1972-04-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in the two official languages the text of an agreement between Canada and the United States of America on Great Lakes water quality, signed in Ottawa on April 15, 1972, which came into force on the same day.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Rowland: 1.	Has a decision been made to build a complete training campus for the Ministry of Transport and, if so, where will it be located?
2.	How much notice will be given to permanent staff at the present schools of the intention to move their location?
3.	Will alternative employment be offered to permanent staff at the present schools if they do not wish to change their location?
4.	If permanent employees are forced to move to the new location, what arrangements as regards removal expenses will be made?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. No.
2.	N/A
3.	N/A
4.	N/A


TENDERS FOR PURCHASE OF SPECTACLE FRAMES
Mr. Marshall: Under Department of Supply and Services News Release C-495, what tenders were submitted for Special Spectacle Frames GF-10001-1-D350?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: The AOCO Ltd. of Belleville, Ont. and the Defence Research Board have been developing these Combat
Spectacle Frames, for wear under gas masks, since 1963. As a consequence the AOCO company was the only one invited to quote on the requirement. AOCO Limited submitted a cost breakdown to support its tendered price of $18,400 for 2,200 pr. of spectacle frames and it was reviewed by the DSS and considered reasonable and acceptable based on examination of the Company's operating costs and production forecasts.


CO-ORDINATION OF INFORMATION BETWEEN MANPOWER COUNSELLORS AND UIC INTERVIEWERS
Mr. Marshall: What terms of reference are laid down by the government to co-ordinate information and assistance to the unemployed between Manpower counsellors and UIC skilled, trained interviewers?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: When unemployed workers make application for unemployment insurance benefits, they are referred to a Canada Manpower Centre if they require the services provided by the Centre and have not contacted it prior to applying for benefit. Subsequently, if the Unemployment Insurance Commission interviewers determine that claimants who have not recently contacted a Centre are in need of the services provided by the Centres, appointments are made for the claimants to be interviewed by Manpower Counsellors. Also, Canada Manpower Centres provide Unemployment Insurance Commission interviewers with current labour market information. Canada Manpower Centres and Unemployment Insurance Commission offices provide the public with pamphlets, application forms and other material dealing with the programs and services of the other organization. A committee of officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower and Immigration has recently been established to investigate further means of co-ordination between the two organizations to provide greater assistance to the unemployed.


PEI-PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Did the Dominion Bureau of Statistics report that at the end of September 1971, the number of persons employed by the Prince Edward Island Government was 4,366?
2.	Was this figure later amended and, if so, what was the revised figure?
3.	If an error occurred, how and by whom was it brought to the attention of Statistics Canada?
4.	What other examples of errors in statistics on provincial government employment have been made by Statistics Canada or the Dominion Bureau of Statistics Canada in the past ten years?

April 17, 1972
Questions
5.	If such an error was made in the Prince Edward Island figures, was the reason for same investigated and, if so (a) by whom (b) with what result?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. Yes.
2.	The Province of Prince Edward Island was informed of the revised figure. The next issue of the publication concerned, "Provincial Government Employment", (published quarterly), scheduled for release in the latter part of March 1972 (covering the 4th quarter of 1971) will show the revised data for the end of September 1971.
The revised figure is 3,620.
3.	Analysis of the data at Statistics Canada brought the error to light, and also, the Prince Edward Island Civil Service Commission brought it to the attention of Statistics Canada.
4.	Statistics Canada is not aware of any other errors which may have occurred in the past ten years in its statistics on provincial government employment.
5.	(a) Yes. The Government's Division of Statistics Canada investigated, (b) Additional editing checks of employment data have been instituted prior to publication of data by Statistics Canada.


NUMBER OF PERSONS IN RECEIPT OF OLD AGE SECURITY PAYMENTS AND GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): (Supplementary)
1.	How many persons in Canada, by provinces, are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension?
2.	Of the recipients of the Old Age Security pension, how many persons in Canada, by provinces, are in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
3.	Of those receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, how many persons in Canada, by provinces are receiving the full amount?
4.	What is the average amount, in Canada, and by provinces, being received as a Guaranteed Income Supplement by recipients of the Old Age Security pension?
5.	Do the answers to the above questions take into consideration persons living outside of Canada who are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension and, if so, how many of such persons are there, and if they are considered as belonging to the various provinces what is the number for each province?


Hon. lohn C. Munro (Minister oi National Health and Welfare):: 1. Newfoundland, 32,692; Prince Edward Island, 12,363; Nova Scotia, 72,932; New Brunswick, 54,797; Quebec, 420,153; Ontario, 646,485; Manitoba, 96,937; Saskatchewan, 94,984; Alberta, 118,655; British Columbia, 205,190; Northwest Territ., 848; Yukon, 512. National, 1,756,548.
2.	Newfoundland, 27,471; Prince Edward Island, 9,502; Nova Scotia, 48,854; New Brunswick, 37,001; Quebec, 258,614; Ontario, 305,093; Manitoba, 57,321; Saskatchewan, 56,715; Alberta, 69,186; British Columbia, 107,255; Northwest Territ., 742; Yukon, 314. National, 978,068.
3.	Newfoundland, 19,769; Prince Edward Island, 5,114; Nova Scotia, 26,926; New Brunswick, 21,205; Quebec, 147,795; Ontario, 128,662; Manitoba, 26,417; Saskatchewan,

25,926; Alberta, 33,122; British Columbia, 48,605; Northwest Territ., 631; Yukon, 222. National, 484,394.
4.	Newfoundland, $49; Prince Edward Island, $46; Nova Scotia, $47; New Brunswick, $45; Quebec, $47; Ontario, $42; Manitoba, $44; Saskatchewan, $43; Alberta, $45; British Columbia, $43; Northwest Territories, $55; Yukon, $55; National, $44. N.B.-The figures above are given on a monthly basis.
5.	Yes. As of December 31, 1971, the latest month for which figures are available, there were 44,841 persons in receipt of the Old Age Security pension outside of Canada. Some of these pensioners would be absent temporarily, and others on a permanent basis. Some might be receiving a Guaranteed Income Supplement, which is payable for the first six months of absence following departure from Canada, but no figures are available. The breakdown by province of last residence is as follows: Newfoundland, 114; Prince Edward Island, 90; Nova Scotia, 420; New Brunswick, 501; Quebec, 3,516; Ontario, 6,228; Manitoba, 699; Saskatchewan, 617; Alberta, 766; British Columbia, 2,806; Northwest Territories, 2; Yukon, 7. National, 15,766. N.B.-The figures above are as of December 1971.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-NUMBER OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES IN RECEIPT OF PENSIONS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of a pension of $25 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of a pension of $25.01 to $29.99 per month (b) $30 to $39.99 per month (c) $40 to $49.99 per month (d) $50 to $59.99 per month (e) $60 to $69.99 per month (f) $70 to $79.99 per month (g) $80 to $89.99 per month (h) $90 to $99.99 per month (i) $100 to $124.99 per month (j) $125 to $149.99 per month (k) $150 to $199.99 per month (1) $200 to $299.99 per month (m) $300 per month and over?
Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: The information shown being as of Decembpr 31, 1971. 1. Number of pensioners receiving less than $25 a month, 281.
2.	Number of pensioners receiving $25 a month, 248.
3.	Number of pensioners in receipt of pensions of: (a) $25.01 to $29.99 a month, 195; (b) $30 to $39.99 a month, 421; (c) $40 to $49.99 a month, 663; (d) $50 to $59.99 a month, 2,303; (e) $60 to $69.99 a month, 858; (f) $70 to $79.99 a month, 691; (g) $80 to $89.99 a month 627; (h) $90 to $99.99 a month 638;(i) $100 to $124.99 a month 1,799; (j) $125 to $149.99 a month, 1,886; (k) $150 to $174.99 a month, 2,033; (1) $175 to $199.99 a month 1,912; (m) $200 to $299.99 a month, 6,441; (n) $300 and over, 5,093. In a number of cases the amounts of pensions paid by Canadian National Railways do not represent the total pensions payable to employees for railway service. Pensions payable by the CNR to international employees (service in both Canada and the United States) relate to their service in Canada only. Such employees also receive annuities payable under the U.S. Railroad Retirement Act or the Social Security Act for service performed in the United States. For example, in the group receiving pensions of under $25
April 17, 1972

from the CNR, there are 31 former international employees who also receive U.S. Railroad Retirement or Social Security annuities in respect of CNR service rendered in the United States. The balance of this group consists of employees who elected early retirement (before age 65) with reduced basic ($25) pensions, and employees who had very short service and small contributions.


ATLANTIC REGION FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr, Coates: Did the Federal-Provincial Committee on Atlantic Transportation make a recommendation on May 6, 1970, to the effect that special regulations be made to establish and provide for the payment of special transportation and distribution assistance to shippers and consignees under Section 6 of the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act and, if so, have such regulations been produced and, if so, when and what has been the total amount of assistance provided to shippers and consignees under these regulations to date?


Gérard Duquet: The Federal-Provincial Committee on Atlantic Transportation made a recommendation on May 6, 1970, to the effect that regulations be made to provide special transportation assistance to users under the terms of Section 6 of the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act. Order-in-Council P.C. 1970-2015 of November 17, 1970, provided for extra subsidies to common carrier truckers.


GOVERNMENT TRADE OFFICES AND MISSIONS
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	In each of the years 1968 to 1971, were any government trade offices or missions closed and, if so (a) in which countries (b) for what reason were such offices closed?
2.	Were any government trade offices or missions opened since 1968 and, if so (a) in which countries (b) for what reason?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: 1. (a) 1968, Nil. 1969, (i) Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic; (ii) Liverpool, England. 1970, (iii) Montevideo, Uruguay; (iv) Accra, Ghana. 1971, Nil. (b) (i) Transfer of coverage to San Juan, Puerto Rico; (ii) Transfer of coverage to London, England; (iii) Closing of Canadian Embassy; (iv) Transfer of coverage to Lagos, Nigeria.
2.	(a) 1968, (i) Seattle, U.S.A. 1969, (ii) San Juan, Puerto Rico; (iii) Ankara, Turkey; (iv) Bangkok, Thailand; (v) Djakarta, Indonesia. 1970, (vi) Buffalo, U.S.A.; (vii) Minneapolis, U.S.A.; (viii) Abidjan, Ivory Coast; (ix) Warsaw, Poland. 1971, (x) Peking, People's Republic of China; (xi) Algiers, Algeria; (xii) San Jose, Costa Rica;
2.	(b) (i) To enhance coverage in the northwest area of the U.S.A.; (ii) To capitalize on import growth prospects in Puerto Rico; (iii) To provide direct service to exporters to Turkey; (iv) To enhance commercial coverage in Thailand and surrounding countries; (v) To promote Canadian participation in growth of imports in Indonesia; (vi) To provide more extensive coverage at a major distribution point within the United States; (vii) To improve an extensive coverage of a prime marketing area within the United States; (viii) To provide a base for promotion of exports to French speaking West Africa; (ix) To enhance commercial
Questions
representation in Eastern Europe; (x) To monitor import requirements and represent Canadian export interests following recognition of the Government of the People's Republic of China; (xi) To capitalize on growth of imports into Algeria; (xii) To expand trade promotion coverage in Central America.


