars for the handling of grain. The minister informed me that the CNR was leasing boxcars. I asked a supplementary question concerning the fact that the CNR was spending millions of dollars on building flat cars in Montreal while we needed hopper cars for the movement of western grain. The minister said he would look into the matter and deal with the subject when talking with officials of the CNR at a future date.
The situation in terms of hopper cars has changed somewhat since that time, in the sense that the government has decided to build about 2,000 hopper cars to meet the needs of moving western grain and leasing them through the Canadian Wheat Board. I and other members have asked the government on a number of occasions to impress upon the railroads the need of putting hopper cars into service for the movement of grain. I am pleased to see that this has been done. There is some question about whether or not the Wheat Board, in providing the cars for the government, is in some way subsidizing the railways. I do not wish to get into that question tonight.
Since this may well be the second last day before adjourning for the summer, I want to point out that there are still a number of key problems with regard to the grain movement in the west. I propose to present some of these problems in the hope that the government will look at them even though the House may tomorrow adjourn for the summer. On several occasions I have brought a real problem to the attention of the Minister of Transport and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. It is that at CNR delivery points in the province of Saskatchewan, particularly at nine delivery points in southern Saskatchewan, there has been a real shortage of grain doors. One quite accomplished writer for the Globe and Mail asked what is a grain door. You can have all the boxcars you want at a delivery point, but if you do not have a grain door to put in the boxcar you can not move the grain from the delivery point.
The CNR, which has a public responsibility because it is a public corporation, at one time this spring had 40,000 grain doors in a warehouse in Saskatoon. They were unaware of the fact they were supposed to be repairing
3856

July 6, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
them to be used at delivery points in Saskatchewan. That kind of lack of priority by the CNR has to be taken care of for the benefit of farmers trying to meet their quotas, as well as for the benefit of the grain buyer at the local delivery point so that he is not sitting up all night preparing grain doors instead of loading the boxcars. Some hon. members who are not from the west may not find that 'moortant but it is pretty basic to moving grain that you have proper grain doors at the shipping points.
The other problem at the shipping points is the condition of the boxcars which the railways send back after having been to the terminals at Vancouver. It takes many hours to repair them. That is coupled with the problem of terminating quotas. Members from the west are aware that there is some need for terminating quotas in order to meet our commitment and the present demands of our foreign markets. The terminating quota has created some difficulty because at particular delivery points farmers cannot get their grains into the elevator because of problems such as boxcar allocation. Because of the terminating dates they lose their quota in moving, for example, 2CW Durum wheat. They can lose their quota because the boxcars have not been allocated.
As this may be the second last day of this Parliament, I hope the ministers involved will give serious consideration to the extension of quotas, particularly in situations where the farmers are unable to meet their quotas because of boxcar allocations. Further, representatives of the Wheat Board stated before the newly-formed Senate committee on agriculture, of which the former member for Assiniboia is chairman, that they would take the question of the extension of the quotas into consideration. I hope they will do so, having given this undertaking.
There are other aspects which must concern us in relation to the movement of western grain. For example, there are the experiments which have been going on at the inland terminals. I trust that the information forthcoming from these activities will be made available not only to western producers who, incidentally, may well be paying for these experiments indirectly through the Wheat Board, but to all Members of Parliament and to the public at large.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, a number of important and positive steps have been taken by this government to facilitate the movement of Canadian grain to market since the hon. member originally placed this question on the list for discussion at the time of adjournment several months ago. One of the questions the hon. member directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) during the question period of April 21 inquired as to the leasing by the railway companies of United States boxcars for grain handling. For the record, CNR leased 400 U.S. boxcars and CPR leased 760 at that time.
The hon. member also referred to the CNR boxcar building program. As he knows, tenders were put out for this work which will involve the construction of 700 boxcars. In addition, CN has initiated an upgrading program involving 2,800 boxcars of various types. This work is being done in CN shops in Winnipeg and Montreal. I am

sure all grain producers welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement concerning the acquisition of 2,000 more hopper cars for the Canadian fleet. I am pleased to note the hon. member's recognition of this.


Mr. Prud'homme:: He is applauding, you will notice.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: These, with average use, will carry 150 million more bushels per year. This represents an increase in carrying capacity of 20 per cent and amounts to a major federal government undertaking on behalf of Canadian grain producers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-REQUEST THAT SHERBROOKE BE DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL AREA

Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, on June 22, I asked a question to the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) in connection with the Sherbrooke area. I asked him whether Sherbrooke was going to be designated as a "special area", in view of the large number of very poor adjacent parishes located in this region.
My constituency is partly included in the Sherbrooke area; in view of the current economic situation, I urge the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to give the Sherbrooke region the status of "special area".
Since several destitute parishes in my region are within the Sherbrooke area from the point of view of the economy, I wonder whether it would not be possible to designate the city of Sherbrooke as a "special area". If not, I would like to make another suggestion to the hon. minister or to his parliamentary secretary.
Would it be possible for parishes in my riding to be detached from the Sherbrooke area? I think of the Scots-town parish which is quite destitute. There are many destitute parishes, but I take this one as an example. Formerly, a rather important industry was operating there employing 400 people. This industry has shut down and no other has been established in this municipality which is now deserted and deprived of everything. A visit there is nothing funny. It is part of the Sherbrooke area and nothing can be done for it.
I would like, if possible, that Sherbrooke become a "special area" encompassing all these municipalities, or alternatively that all parishes in the Compton riding be detached from Sherbrooke to become a "special area" since what happened to Scotstown is being repeated in many parishes in the riding.
Compton is one of the most destitute ridings of Canada. There are various places where something should be done. If we do not act, a number of municipalities would be forced to disappear.
The Lac-Megantic municipality, where I live, is quite important. With a population of 8,000, it has no industries. A few small industries can be found, some of which
July 6, 1972

operate at low speed. There are certainly great needs to be met.
The situation in the city of Coaticook where 8,000 or more people live, is also tragic. Although this municipality is a little more prosperous than Lac-Megantic, it would certainly need other advantages for its development.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to express the hope that it will be possible to consider the area in which I live and to meet my request that Sherbrooke become a designated area, or else, that the parishes of Compton be taken out of the Sherbrooke area to become a separate area, so that the population can take advantage of the act.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion-whose head is the indefatigable hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Marchand) who, as we know, spares no time or effort to try and eradicate economic disparities between regions-conducts several studies, in co-operation with the Quebec Planning and Development Board, concerning the potential for development of the Eastern Townships area.
A White Paper on development trends in the Eastern Townships area has also been prepared. This document has been prepared jointly by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Quebec Planning and Development Board, and the Regional Development Council.
However, even if studies and discussions are going well, the present "special areas" in Quebec having been designated up to June 30, 1973, the creation of a new "special area" cannot possibly be decided soon.
The hon. member will be happy to learn, however, that review of the policy and programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has been undertaken. In this review, the whole matter of designated areas will be studied very carefully by the department.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS-ALLEGED DELAY BY AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS IN RECALLING CARS WITH DEFECTIVE PARTS UNTIL WARRANTIES HAVE EXPIRED

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]ohn Burton (Regina East): Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andras) whether his department was investigating cases of large companies, particularly automobile companies, which are possibly delaying recall notices because of defective parts until warranties or a large percentage of them have expired, having the effect of reducing the cost of replacing defective parts to the companies involved.
The reason for my question is a representation by a constituent in possession of a 1967 automobile. This man found he had a defective engine-mount part and subsequently learned by Canadian Press dispatch dated December 7, 1971, that General Motors had announced that the recall involved V-8 engines only. This was in regard to GM cars. It covered 1965 through 1969 regular sized Chevrolets and Novas as well as 1967 through 1969 regular sized Camaros and certain light trucks.
I understand from this release and articles appearing in various automotive publications that the recalled vehicles must still be covered by the General Motors' warranty. I understand there may be some confusion with regard to
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
the extent to which they would be covered by the warranty. The person who contacted me informed me he received a letter on April 4, 1972, some four months after General Motors had announced it was recalling certain vehicles. That was after this person had made an inquiry of General Motors Corporation. I quote from the letter he received dated April 4, 1972:
We would take this opportunity to explain that in the very near future, a letter will be sent to the owners of all 1967 Chevrolet automobiles involved in the engine mount recall, explaining the procedures to be followed for the installation of an engine restraint device.
If the particular vehicle has exceeded the warranty limits, the inspection or replacement of any broken mounts will be the owner's expense, whereas the restraining device will be installed at no charge to the owner, regardless of time or mileage.
It seems to me this matter warrants investigation. I want to make clear I am not necessarily making charges against the automobile company involved; I am simply suggesting this is a case which warrants investigation, because it seems to me if the automobile company delays sending out recall notices it has the effect of reducing the liability of the automobile company in replacing the defective parts.
In this particular case I was informed by letter dated May 31 that this man had still not received his recall notice. That was almost six months after General Motors had issued its press release saying that these automobiles would be recalled. Thus, I think this is a matter which should be investigated by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I want to say I appreciate the response of the Minister when he said he was prepared to look into the matter. I wanted to take the time this evening to elaborate on the facts of the case.
Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Duquet) I would like to make it very clear that my answer is limited to the responsibility of automobile manufacturers where recalls are initiated.
Under section 8 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers, importers or distributors of motor vehicles are required to give notification of any defects in the construction, design or functioning of motor vehicles or their components which affect or are likely to affect the safe operation of those vehicles and of which the manufacturers, distributors or importers are aware. This notification of defects must be given to dealers and to subsequent purchasers of the motor vehicle in a prescribed manner.
While the conditions of section 8 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act are only applicable to vehicles after the act was proclaimed on January 1, 1971, manufacturers do by virtue of other legal obligations follow this practice rigidly with respect to vehicles which were produced prior to that date. Thus, the notification of safety defects or recall campaign procedure is not related to the period of warranty to the production. To the best of our knowledge, manufacturers have been accepting responsibility for the cost of correcting such defects where the problems have been related to the design or production methods and the length of warranty is not in question.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.18 p.m.
coi

Friday. July 7. 1972.