BUTTER IMPORTS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did Canada import any butter from April 1, 1970 to March 31, 1971 and, if so (a) from what countries (b) in what quantities (c) at what prices?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Statistics Canada reports that: Imports of butter into Canada from April 1, 1970 to March 31, 1971:
(a) From:	(b) Quantities:	(c) Average Price
(pounds) per Pound: ($)
Belgium-
Luxembourg	1,911,500	.23New Zealand	26,400	.34


PEI DEVELOPMENT PLAN-GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES ON JOINT ADVISORY BOARD
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Since the establishment of the Prince Edward Island Development Plan, who have been the representatives of the Government of Canada on the Joint Advisory Board?
2.	In each case (a) what position does he hold in the Public Service of Canada (b) what has been his length of service (c) what previous positions has he held (d) what are his qualifications?
3.	How many meetings of the Joint Advisory Board have been held?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1 and 2. (a) (b) and (c). The following have been or are the representatives of the Government of Canada on the Joint Advisory Board under the Prince Edward Island Development Plan: Mr. Tom Kent, former Deputy Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, now President of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, March 7, 1969-August 31, 1971; Mr. J. D. Love, Deputy Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, since Sept. 1, 1971; Mr. S. B. Williams, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, since March 7, 1969; Mr. T. K. Shoyama, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Finance, since March 7, 1969; Dr. W. R. Dymond, former Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Manpower and Immigration, now on staff at the University of Ottawa, March 7, 1969-December 12, 1969; Mr. R. J. Grenier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Manpower and Immigration, since December 12, 1969; Dr. E. P. Weeks, former Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Regional Economic Expansion, now Chairman of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, March 7, 1969-March 31, 1970; Mr. J. C. Morrison, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Regional Economic Expansion, since September 1, 1971; Mr. Garnet T. Page, Director-

April 17, 1972
Questions
General of Implementation Services, Department of Regional Economic Expansion, March 7, 1969-August 31, 1971.
2.	(d) All federal members of the Joint Advisory Board were appointed because of the senior positions they occupied in Departments having a direct interest in the implementation of the Development Plan.
3.	The Board has held seven meetings.


WOOD ISLAND-CARIBOU FERRY SERVICE
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	In each of the past ten years, what has been the number of trucks, automobiles, foot passengers carried by the Wood's Island-Caribou Ferry Service?
2.	What has been the total contribution by the government to this service in each year?
3.	What is the date of the launching of the new ferry?
4.	What is the estimated cost of the new ferry?
5.	When is it expected that this ship will be in operation?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission reports as follows:
Year	Passengers Automobiles	Trucks1962	165,028	48,550	10,2761963	178,916	55,874	10,4001964	223,348	70,568	11,9181965	229,448	73,161	12,4121966	248,931	79,403	15,2701967	252,679	79,761	15,4741968	303,012	94,208	21,2171969	324,046	95,671	28,1781970	348,143	102,077	31,3561971	360,229	103,027	32,253Year	Subsidy	1962	617,000	1963	620,998	1964	748,882	1965	816,320	1966	830,960	1967	822,621	1968	854,916	1969	1,039,994	1970	1,070,000	1971	1,000,000	
The Department of Transport advises as follows:
3.	December 6, 1971.
4.	$4,734,051.18.
5.	The anticipated date is September, 1972.


ACCOMMODATION FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. McBride: 1.	Does the government intend to take immediate steps to provide Members of Parliament with sufficient office space to perform their essential responsibilities and, if so, will the government make available such space on Parliament Hill?

2.	If no adequate space is presently available on Parliament Hill, will the government make adequate office space available to Members of Parliament, on a voluntary basis, off Parliament Hill?


Hon.   Iean-Eude@: 1.
Steps have been taken to produce a solution to this problem but all of the space required cannot be made available on Parliament Hill.
2.	Yes. The Government is endeavouring to make available on a voluntary basis, suitable space in nearby Crown-owned accommodation.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-RESERVE HOUSING PROGRAM
Mr. Barnett: 1.	In the British Columbia-Yukon region of the administration of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for each of the two most recent fiscal years, in respect to the off-reserve housing program (a) how many applications were received (b) how many applications were approved (c) were any such applications rejected because of the lack of available funds?
2.	In the same region, in respect to the on-reserve housing program, other than "welfare houses" (a) how many applications were received (b) how many applications were approved (c) were any applications rejected because of the lack of available funds and, if so, how many?
3.	Of the applications approved, what was the amount of each grant and what was the income level of each applicant to whom a grant was made?


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1969-70	1970-71
(a)	62	70(b)	50	60(c)	No	No(a)	7	12(b)	5	9(c)	No	No3.	Amounts of grants varied between the amounts of $12,265 to $23,835 and income level ranged between $3,570 to $14,600 per year.


TRAINING OF BRITISH SOLDIERS IN CANADA FOR FIGHTING IN IRELAND
Mr. Caouette: Does the Canadian government intend to allow or does it allow British soldiers to train in Canada for later fighting in Ireland and, if so, in what manner does the government consider it possible to remain neutral in the conflict between the United Kingdom and Ireland?


Mitchell William Sharp: Members of the British Armed Forces have trained in Canada on a relatively small scale for the past ten years. In August 1971, an Agreement was signed between the Governments of Canada and of the United Kingdom covering this existing training and providing for increased use of Canadian military training facilities by British soldiers. Under the terms of the Agreement, Brit-
April 17, 1972

ish training in Canada will involve a range of activities from flying instruction to training in the use of tank guns, artillery and anti-tank weapons. This training is carried out by the British forces within the context of their NATO obligations, and is not designed to enhance their capabilities in support of the civilian authority in Northern Ireland. The Canadian Government has, of course, no control over the subsequent assignment of these or any other British forces outside Canada. This program of training should be viewed in the context of Canadian and British membership in NATO as a part of a long-standing tradition of bilateral co-operation in the defence field.


CFB SUMMERSIDE, PEI-TENDERS FOR INSTALLATION OF FURNACES
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Were tenders called for the installation of warm air furnaces in the permanent married quarters at CFB Summerside and, if so (a) how were tender notices circulated (b) how many tenders were received (c) what are the names of the tenderers (d) what was the amount of each tender?
2.	To whom was the contract for installation awarded and at what price?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Yes (a) tenders were invited from all firms in the area known to be in a position to carry out the work. Nine firms were invited; (b) three tenders were received; (c) and (d) Johnston's Limited, Summerside, $15,750; D. B. & J. (1971 Inc.) Charlottetown, $23,700; F. Everett Cameron, Summerside, $15,551.50.
2. Contract for $15,551.50 awarded to the lowest tenderer, F. Everett Cameron.


LOUISBURG, N.S.-PROPOSED AERODROME SITE
Mr. Forrestall: Has a proposal been made to the government that a small private aerodrome be built in the area near Louisburg, Nova Scotia, to serve industry and to attract tourists who fly their own light aircraft and, if so, what steps will the Minister of Transport take to ensure that all licensing criteria and zoning requirements are met?


Gérard Duquet: No formal proposal has been made to the Department of Transport that a private aerodrome be built near Louisburg. Interest in such a scheme has been expressed to the Department of Transport by the Louisburg District Planning and Development Commission and by the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association. Regional officials of the Transport Department are providing technical assistance in this matter. If or when a formal proposal is received, the Transport Department will inspect the site and advise the applicant if all licensing criteria and zoning requirements would be able to be met.


STRONTIUM-90 LEVEL IN MILK
Mr. Forrestall: By region in Canada, what was the strontium 90 level at the end of (a) January 1969 (b) January 1970 (c) January 1971?
Questions


John Carr Munro: The strontium-90 levels, in picocuries per litre of milk are as follows:
(a) January (b) January (c) January
1969	1970	1971British Columbia	11.7	8.0	7.2Prairies Provinces	7.3	8.2	6.6Ontario	9.8	7.4	8.0Quebec	10.0	8.1	8.4Maritime Provinces	12.0	10.7	9.7Newfoundland	14.7	16.0	11.8


REDUCED LANDING FEES AT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With respect to the reply to Question No. 132 at page 1277 of Hansard dated November 18, 1970, is the government in a position to indicate the results of the program to determine whether reduced landing fees at international airports would attract transoceanic flights for technical stop purposes?
2.	Did the results of this program indicate the possibility of including the Halifax International Airport on a trial basis or a permanent basis?


Gérard Duquet: 1. The program of reduced landing fees for technical stop purposes to attract trans-oceanic flights to Canada achieved its objectives at Gander International Airport only.
2. The results of the program indicate little potential for extending the program at this time to Halifax International Airport or any other international airport.


NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many full-time employees were on the payroll of the Department of Manpower and Immigration (excluding those engaged in immigration activities), as of April 1, 1966 and April 1, 1971, separately for Ottawa headquarters and elsewhere?
2.	How many full-time employees were on the payroll of the National Employment Service as of April 1, 1964, separately for Ottawa headquarters and elsewhere?


Raymond J. Perrault: 1. April 1, 1966-Ottawa Headquarters, 563; Field Staff, 5,088; April 1, 1971- Ottawa Headquarters, 953; Field Staff 5,947. It should be pointed out that comparisons between these two time periods may be misleading. Organizational changes took place between 1966 and 1971 which resulted in many positions, related to immigration activities, being transferred elsewhere in the Department. For example, in 1968 130 positions comprising the Immigration registry and stenographic pool were transferred to Departmental Administration.
2. It is not possible for this Department from records available to answer this part of the question. In 1964, the staff of the National Employment Service were associated with those administering the Unemployment Insurance Act and provided from Vote 30 of the Department of Labour.
1336

April 17, 1972
Questions


PEI-FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO CONSTRUCTION OF STARCH FACTORY
Mr. MacQuarrie: 1.	Have any requests been made to the Government of Canada for financial assistance in the construction of a starch factory in Prince Edward Island and, if so, what has been the response?
2.	Is the Government of Canada assisting in any way in any plans to erect starch factories in the Maritime Provinces as an aid to the potato industry?


Mr. I. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as follows: 1. No.
2. Not at the present time.


NORTHUMBERLAND FERRY SERVICE-ALTERNATIVE LOADING DOCK AT CARIBOU, N.S.
Mr. MacLean: What action, if any, is the Department of Transport taking to provide an alternative loading dock at Caribou, Nova Scotia, for the Northeumberland Ferry service?


Gérard Duquet: At this time, the Department of Transport is not considering any alternative loading dock at Caribou, Nova Scotia, for the Northumberland Ferry Service. However, an additional facility including a wharf is being built at Caribou for the fishing vessels and pleasure craft that previously used the ferry dock. This will leave the present loading dock for the use of the Northumberland Ferry Service.


DUTIES OF G. W. DOUCET, PARIS, FRANCE
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What are the duties of G. W. Doucet while in Paris with the Commodity, Trade Policy Branch of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?
2.	What agricultural background, with particular reference to production, has he?
3.	What is his salary?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: 1. Mr. Doucet has been seconded from the Commodity Trade Policy Branch of the Department to the Trade Commissioner Service while he is Paris. His duties, therefore are essentially those of a Trade Commissioner and involve the promotion of Canadian agricultural exports in France and reporting on French agricultural developments. In addition, because of his knowledge and experience in agricultural trade policy within the Department, he is also engaged in agricultural trade policy issues arising between Canada and France as well as those relating to the role of France within the European Economic Community.
2.	Mr. Doucet has spent several years in the Agriculture Division, Commodity Trade Policy Branch of the Department. During this period, he has dealt with a wide range of problems relating to both domestic and international agricultural policy. Through this work he has familiarized himself with the production and marketing problems and potential of Canadian agriculture.
3.	The salary range is $13,434 to $15,725.


TRANS-CANADA COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What consideration is being given by the government to develop a Trans-Canada Computer Communications Network?
2.	What kind of measures will the government take to assure that the trunk computer communications network will be entirely Canadian owned and controlled?
3.	What immediate steps are being considered by the government to prevent future takeovers by foreign companies in the computer/communications field?
4.	To date, has the government given research and development grants to (a) Consolidated Computer Ltd. (b) IBM Canada Ltd. (c) Control Data Canada Ltd. (d) Univac Division Sperry Rand Corp. and, if so, what amount in each case?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Communications and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. The Government through the Computer/Communications Task Force has a comprehensive set of studies currently underway.. These studies are aimed at the orderly, rational and efficient development of the computer utilities concept in a Canadian setting. (The term "Trans-Canada Computer Communications Network" used by the Science Council in their recent report is an appropriate description for one aspect of what eventually could become an integrated network of Canadian computer utilities.) The final report of this Task Force containing its detailed recommendations is expected by the Government by the end of March 1972, at which point the Government will give it consideration.
2.	The report of the Computer/Communications Task Force will contain detailed recommendations concerning the necessity for, and appropriate measures to ensure Canadian ownership and control of the Canadian Com-puter/Communications Network.
3.	Pending the receipt of the Computer/Communica-tions Task Force's report, no special steps are currently planned in the field of computer communications to prevent takeovers by foreign companies in this area.
4.	As of April 4, 1972, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has given research and development grants under the PAIT Program to: (a) Consolidated Computer Limited, $929,940; (c) Control Data Canada Limited, $6,624,833. No research and development grants have been provided under the PAIT Program to: (b) IBM Canada Limited; (d) Univac Division-Sperry Rand Corporation. Section 13 of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act prohibits the divulgence of information concerning any corporation.


CLOSING OF CANADIAN FORCES BASES
Mr. Stewart (Marquette): 1.	What criteria or formula are used by the government in determining its base consolidation policy?
2.	What is the final formula used in closing Canadian Forces Bases?
3.	Is it part of the procedure, prior to making the final decision, to consult with both municipal and provincial authorities in the immediate, affected localities?
April 17, 1972

4.	Does the government consider that defence spending is an effective way of maintaining economic stability, particularly in designated areas of Canada?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Regional Economic Expansion as follows: 1. Many factors are taken into consideration in determining base consolidation policy. Some of these are changes in military commitments and international agreements, changes in weapons, availability of resources, reduction in force levels, as well as condition of real property and economy of base operation.
2.	When it has been decided that a base should be vacated, a public announcement is made approximately one year in advance of the closure. Operational units are moved to new locations when facilities are available, and military and civilian staffs prepare the base for disposal. If the property is to be declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, the Corporation is alerted to the basic plan. If the base is not disposed of by the closure date, the facilities are placed on a "caretaker status" and a rear party is charged with its security and care after that date. As base activities run down, military personnel excess to requirements are posted to vacancies at other bases and civilian personnel are offered vacancies, if available, elsewhere in the Public Service; and Canada Manpower Centres and the Department of Manpower and Immigration provide assistance for those who do not remain in the public service.
3.	Local municipal and provincial officials are advised of the decision before the public announcement is made.
4.	Yes, provided the primary purposes of the spending are not jeopardized. Defence spending, like other forms of expenditure can, in principle, be used to help maintain economic stability.


UNITED NATIONS VOTING
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Is there a deadline for submissions to the Secretary-General of the United Nations regarding alternative voting schemes and, if so, what is it?
2.	Does the government have any information as to the length of time required for research to determine how alternative voting schemes would affect the results of votes in the General Assembly?
3.	Will the federal government advise if research will be carried out to determine the influence Canada would have under an alternative voting scheme and, if so (a) who will carry out the research (b) when will it be commenced?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. During the 25th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, a resolution was passed which requested the Secretary-General to invite Member States to communicate to him, before July 1, 1971, their views and suggestions on the review of the Charter of the United Nations. There was no request for submission of specific proposals concerning Charter review.
2. Because of the great number of factors which could be taken into account in any alternate voting scheme, and the diversity of the United Nations membership, an indefinite length of time would be required for research to
Questions
determine how such schemes would affect the results of votes in the General Assembly.
3. Alternate voting schemes have been examined by some scholars and institutions interested in suggesting changes in UN voting methods. At present the Government has no plans for additional research in this area.


UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
Mr. Robinson: Has the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution calling on member nations to submit proposals for revision of the United Nations Charter and, if so, will the federal government consider the advisability of making representations to the effect that voting not be based on the one-nation one-vote idea, but rather on the basis of (a) population (b) national wealth (c) standard of living (d) literacy, or some other criteria or combination of these factors?


Mitchell William Sharp: On December 11, 1970 the United Nations, with Canada casting an assenting vote, passed Resolution 2697 entitled "Need to consider suggestions regarding review of the Charter of the UN." This resolution requested Member States to communicate suggestions on the review of the UN Charter. The Government plans to submit a reply to the Secretary-General, but has not yet decided whether or not comments on an alternative voting scheme will be part of that reply.



Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider the advisability of sponsoring a resolution proposing the revision of the United Nations Charter so that the U.N. response to aggression will be automatic and not the subject of delay through prolonged debate?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government is not considering sponsoring such a resolution. The UN Special Committee on Defining Aggression has had its mandate extended for a fifth time but an agreement among member states on a definition of aggression does not appear to be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. Until such a definition can be agreed upon it is doubtful if any revision of the UN Charter in this area would be acceptable to the majority of members.


LIBRARY CENTRES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many Library Centres has Canada throughout the world for cultural exchange and how many additional Library Centres are contemplated?
2.	How many Library Centres do other nations have in Canada and where is each located?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Canada has two library centres abroad, one in Mexico City and one in Paris. All Canadian Embassies and High Commissions have libraries of Canadian books, which in most cases are available to the public for consultation. The Embassy in Washington and the High Commission in London maintain large libraries from which
25104-26+

April 17, 1972
Questions
books may be borrowed. No additional library centres are being considered at the present time.
2. The United States Information Service maintains an Information Centre with a library in Ottawa. The Goethe Institute, which is supported by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, maintains cultural centres in Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto. The Alliance Frangaise, which receives support from the Government of France, has 23 branches in Canada, which all have libraries. Embassies and High Commissions of many other countries in Ottawa have reading rooms in their chancery premises open to the general public.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY FROM MONTMAGNY TO NEW BRUNSWICK BORDER
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): During the fiscal year 1971-72, did the federal government give financial aid for the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway from Montmagny, Quebec to the New Brunswick border and, if so, under what agreement and in what amount?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Yes. Under the terms of the Trans-Canada Highway Agreement whereby payment of accounts for work completed to December 31, 1970, could be claimed, subject to audit, until May 31, 1971. The amount to date during the 19711972 fiscal year is $7,506.82.


FAMILY INCOME DISTRIBUTION
Mr. Orlikow: In the years 1957 and 1967, what percentage of the total money income was received by the (a) lowest one-fifth (b) second lowest fifth (c) third lowest fifth (d) fourth lowest fifth (e) highest fifth of all family units?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Statistics Canada reports that: If all families and unattached individuals are ranked by the size of their money income and divided into 5 groups of equal number or quintiles, the share of money income received by each one fifth of family units was estimated to be as follows:
	1957	1967*
Lowest quintile	4.2%	4.2%Second quintile	11.9%	11.4%Middle quintile	18.0%	17.8%Fourth quintile	24.5%	24.6%Highest quintile	41.4%	42.0%
Includes farm families who were excluded in the 1957 estimates; their inclusion affects the figures only to the extent of lowering the share of income going to the lower fifths by a few tenths of a percentage point and raising the share of income of the top fifth by thp same figure. It is estimated that if the figures had been completely comparable, the distribution would have been substantially the same.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
Mr. Hellyer: How many persons were drawing Unemployment Insurance benefits as of January 31,1972?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Statistics Canada reports that: Information as requested is not available. However, on January 31, 1972 there were 826,996 claimants registered for unemployment insurance benefits.


INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How long has Canada been a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization and what are the obligations of membership?
2.	How many countries belong to the International Civil Aviation Organization and are individual countries bound by the recommendations of the majority of the membership?
3.	Has the ICAO made any recommendations about skyjacking and, if so, what are they?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The International Civil Aviation Organization, located in Montreal, was created by the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention of 1944) which was signed by Canada on December 7, 1944. ICAO officially came into existence on April 4, 1947, with Canada as a charter member. The aims and objectives of ICAO are to develop the principles and techniques of international air navigation and to foster the planning and development of international air transport so as to: (a) ensure the safe and orderly growth of international civil aviation throughout the world; (b) encourage the arts of aircraft design and operation for peaceful purposes; (c) encourage the development of airways, airports and air navigation facilities for international civil aviation; (d) meet the needs of the peoples of the world for safe, regular, efficient and economical air transport; (e) prevent economic waste caused by unreasonable competition; (f) ensure that the rights of contracting states are fully respected and that every contracting state has a fair opportunity to operate international airlines; (g) avoid discrimination between contracting states; (h) promote safety of flight in international air navigation; (i) promote generally the development of all aspects of international civil aeronautics.
Membership in ICAO obligates states to comply with the provisions of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Members are also obliged to finance the operation of the Organization through annual assessments; Canada's 1972 assessment is $US278,959.29. Canada, as host government, also underwrites a substantial part of the costs of the space rented for the ICAO Headquarters Building. ICAO has decided to move into new premises in Montreal in late 1973 or early 1974 and the Canadian Government has agreed to make an annual grant of $1.1 million towards the cost of renting this building.
2. One hundred and twenty-two countries are members of ICAO.
There is no mechanism for ensuring that member states adhere to the recommendations of the ICAO Assembly

April 17, 1972

(all member states) or the ICAO Council (27 member states). Last April the United States of America and Canada co-sponsored a draft convention providing for the enforcement of international legal obligations relating to unlawful interference with civil aviation but the ICAO Assembly transferred this proposal to its inactive list of subjects because of opposition from a number of member states.
3. ICAO has been actively involved with the question of skyjacking and other related matters affecting the safety of international civil aviation for some time. Under ICAO auspices the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft was signed in Tokyo on September 14, 1963. Canada ratified this convention on November 7, 1969. The Convention came into effect on December 4, 1969.
The Seventeenth Session (Extraordinary) of the ICAO Assembly, held in Montreal from July 16 to 30, 1970, had for its agenda the single item calling for the "development of adequate security specifications and practices, for application by ICAO States in international civil aviation, aimed at the protection of air passengers, civil aviation personnel and civil aircraft by (a) preventing criminal action of any kind that may endanger the safety of air transport and (b) consideration of arrangements under which those responsible for criminal actions endangering civil air transport can be brought to justice." Two Diplomatic Conferences on matters related to skyjacking followed which resulted in: (a) the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft signed at The Hague on December 16, 1970; (b) the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971. Canada will ratify The Hague and Montreal Conventions as soon as Parliament approves the necessary amendments to the Criminal Code tabled recently in the House of Commons. Neither of these conventions have beeen ratified by the required number of countries to have it come into effect.
The ICAO Council has also set up a Committee on Unlawful Interference with International Civil Aviation and its Facilities to deal with problems of (1) unalwful seizure of aircraft and (2) sabotage or armed attack directed against aircraft used in international air transport or ground facilities used by international air transport. Canada is not a member of this committee.


MARKET DEVELOPMENT OF GRAINS AND OILSEEDS
Mr. Robinson: What increase in sales of grains and oilseeds is anticipated as a result of the new federal financial incentives program during 1972-73?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister Responsible ior Canadian Wheat Board):: The new Federal Market Development Program for Grains and Oilseeds, of which financial assistance to the private sector of the grains industry is a major element, has the twofold aim of maintaining the level of Canadian sales in present markets as well as locating and developing new opportunities in areas where our commercial sales can be increased.
Questions
Activities are being concentrated on those markets in which we believe prospects are best for establishing a solid commercial footing. Because the central thrust of the program is to assist private firms, associations and similar entities to identify and develop viable commercial market opportunities, the increase in sales resulting from the program will be the cumulative total of the results of all the individual projects. Until more experience is gained in the execution of such projects it is not possible to anticipate with any precision what that total will be during 1972-73.
Although in a limited number of cases the impact of projects may be indirect and therefore difficult to measure in terms of increased sales, in most instances the sponsors of projects are required to show convincing evidence that support of their project will yield a very high ratio of benefit (i.e. a sustained increase in Canadian grains and oilseeds sales) in relation to cost.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO CARRY OUT PROGRAM CONCERNING HARD-CORE WELFARE RECIPIENTS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Will the government consider the advisability of providing municipalities with support funds to carry out a program regarding hard-core welfare recipients who have previously been rejected from employment and are considered unemployable?
2.	Will the government consider the advisability of providing incentives to welfare recipients to become gainfully employed?


John Carr Munro: 1. Under Part III of the Canada Assistance Plan, the federal government will share in the cost to provinces and municipalities of undertaking work activity programs to prepare for the entry or the return to employment of persons in need or persons likely to become persons in need who, because of environmental, personal or family reasons, have unusual difficulty in obtaining or retaining employment or in improving, through technical, vocational or rehabilitation programs, their ability to obtain or retain employment.
2. Provincial legislation defines the levels of income and assets permitted welfare recipients, and the trend is to provide larger earning exemptions for recipients who work.


METRIC SYSTEM
Mr. Robinson: Will the government advise if the program for introduction of the metric system will be co-ordinated with that of other countries embarking on the same system and in particular with that of the United States?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Metric Commission is keeping in close touch with the developments in the United States and other countries in regard to the adoption of metric standards and measurements and is studying the extent to which programs of conversion in individual industries will require to be co-ordinated with similar programs in the United States.

April 17, 1972
Questions


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO PROVIDE LANGUAGE TRAINING OTHER THAN FRENCH AND ENGLISH
Mr. Robinson: Under the multicultural policy, will the government allot funds to provide language training in languages other than French and English?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary oi State):: Not at present. This matter is under investigation in a study of a Culture Development Program referred to in the document tabled in the House by the Prime Minister on October 8, 1971, and is being discussed with provincial governments.


EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT ACT
Mr. Robinson: Under the Employment Support Act (a) how many applications were made (b) how many were accepted (c) how much money was paid (d) how many jobs were affected and received support?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: As of March 10, 1972: (a) 1,021 applications were received by the Employment Support Board; (b) 710 applications were approved; (c) total amount approved: $10,025,728; (d) the number of jobs directly supported by the above grants, 20,055.


COMPULSORY ARBITRATION FOR DISPUTES IN ESSENTIAL SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of providing compulsory arbitration for disputes in essential services?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Compulsory arbitration for disputes in essential services would require an amendment to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The Government has undertaken a review of that Act, but it has not been decided yet what amendments, if any, will be presented to Parliament for approval.


FOREIGN COINAGE MINTED IN CANADA
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Do any foreign countries have their coinage minted in Canada and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the value to Canada of such minting (c) were the services paid for in the coinage of the realm requiring them?
2.	Is all such minting carried out by the Royal Canadian Mint or does private enterprise provide any minting facilities for foreign countries?


James Armstrong Richardson: In so far as the Royal Canadian Mint is concerned: 1. (a) In 1970, the Mint produced 20 million 10-cent coin blanks for the Singapore Mint. It also obtained a two-year contract with Brazil for the production of approximately 175 million 50 centavo coin blanks. This contract will be completed in May, 1972.
In 1971, the Mint struck 2.5 million 1 Kroma coins for Iceland and 2 million 5 fils coins for Yemen.

In 1972, the Royal Canadian Mint is striking the $10 silver and the $20 gold commemorative coins for Jamaica, (b) Income to Mint: Singapore, $43,550; Brazil, $3,930,000 (approximately); Yemen, $18,705; Iceland, $22,750; Jamaica, $600,000 (estimated), (c) Payment required in Canadian or U.S. funds.
2. Private mints may strike foreign coins.


CFB, SUMMERSIDE, PEI-INSTALLATION OF COUNTER TOPS AND SINKS
Mr. McQuaid: Were tenders recently called for the installation of counter tops and sinks at the Canadian Forces Base at Summerside, Prince Edward Island and, if so (a) how many tenders were received (b) from whom were they received (c) what was the amount of each tender (d) to whom was the contract awarded (e) in what manner were the tender calls advertised?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes. (a) Three, (b) and (c) Provincial Enterprises Inc., Summerside, $15,852; Northumberland Construction Ltd., Abram's Village, P.E.I., $13,465; Sherman Construction Co., Summerside, $10,394. (d) Contract awarded to the lowest tenderer, Sherman Construction Co. on February 28, 1972. (e) Tenders were invited from all nine firms in the area which were considered to be in a position to carry out the work required.


PURCHASE OF CORRECTION FLUID
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	For the period February 1 to 15, were any contracts awarded for the sale of correction fluid to any departments and, if so (a) were tenders called prior to the awarding of such contracts and, if so (i) how many tenders were submitted (ii) what was the amount of each tender (iii) in what way were they advertised (b) to whom was the contract awarded (c) how many gallons of correction fluid were involved?
2.	When was the last contract awarded for the supplying of correction fluid, what was the amount of the contract and how many gallons of fluid were involved?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Yes. (a) Yes. (i) Three; (ii) $29,970; $30,520 and $31,199; (iii) Tenders were invited from all firms considered to be in a position to supply, (b) Contract awarded to the lowest bidder, Apsco Products (Canada) Ltd., Toronto on February 2, 1972. (c) The contract calls for 67,824 one ounce bottles.
2. The previous contract for 44,064 one ounce bottles of correction fluid was awarded on July 16, 1971 in the amount of $21,150 to the lowest bidder, Dixon Pencil Co., Newmarket, Ont.


PURCHASE OF BALL POINT PENS
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	For the period February 1 to 15, were any contracts awarded for the sale of ball point pens to any departments and, if so (a) were tenders called prior to the awarding of such contracts and, if so (i) how many tenders were submitted (ii) what was the amount of each tender (iii) in what way were they advertised (b) to whom was the contract awarded (c) how many ball point pens were involved?
April 17, 1972

2.	When was the last contract awarded for the supplying of ball point pens, what was the amount of the contract and how many pens were involved?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Yes. (a) Yes. (i) Three; (ii) $66,594; 69,015; 85,119; (iii) Tenders were requested from all firms considered to be in a position to supply, (b) The contract was awarded on February 3, 1972 to the lowest bidder Eagle North-Rite, Ltd., Montreal for $66,594. (c) 1,452,960 pens.
2. The previous contract for 364,320 ball point pens was awarded on June 25, 1971 in the amount of $18,216 to the lowest bidder, Venus Pencil Co. Ltd., Toronto.


GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF OVERHEAD BRIDGE AT GOLDEN, B.C.
Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): Did the government contribute towards the construction of a recently completed overhead bridge at Golden, British Columbia and, if so, in what amount?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: The Railway Transport Committee authorized the construction of two overhead bridges at Golden B.C. at the following locations: Golden Access Road, mileage 35.3 Mountain Subdivision C.P.R.-Order No. R-577 dated November 14, 1967; and, Highway No. 95, mileage 165.6 Windermere Subdivision C.P.R.-Order No. R-1277 dated January 30, 1968 and R-9066 dated June 9, 1970. A contribution from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund in the amount of $500,000 was authorized for each project. However, accounts for these projects have not been submitted and no payments have been made.


INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR FACILITIES IN OKANAGAN, EAST AND WEST KOOTENAY REGIONS
Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	How many grants were authorized under the Area Development Incentives Act for facilities in the Okanagan area of British Columbia, and what is the total amount of these grants?
2.	Under the Regional Development Incentives Act, how many grants have been authorized by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for facilities in (a) the East Kootenay (b) the West Kootenay regions?


Jean Marchand: 1. Fifty-seven; $19,244,139 total incentive.
2. (a) eight; (b) nine.


CANADA STUDENT LOANS PLAN
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many student loans have been returned to the government from chartered banks as uncollectable for each year from the inception of the Canada Student Loans Plan to March 31, 1971?
2.	For what amounts are these loans?
3.	For what reasons were they written off as uncollectable?
4.	What amount was collected by professional collection agencies and what percentage does the government pay for this professional collection service?
Questions
5.	In cases where the borrower cannot be located, what methods were used to try and locate this person?
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) 1 and 2. As of
June 30, 1971 the following number of claims, listed according to the year in which they were paid, had been submitted by chartered banks and other lenders in respect of defaulted loans:
Loan Year	No.	$(000)1965/66	7	71966/67	110	1091967/68	198	2101968/69	349	3961969/70	1318	14961970/71	3285	4983Total	5267	72013.	No defaulted loans have been written off.4.	As of June 30, 1971, $623,844 was collected by the commercial collection agency. The current fee payable is 20 per cent of amounts recovered.5.	The collection agency is responsible for locating missing borrowers. It uses all available facilities at its disposal through its branches located throughout Canada and its affiliations in other countries.


NUMBER OF CLAIMS UNDER CANADA PENSION PLAN SINCE INSTITUTION OF DISABILITY PENSIONS
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Since the institution of disability pensions under the new Canada Pension Plan of February, 1970, how many claims were received by the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	How many of these claims were (a) accepted (b) rejected?


John Carr Munro: 1. Up to the end of February, 1972, 25,100.
2.(a) 13,696; (b) 7,190. Some of the applications rejected had not met the required minimum qualifying period of five years of contribution to the Plan, and thus were not rejected on medical grounds. In addition, 4,214 applications, most of which were received recently, are now being processed. Some are waiting special reports and other information.


ALLOCATION OF GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider carrying out a study as to the percentage of the Gross National Product that should be allocated to each level of government, federal, provincial and municipal?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Each level of government, federal, provincial and municipal, spends whatever amounts are deemed appropriate and voted by the respective Houses of Parliament, Legislatures or Municipal Councils. The amount of spending voted by these representative bodies is determined independently by the political process in each jurisdiction. The federal government cannot decide what proportion of the Gross

April 17, 1972
Questions
National Product should be spent by any level of government.


AUTOMOBILE SAFETY BELTS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Is any research being carried out to provide a more dependable safety belt for automobiles than the lap or shoulder belt now provided?
2.	Do the present lap and shoulder belts installed in automobiles meet the government standards of safety?


Gérard Duquet: 1. There is no substantial evidence suggesting that seat belts currently provided in new Canadian automobiles require modification to improve dependability. However, there is a continuing surveillance program on seat belt performance in automobile collisions to detect possible design problems requiring attention. Considerable research is being carried out to develop means of encouraging increased seat belt usage through convenience changes and the addition of warning devices.
2. Yes.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL LIBRARY
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What is the number of publications and books of reference material in the National Research Council Library?
2.	What is the yearly cost to maintain this service?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In
so far as the National Research Council of Canada is concerned the answer is as follows: 1. 875,000 at December 31, 1971.
2. $2,303,310 for fiscal year 1970-1971.


SALE OF HMCS BONAVENTURE
Mr. MacRae: What amount was received for HMCS Bonaventure upon its disposal?


James Armstrong Richardson: The Crown Assests Disposal Corporation sold the HMCS Bonaventure to the highest bidder for $851,700. Prior to the sale of the Aircraft Carrier, the Department of National Defence removed from the vessel recoverable items with a value of approximately $5,000,000.
LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED ROADS TO BE BUILT UNDER ARDA PROGRAM IN ABITIBI AND TfiMISKAMINGUE CONSTITUENCIES


Mr. Laprise: What locations are proposed for roads that are to be built giving access to Crown forests in the constituencies of Abitibi and Temis-kamingue under the ARDA program and by whom were the locations selected?

Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic
Expansion): Under the ARDA agreement which has been signed with the Province of Quebec, it is proposed to build 
the following roads in the constituencies of Abitibi and Temiscaminque: (1) road to Kipawa forest; (2) road to Megiscane forest; (3) road to La Sarre forest; (4) road to Matagami forest. The last two locations are subject to consultations with La Societe de Developpement de la Baie James, but the locations in each case have been selected by the Province of Quebec.


SASKATCHEWAN-TREATMENT CENTRES
Mr. Knight: 1.	What was the expenditure for the Regina Treatment Centre for veterans in Saskatchewan during the last year of its operation?
2.	In the same time period, what was the expenditure by the government for the Saskatoon Treatment Centre for veterans?
3.	What was the reason for the closure of the Regina Treatment Centre?
4.	Have there been additional expenditures for the Saskatoon Treatment Centre since it began operating for all of Saskatchewan and, if so, in what amount?
5.	What was the number of staff in the Regina Treatment Centre?
6.	What was the number of staff in the Saskatoon Treatment Centre?
7.	Was additional staff hired for the Saskatoon Treatment Centre after the closure of the Regina Treatment Centre and, if so, how many?
8.	What provisions have been made to avoid delay and inconvenience to veterans who normally went to the Regina Treatment Centre?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.

2.	$904,000.
3.	The Centre has not been closed.
4.	Although the financial administration of the Regina Treatment Services District was transferred to Saskatoon, it was necessary to transfer only one individual at a salary of approximately $7,000. Additional expenditures for the Saskatoon Treatment Centre as a result of the reorganization of the Regina District have therefore been negligible.
5.	Prior to reorganization the nurfiber of staff at the Regina Treatment Centre was 12. The remaining staff, including the Senior Treatment Medical Officer, is five.
6.	The number of staff in the Saskatoon Treatment Centre has remained at 67 in spite of the transfer of one individual from Regina.
7.	No.
8.	There have been no reports of delay or inconvenience to veterans who continue to be looked after by the DVA staff of the Treatment Services in Regina.


MOTORCYCLE BRAKE SAFETY STANDARD
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to establishing performance requirements for motorcycle brake systems under motor vehicle safety standards legislation?


Gérard Duquet: Yes.
April 17, 1972


NEW ARRANGEMENTS FOR BANK EMPLOYEES' PENSIONS
Mr. Fairweather: Will the Minister of Finance suggest to Canadian banks that new arrangements appear to be justified to supplement amounts paid to retired bank employees on pension in view of the fact that bank profits have been substantial lately?


John Napier Turner: It would not be appropriate to make any suggestions to Canadian banks in this matter over which the Minister of Finance has no jurisdiction. It is believed that Canadian banks have taken steps to supplement the pensions paid to former bank employees who have been retired for a considerable period of years.


CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI-PURPOSE EXHIBITION BUILDINGS
Mr. Gleave: 1.	How much of the $10 million for the program for the construction of multi-purpose exhibition buildings announced by the Minister of Finance in the House on October 14, 1971, has been allocated?
2.	What is the provincial allocation of money under this program?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: 1. $1,380,000.
2. Nil. Each application is assessed on its own merit, with due consideration given to the needs of the community.


ALLOCATION OF $160 MILLION SPECIAL LOAN PROGRAM
Mr. Rowland: 1.	How much of the $160 million for the special loan program to provinces announced by the Minister of Finance in the House on October 14,1971, has been allocated?
2.	What is the allocation, by province, of money under this program?


John Napier Turner: 1. and 2. All
of the funds have been allocated to the provinces as detailed in Vote LI92 of the Department of Finance in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31,1972, tabled on November 19,1971.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Ryan: 1.	Which Crown corporations and other emanations of the Crown in the right of Canada employ or retain independent accountants and/or firms of accountants to service or audit their accounts?
2.	What are the names of such accountants or firms of accountants who have serviced or audited each of such corporations and emanations in the past five fiscal years and what payments have been made to each of them by such corporations, emanations or the government in each of such fiscal years?
Questions
3.	What payments will be made to each of them for the current fiscal year?
Return tabled.


MANPOWER MOBILITY PROGRAM-RELOCATION REQUESTS
Mr. Laprise: Since the coming into force of the Manpower Mobility Program, pursuant to Order in Council P.C. 1965-2215 of December 13, 1965 (a) how many relocation requests were submitted by residents of each province (b) how many of these requests were approved (c) what amount was paid in each province?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCES FOR EMERGENCY WINTER WORKS PROGRAMS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How much money has been loaned to the provinces each year since 1969 for emergency winter works programs?
2.	What has been the allocation to each province for the above years?
3.	What are the terms of repayment?
Return tabled.


PEI-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR ROADS IN YEARS 1968-71
Mr. MacLean: 1.	How many miles of road paid for in whole or in part by the federal government under an agreement with the Government of Prince Edward Island were paved in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71?
2.	What percentage of the cost of the roads was borne by the federal government?
3.	What was the cost to the federal government in each fiscal year?
4.	Did the federal government require, as a condition, that certain standards for erosion control on the right-of-way be met and, if so, was it met by the Government of Prince Edward Island when these roads were paved?
5.	Has any assessment been made by the Department of the Environment to determine the extent of the damage done by erosion to the lands and streams adjoining these roads?
Return tabled.


PENSION FUNDS ADMINISTERED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	How many pension funds are administered by the government or agencies on behalf of government employees, agencies or Crown corporations?
2.	What are the names of the pension funds?
3.	How many persons are contributors?
4.	What are the assets of each fund?
5.	What was the amount of benefits paid during the 1970-71 fiscal year?
6.	What was the percentage of increase of the assets in 1970-71 compared to the previous year?
Return tabled.

April 17, 1972
Motion to Adjourn



CONTRACTS AWARDED FOR SUPPLYING OF FILE FOLDERS TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): Under the Federal-Provincial Employment Loans Program administered by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (a) how many projects in British Columbia have received approval to date (b) what is the approximate cost of these projects (c) what specific projects in British Columbia have been approved (d) what is the total amount of the project loan in each instance?
Return tabled.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION DISPUTE WITH NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST EMPLOYEES AND TECHNICIANS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the serious damage to the performance and future of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a public institution of vital importance to Canada largely supported by public funds, being caused by the failure of the corporation to reach a settlement with its striking employees despite the fact that negotiations with the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians commenced almost a year ago and that rotating strikes have continued for nearly four months.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South has given the Chair due notice of his intention to request leave to move a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing the specific matter stated by him.
There is little doubt that the matter stated by the hon. member is important and of current concern to Canadians and, of course, to members of the House. At the same time, it is suggested that the matter has been raised on a number of occasions during the course of the current session. The hon. gentleman will recall, for example, that he posed a question on it in the sitting of February 21 last. Since that time the same difficulty has been raised in the House in various other ways. For example, on March 16

the matter was discussed during the adjournment proceedings on the initiative of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, and a reply was given by the Secretary of State.
It may be that in due course it will be necessary or desirable to have the House debate the question of this dispute, but it does seem to me that a motion under Standing Order 26 is not, at this moment, a suitable vehicle for such a debate. As this problem has been pending for a period of several months, it does not appear to meet the provisions of Standing Order 26 which requires that a matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency calling for immediate and urgent consideration. It might be added that when determining whether a matter shall have urgent consideration Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
The decision I make at this time that the motion cannot be granted does not preclude the matter being brought forward again under Standing Order 26 at a later date. I am just making a procedural ruling to the effect that in my estimation the motion at this time does not meet all the requirements of Standing Order 26.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister about the government's policy on foreign investment which was decided upon some months ago, although it has not yet been announced. Was the specific policy discussed by the Prime Minister and the President of the United States during his recent visit, or was it discussed at some less exalted level during the visit of the delegation? If it was discussed, will the Prime Minister very briefly indicate the results of such discussions?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, there were no discussions whatsoever on the policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is now prepared to release its policy which was decided upon a number of months ago? Is the government now prepared to announce its policy with regard to foreign investment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Preparations have been continuing, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, and we hope we will be in a position to release that policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Inquiries of the Ministry
a definite time within which the government's policy on this very important subject will be announced.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No specific assurance as to time, but the policy announcement will come soon.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT-REASONS FOR DELAY IN ANNOUNCING POLICY

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the delay in announcing the policy on foreign investment is caused by editing of the background paper or is the reason for the delay that legislation and criteria for the screening agency are being prepared?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A variety of things which, all together, will make up the totality of the government's announcement in this area.



CANADA-UNITED STATES-POSSIBLE RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS- DISCUSSION WITH PRESIDENT NIXON DURING VISIT

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the meeting of the Prime Minister with the President of the United States may I ask the right hon. gentleman whether there was any discussion of the trade negotiations in view of the statement made by Mr. Ziegler, I believe, that the President and the Prime Minister had agreed to review their positions. Was that statement the result of a discussion between the two heads of government on the specific matters in the trade negotiations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the President and I did discuss trade matters and the matter of imbalance of trade. The President stated publicly his position on a long-term imbalance. He stated to me that he felt the present deadlock between the two countries should be broken out of and both of us agreed to review our positions with a view to resuming negotiations, if possible.


David Lewis: Does the agreement to resume negotiations to break out of the deadlock mean that the Prime Minister informed the President of the United States that the government of Canada is prepared to grant some of the concessions or parts of some of the concessions that the United States negotiators are demanding, and did the President continue to demand that the present imbalance between Canada and the United States must be corrected, disregarding his general statement about the future which of course anyone would have to grant to any country in the world?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the short-term, Mr. Speaker, the President did spell out the type of problem the United States is meeting at the present time with its balance of payments and expressed the hope which has been there since last August that various countries would help or would contribute to the United States in its effort to improve its
present economic situation. I repeated that it was Canada's intention to contribute in any way we could to the improvement of their position, knowing full well that a healthy economy in the United States is pretty important to Canada. But as to the concrete aspects of what this meant on his side and on our side, we did not enter into any great details. The President showed no desire to go into the details of the negotiations, nor did I. We both agreed it would be important to prevent this non-resolution of the situation from hardening. We both agreed, as I said, that we should each review our own position.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. During President Nixon's visit did the President advise the Canadian government that the position of the United States government as outlined by Secretary Connally on February 9 in the following words, that "the United States will seek appropriate means of reducing imbalances of trade with Canada", has changed in any way and, if so, in what way has the United States position changed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the President did not refer to this statement by Secretary Connally. As I just said to the leader of the New Democratic Party, we talked of the desire on both sides to resume negotiations. We thought that the best way of doing it was for each of us to tell our people-I assume President Nixon will tell Mr. Connally that he should review the package-that we should review the package, which we will do.


George Harris Hees: Did President Nixon assure the Canadian government that the American government does not intend to take unilateral action to correct the imbalance of trade, such as adding a 7 per cent tax on new Canadian cars entering the United States or cancelling the exemption from the interest equalization tax which Canada now enjoys, as has been widely rumoured?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The President of the United States made no threats to Canada, Mr. Speaker, nor did I make any threats to the United States.


George Harris Hees: Did the Prime Minister not bring up these very important matters with the President, or did he just indulge in pleasantries meaning nothing but I hope my people will vote for me and I hope I can help you get elected?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Spadina.



CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-POSSIBLE REVIEW OF CANADIAN POSITION FOLLOWING PRESIDENT NIXON'S VISIT

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. As a result of the talks with President Nixon, is the government now reviewing its position on the auto pact and, if so, can the Prime Minister say when a new position will be defined and made public?

April 17, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did undertake to look at everything that was in our package to see if it could be changed or modified in some way which would be more acceptable to the United States and no more damaging to Canada. There was no timing set on that and there was no specific mention of what aspects of the package we would look at. I repeat, the agreement was as general as I said in my first answer. It is that we would look at our negotiating positions, and neither the President nor I went into any great detail as to what this meant other than to see if it could be possible to renew negotiations fruitfully.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Has the Prime Minister given any direction to the relevant departments in this respect with regard to the auto pact?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the relevant ministers were informed of the substance of my talks with the President and I assume that this work is being done.



CANADA-UNITED STATES-DATE OF RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Prime Minister has suggested that the total packages are going to be reviewed. Was there an agreed upon date or a tentative date that the discussions should, hopefully, be resumed, or was a date arranged between the Prime Minister and the President at which time they would be able to convey to each other whether or not negotiations would be able to begin again soon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, no date was discussed.



DISCUSSION OF UNITED STATES ANTI-TRUST AND TRADING WITH ENEMY LAWS DURING PRESIDENT NIXON'S VISIT

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in light of President Nixon's speech on Friday and the agreement to review trade positions, has the United States government agreed to review its anti-trust and trading with the enemy laws in view of the intruding effect they have on Canadian economic independence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not know the question was directed to me but I think I caught the gist of it. There was certainly no agreement along those lines between the President and myself.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Can the Prime Minister indicate whether these important issues were raised-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What was that?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Can the Prime Minister indicate whether these important issues having to do with trading with the enemy and anti-trust laws that from time to time affect Canada's economic position were raised and whether there will be a vehicle for the resolution of these important problems?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is distinguishing between important problems, and they are indeed, which are very frequently discussed between our officials and ministers both in Washington and Ottawa, but I repeat that they were not raised at the level of talks between the President and myself on Thursday or Friday.



CANADA-UNITED STATES-ITEMS IN CANADIAN PROPOSALS

Right Hon. I. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, we hear a great deal about packages. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Prime Minister to let the House of Commons know what matters were included in the Canadian package, because up to now it has been as silent as Pandora's box until opened?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member is asking me for more than the President asked me. There was no discussion of the detailed contents of the package. However, I think that through a process of questioning certain answers have been obtained from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as to so-called irritants, both on the American side and on our side. I am afraid I would have to refer the right hon. member to his answers in Hansard with regard to what those were.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I follow Hansard very carefully, I have been in the House, and this has never been revealed. The Prime Minister was talking about exchanging packages and diminishing one claim or another in return for something else, a quid pro quo. Could he not summarize-1, 2, 3, 4, 5-what these items were in this package so that Canadians as a whole would know what kind of package it really is?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think some Canadians have been astute enough to assume, for instance, that the auto pact was one of the items discussed in the package. Perhaps with a further degree of astuteness and a re-reading once again of Hansard, the right hon. member will observe other elements in the package that were mentioned by the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am no mind reader even though the Prime Minister assumes 1 am.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will return to the hon. member for Calgary North and other hon. members who I gather have supplementaries, but as we are still on the first topic I propose to recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and then a representative of the party to my extreme left.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask about another aspect of the talks. In view of the recent bombing of Haiphong and other

events escalating the war in Viet Nam, was there any discussion between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States of the war in Viet Nam and the possibility of bringing it to a conclusion quickly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the President did discuss the position of his government as regards Viet Nam and he did repeat to me what is public knowledge, that he was committed to a policy of a negotiated settlement in Viet Nam with continued withdrawal of United States troops.


David Lewis: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary Centre on a supplementary.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that western Canada, particularly Calgary and Edmonton, is badly in need of more air routes, and as the renegotiation of the bilateral air treaty with the United States which was supposed to take place in 1969 has not been concluded, was this question discussed with President Nixon when he was here last week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was not
discussed with me. I do know that officials have been discussing this problem, but I do not know whether they discussed it at this recent meeting.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Will the Prime Minister look at this situation personally with a view to securing speedy action in view of the long delay in regard to the matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Transport has shown the degree to which he is committed to that very policy, but it is a matter, as the hon. member knows, of trying to get as good a bargain as possible for our country in negotiating these routes.



PROPOSED PIPELINES FROM NORTH-ACCELERATION OF TRADE IN PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS-POLLUTION THREAT-DISCUSSION WITH PRESIDENT NIXON DURING VISIT

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Prime Minister's answer to me on Thursday and in light of his answer today to the right hon. member for Prince Albert I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether there were any discussions with the President, or between officials when the President was visiting Ottawa, in reference to pipelines-I will not refer to the two routes because the Prime Minister knows what routes I am talk-
Inquiries of the Ministry
ing about-and in particular was there discussion of any policies to accelerate trade in energy products, namely, crude petroleum and natural gas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in a very general sense, yes, the problem was raised. I did raise, in front of the President, the important question of energy and the Canadian policy on energy as we would be trying to develop it. The President also raised the pollution aspect of the transportation of oil and told me that he was well aware of the situation, but at our level we did not go into the problem in any great detail. I do know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs at his level was raising this problem with Secretary Rogers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a further supplementary dealing particularly with the matter of pollution. Did the Prime Minister make the Canadian position clear on the question of danger of pollution to the west coast and set out, from the study that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources mentioned on Thursday, that if there is to be a transport route Canada prefers a pipeline down the Mackenzie? Was that position made clear to the Americans at that time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the danger of pollution was indeed made very clear to the Americans by the government. I might add that, apart from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was also present at the meeting with Secretary Rogers when this subject was discussed.



POSSIBLE EXCHANGE OF UNITED STATES GRAINS FOR RUSSIAN OIL AND GAS-DISCUSSION WITH PRESIDENT NIXON DURING VISIT

Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a further question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, in connection with his talks with President Nixon and arising out of reports from Washington that consideration is being given there to negotiating a deal with Russia whereby the United States would take oil or gas in exchange for U.S. feed or other grains. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether this subject, which is of great importance to Canada, was discussed by himself and the President or at any level during the visit?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to reply to that question, I did raise the subject with Secretary Rogers and I was informed that there was no sort of barter deal contemplated and that if oil or gas were to be purchased from the Soviet Union it would be part of the ordinary trade carried on between the two countries.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

April 17, 1972



VIET NAM WAR-INQUIRING AS TO REPRESENTATIONS BY PRIME MINISTER TO PRESIDENT NIXON CONCERNING ACCELERATED U.S. BOMBING

David Lewis: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the war in Viet Nam. In his answer to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway the Prime Minister informed us that the President had made his position clear, which I need not repeat. Did the Prime Minister raise any protest to the President of the United States about the accelerated bombing of North Viet Nam, particularly that which has gone so deeply into North Viet Nam at Hanoi and Haiphong? Was any opinion expressed by the Prime Minister on that and did he make any appeal to the President of the United States to end the bombings so that meaningful negotiations for peace can resume?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not make any such comments to the President of the United States but I do know that his government and indeed other governments are aware of Canada's well stated position in this regard.



POLLUTION


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. I understand from press reports and from what the Prime Minister has just said that the pollution problems that probably will exist on the west coast should the tanker route go through were discussed with the President of the United States and that the suggestion had been made that the matter be referred to the International Joint Commission. Were these press reports true and if they were would the Prime Minister give consideration to having the terms of reference of the International Joint Commission extended to cover this and also the general matter of marine traffic in this part of the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows, I am sure, that he cannot ask the Prime Minister to confirm or deny a press statement. Perhaps we might assume that the question has been asked directly and the Prime Minister might reply to the second part of it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact we were going to sign on Saturday a treaty which showed the intention of both governments to come to grips with the problem of pollution, during the discussion of that I did raise the question of pollution on the west and indeed on east coasts and suggested that the matter be referred to the IJC, as the hon. member is requesting. I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs also made that suggestion very forcefully. We have implanted it in the minds of the American government and we hope some progress will be made in this respect.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I have a question for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that disputes in the public service seem to take a mobilized public to resolve them, I wonder if the minister intends to make a statement to the House on the continuing problem between NABET and the CBC so that we can know what progress is being made, if any, to resolve this longstanding labour dispute?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot enter into an unconditional commitment as asked for by the hon. member because that could be very inopportune under the present circumstances. But if such a statement became necessary, I would do so on motions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I will have to check Hansard but I thought the minister also was going to undertake and/or review the possibility of stating to the House whether there is an extra cost to the CBC because of the strike or whether there has been a saving to the taxpayer, and that he would make a statement so that we could clear up the confusion. As the second part of my question may I ask whether I can assume from the minister's answer that the government at this time plans to take no initiative to bring these two parties together to resolve their dispute collectively and is going to let the matter drag on?


Gérard Pelletier: As to the latter question, Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member probably knows that two mediators of the Department of Labour have been working in that field for at least two or three weeks, if I am not mistaken.
*
* *



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance this afternoon may I direct my question to the Minister of State attached to that department. In light of the statement made last Thursday by the Minister of Finance that interest rates and the level of the Canadian dollar were under constant review with the Bank of Canada, could the minister tell the House whether his senior colleague will be making a statement in the House shortly on the nature of this review and perhaps forecasting what action the government will take with regard to interest rates as well as the value of the international monetary unit?


Hon. P. M. Mahoney (Minister of State):: I will bring the question to the attention of the minister, Mr. Speaker.
April 17, 1972


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In obtaining a reply from the minister, would the Minister of State ascertain whether we are to await a budget address to have that position reviewed in the House and if it is to be a budget address, when can we expect it?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He doesn't know.



HUMAN SCIENCES


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, without transgressing upon my right hon. and highly regarded friend from Prince Albert and his Pandora's Box may I ask the Secretary of State, who was once regarded as a champion of the humanities, what steps he has in mind in reference to the report of Statistics Canada to the effect that the government of this country expends 15 times more on the natural than on the human sciences, and can he advise if this country has totally committed itself to such technological efforts and, if otherwise, what programs he contemplates to increase public expenditure on the human sciences?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that the hon. member's very learned question normally ought to be placed on the order paper. I am not sure whether there is a place on the order paper for questions of this kind. If the hon. member thinks there is an aspect of urgency about the matter he could give the usual notice to the Chair and it would be given preference for consideration at ten o'clock.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the minister as soon as possible, tomorrow or the next day, make a statement on motions to clarify the position between the Cree Indians in the province of Quebec and his department concerning discussions and reported statements on both sides over the James Bay project? It seems that completely opposing reports are coming from both sides and I think hon. members are entitled to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister should be allowed to reply.


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a statement on this matter now. I do not believe there is a disagreement between Quebec Indians and ourselves. The Indians are working on their side and we are
Inquiries of the Ministry
having discussions with them. As recently as yesterday I met the secretary of the Indian association, Mr. Gros-Louis. Furthermore, representatives of the association are going up north to meet the Indians of the James Bay area and will report to me on their return. We are co-operating, but I do not intend to conduct discussions in their place; they are able to deal directly with the government of Quebec.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of Defence Secretary Laird's statement that the United States is planning to deploy nuclear tactical weapons in Europe, may I ask whether this proposal has been concurred in by the Canadian government and the other members of NATO, whether there have been any discussions about this matter and what the position of the Canadian government is regarding it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that statement. I will look into the matter. I know that there was no discussion of it by the Canadian government, if that involves myself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the U.S. Bomarc nuclear missiles have been removed from Canadian soil, can the Prime Minister assure the House and country that the government does not intend to have these replaced by any other nuclear devices located on Canadian soil?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think the white paper on defence made that quite clear.


DISCUSSION OF RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT WITH PRESIDENT NIXON DURING VISIT
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it is in relation to his talks with the President who was here last week. Did the Prime Minister or any minister discuss the re-establishment of the International Wheat Agreement and seek the co-operation of the United States in that regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we talked very briefly of the desirability of improving markets and prices for wneat, but there was no really substantial discussion of the matter between the President and myself.

April 17, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry ELECTIONS


ESTABLISHMENT OF ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSIONS FOLLOWING CENSUS
Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Has the Secretary of State received from Statistics Canada a return on the decennial census? If so, when will the government proclaim the establishment of an electoral boundaries commission for each province?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I can only reply to the hon. member that main results of the 1971 census should be supplied by the third week of this month, that is around April 25.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour who undertook to look into the Stella Lucas Foundation Limited matter in Hamilton. I wonder whether he has done so and does he have a report at this time?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I looked into that question and discovered that there had been a misunderstanding which should not be attributed to the employer-client. We are undertaking to follow through with on the job training funds.


COMBINES
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has his attention been drawn to the fact that five tire companies in the United States are being sued under anti-trust legislation for price fixing? Since all these companies have branch plants in Canada, is the minister looking into the situation and does he intend to take similar action in this regard?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. I will look into the matter and see if I can report to him shortly.


FOOTWEAR-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF POTENTIAL PRICE INCREASE
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the findings of

the United States committee investigating leather, leather tanning and the price of footwear, which indicate there will be a considerable increase in footwear prices, up to $6 a pair, will the minister investigate this matter, bearing in mind that the cost of living will be affected, particularly for larger families who surely need footwear in our country?


Robert Knight Andras: I can do no less than for my hon. friend than I did for the hon. member opposite. I will give the matter every consideration.




Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement made in Washington on March 15 last by Major General Joseph R. DeLuca, USAF Budget Director, to the effect that the Goose Bay Air Force Base is to be phased down, and in view of the minister's statement to the House on January 21, 1971, just over one year ago, that it was not the intention of the United States government to phase down that USAF base and that they intended to retain the base, is the minister now in a position to report to the House whether or not the lease between Canada and the United States for Goose Bay Air Force Base, which expires on December 5 of this year, is to be renewed and if, indeed, the American authorities have indicated their intention-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a proper question. The hon. member should try to limit it. According to the rules, the question period should not be used for the purpose of making remarks. I appreciate the importance of the question but perhaps it might be condensed a little. I assume that the hon. member has now asked his question and we might allow the minister an opportunity to reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. Negotiations are under way.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The answer was brief last time, too. Shame!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State in relation to the NABET strike which is still continuing. Can the Secretary of State say whether, during the negotiations, there has been any actual determination of the proportion of viewers in any
April 17, 1972

area of Canada who are being adversely affected by the strike, inasmuch as a small number of people in certain areas have only the one service compared with the large numbers of people in the cities who have access to many different services? Has this point been brought home to the NABET people?
[Trons lotion]


Gérard Pelletier: Most obviously, Mr. Speaker, that is the inajor concern of the CBC management.


AIRPORTS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister who seems to be busy speaking to another parliamentary secretary. As the parliamentary secretary has indicated that the reasons for the choice of the Pickering township site for an airport would be placed before POP-People Over Planes-would he advise the House whether this is so, and will the House be advised as to the reasons?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question like that cannot be directed to the parliamentary secretary.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question and direct it to the minister answering on behalf of the Minister of Transport. May I ask the responsible minister whether, pursuant to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the reasons for the choice of the Pickering township airport site are to be made public or tabled in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have the commitment before me that the Minister of Transport gave on March 17, as recorded in Hansard. He said:
... I am prepared to provide whatever is necessary to support the decision that was made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Soon.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He will be appearing soon before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I am sure the hon. member will at that time want to ask the minister for details and information.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As the parliamentary secretary indicated that the reasons would be proclaimed on or about April 15, at which time, I believe, a meeting was to be held with the concerned group from Pickering township, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary was talking through his hat or whether the information will be disclosed today or tomorrow?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What a hat!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is not in order.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will give me an opportunity to ask the question without the superfluities. Can the Prime Minister advise us whether the reasons for the site will be given in the next couple of days, regardless of the sitting of the committee? I think that was the undertaking given by the parliamentary secretary. I was hoping the Prime Minister could answer that question. Will the reasons be given in the next two or three days?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the parliamentary secretary did not give any commitment as to dates. The date was suggested by the people who wanted to meet and just mentioned. In that sense if do not think the hon. member was talking through his hat. He was talking through the press.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Somebody boobed.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the request of the Canadian Sheep Breeders Association for reinstatement of the federal subsidy on wool production, is the minister considering reinstating the subsidy?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Not at the
moment, Mr. Speaker. We are considering some new marketing structures which will be far more beneficial to producers in the sale of their lambs.


WHEAT-POSSIBLE CHANGES IN FORMULA FOR ALLOCATING BOXCARS TO ENSURE EQUITY AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. It concerns the allocation of boxcars following the Federal Grain-wheat pool amalgamation and the utilization of the Bracken formula. Since this question has been under consideration by the Wheat Board and by the minister for some time, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman is in a position to report to the House with respect to possible changes in the allocation formula with a view to ensuring equity and freedom of customer choice?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This matter has been discussed in the course of correspondence and at a meeting I had with the Wheat Board and the heads of all the elevator companies. There is



April 17, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
general agreement that the allocation of cars to avoid congestion during May, June and July will take care of the situation adequately in the period immediately ahead. Additional steps will be taken to deal with congestion either in this period or in the new crop year if such steps become necessary.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Would the minister advise us whether any definitive proposals have been put forward with respect to the future of the Bracken formula? In other words, will there be any permanent changes with respect to allocation under that formula?


Otto Emil Lang: As far as I can determine, all the elevator companies are in favour of the general principles of the Bracken formula, particularly the principle that every farmer should have the right to deliver to the elevator of his choice. Originally, this formula had in it an anticongestion device, but it is not working at the moment. Everyone seems agreed that if necessary some such device will be embodied in the formula in future.
* *


INDUSTRY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the apparently imminent closure of the McBean Colliery I should like to ask the minister whether he is committed to the principle that pensions should be provided for the men affected equal to those available as pre-retirement benefits to the Devco miners? Would he correspond with or take steps to consult with his provincial counterpart in order to expedite this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: While the matter is being pondered, the Chair will recognize, for the moment, the hon. member for Dauphin.


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister oi Regional Economic Expansion):: I have received no request concerning this matter.


BARLEY AND RAPESEED-PROJECTED DECLINE IN ACREAGE-ABILITY TO MEET EXPORT TARGETS
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Can the minister inform the House whether the projected decline in barley and rapeseed acreage as reported by Statistics Canada is such as to justify any doubt as to our ability to reach export targets for these grains? Does the minister intend to urge farmers to increase acreages of these grains?


Otto Emil Lang: The projected acreages give no reason to doubt that the record targets for which we are aiming will be achieved during the
[Mi. Lang.]
present crop year. There is, however, cause for some concern in connection with potential marketing in the coming crop year. The minister has already been making known to farmers his view that seeding of barley and rapeseed should be emphasized more strongly than the original survey figures showed.


WHEAT-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the difficulties which have arisen in connection with the transportation of grain, would the minister now make public the study on transportation carried out under his authority in order that farmers, members of parliament and the public generally can examine it and make suggestions for improvement?


Otto Emil Lang: We shall be promoting further discussion of this whole general problem in the fairly near future. The study does not, of course, bear on the problems of the moment, the temporary difficulties in grain haulage which were the consequence of special conditions this winter.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the hon. gentleman tell us what stage discussions have reached with the provinces, particularly concerning the department's programs and designated regions and special areas beyond the 1972 expiry date?


Jean Marchand: We are still in consultation and negotiation with the provinces.


John Stratford Burton: Can the minister tell us whether his department has proposed that the present boundaries and scope of the programs remain as they are, or has he proposed some changes to existing programs?


Jean Marchand: We are in negotiation with the provinces, not with the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
April 17, 1972

Canada Laoour Code



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. O'Connell that Bill C-183, to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the context of the industrial unrest which prevails in certain sectors in Canada today, and in view of the fact that there is likely some involvement as far as the government itself is concerned-we do not yet know what stage negotiations have reached as between the government and its own employees in resolving difficulties which have always been a fruitful source of strikes in the past, and in the past few years particularly-it is very important that we give this bill searching examination.
Most hon. members of this House, if they listen to their own constituents, will be aware that there is great anxiety in Canada today with regard to the state of labour-management relations, and the fact that we Canadians, as a people, have been victims over the past several years of unnecessary losses, of unnecessary strife, of unnecessary suffering. It must be remembered that the worker is not the only person to be implicated when there is labour strife. Nor is it only the management in the particular sector concerned which may have to suffer loss and inconvenience. At the present time, it seems that certain individuals, when conducting the activities of organized labour, feel they can extend their deadly pall over all concerned and even beyond. Their attitude is: to hell with the public.


An hon. Member:: Oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This has been the case all too often. If I used their language it would be much more colourful and earthy. This seems to be the impression.
I am not assessing blame to one side or the other in any particular industrial dispute. Some portion of blame undoubtedly can be attributed to unenlightened management. Some of it is attributable to the leaders of organized labour, particularly to unofficial leaders. In presenting the bill the other day, the minister said the government was asserting its proper role as representing the public interest in the relationship between organized labour and management. These are fine words, but I honestly do not believe the bill actually carries out the intention which has been implied. I have grave reservations. The minister said:
Our economic performance in the world is of vital importance to all Canadians and it will increasingly be so as the world's economic environment drastically changes through the rest of this decade and, indeed, the rest of this century.
I am reading from the first column of page 1269 of Hansard under date March 29. The minister continued: Good industrial relations will play a vital part in our economic performance and, accordingly, they will be the concern not only of the parties immediately involved but of all the Canadian public. It is with these thoughts in mind, Mr. Speaker, that we have approached the amendments to part V of the Canada Labour Code.
Again, I have some very grave reservations whether the government has actually recognized its role or the purpose, the ultimate objective, of these changes to the Canada Labour Code. It must be remembered that every member of the House must ensure that legislation in the field of industrial relations should promote industrial peace and not lead to a widening of conflict, or areas of conflict, between management and labour. Certainly, it must not lead to a complete or a greater abandonment of the public interest than now exists.
As Canadians, we face a great challenge from many sides in the world today. We have seen declining trade figures in this first quarter with Japan, Britain and the European Common Market, with some very substantial decreases. True, we have had an increase in trade with the United States, but this is only the accentuation of a problem that we have faced for a long time, one that should have highlighted the discussions between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the United States.
One of our biggest problems has been too great a reliance on trade with the United States. If we in this parliament give ill-considered study to the proposals contained in this bill and as a result there is greater industrial strife, then Canada might as well shut shop. Because industrial strife, whatever may be its cause, leads to loss of production, higher costs and more imports. If the Canadian public finds its domestic sources of supply are arrested, then it may well have to buy from abroad, and quite often at higher cost. Some people seem to think that, as in the old days, fleas and bedbugs are a necessary adjunct to man. So, they think that we must have a certain amount of industrial strife each and every year. I deny that this is necessary, Mr. Speaker. This is why I say we must approach this particular bill from the point of view of ensuring that it promotes greater industrial peace than heretofore.
This bill covers only about half a million workers who come under federal jurisdiction, a long way from the bulk of Canada's labour force. But this does not mean that the bill is in any way diminished in importance, not at all. The Canada Labour Code, as the government so claims, should be in the vanguard. It is like a flagship that shows the objective towards which provincial administrations should strive. There are many areas in which labour legislation passed by this parliament has shown the way for the provinces. If this is to be the case, then let us make sure that this bill is one that people can point to as an example of a measure that will promote greater industrial peace.
It is in that light that we must examine the bill. It must not be a bill that results in an indiscriminate abandonment of jurisdiction. The bill must not be merely Pilate-like, that is one who washes his hands of the thing and lets

April 17, 1972
Canada Labour Code
management and organized labour fight it out; that it is a bill that will give each more opportunity to get at the other's throat. I say that that is not the purpose of the bill and must never be its purpose. Therefore, I propose to consider the bill with this particular point of view in mind.
However, if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, we in Canada at both the provincial and federal levels have achieved a certain degree of support from the public generally for social legislation and at no inconsiderable cost. In fact, the cost has been fantastic. One of the budgetary problems of this administration, of its predecessor and of many of the provincial administrations, is that they all face escalating costs for some of the social welfare programs that are on the statute books.
I think that in many areas we in Canada have been too precipitate; we have gone too fast for our ability to pay. Whether through taxes at the municipal level in the form of higher education costs, whether through certain forms of taxation at the provincial level which enter into cost of production, or whether through income tax at the federal level, we have taken far too much out of the Canadian economy at the present time. We have weakened the base of the economy in order to support those programs that ultimately we want to have. We seem to be content, and in many instances more than content, to pile on costs, making our goods less competitive, not only abroad but at home. In some cases costs are unnaturally high. As in the forestry industry and in certain other sectors, taxes and the take of government have now gone up to 80 per cent of net operating revenues. And we ask these industries to be competitive internationally! We ask them to support, in addition, all the programs that we have on our statute books. It is simply impossible, Mr. Speaker, to do so. If by this legislation we impose further costs upon industry, then we will be making those industries even less competitive than they are now. The legislation then becomes self-defeating. To the extent that defective legislation is the cause of the elimination of just employment to any one Canadian, it is deficient legislation. That is what I am afraid of in respect of certain sections of this bill.
This bill does nothing for the protection of the public interest as such. When is it to be deemed that an industrial dispute has reached the point where the public interest is suffering? This bill does not cover the Public Service, for instance. If we look at the extent of the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Standards Code, we find that the following industries are covered: rail, air, road and water transportation; services incidental to water transportation; interprovincial pipeline operations; telephone and cable communications; radio and television; grain elevators and grain milling; banking; hotels; uranium mining and federal Crown corporations, involving in all about 530,000 workers.
The Public Service itself is covered by the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and is excluded from the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. I should have thought that, having decided the Public Service of Canada will be granted much the same rights as organized labour elsewhere, they too would be brought under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and where appropriate would be subject to that jurisdiction. Certainly, I should have

thought the government would take this opportunity to give itself the necessary tools to deal with the public interest, regardless of the source of the industrial strife.
We know there are many Crown corporations such as Air Canada, for instance, in which there have been a number of debilitating strikes that have caused great loss and great public inconvenience. As a result of the chaos created by numerous unions having labour agreements finish at different times, the whole operation can be undermined and the public interest is absolutely secondary in the consideration of those people who have the dispute in hand. It seems to me that this is and has been quite wrong.
I know there are difficulties in respect of split jurisdictions, and I do not mean by that, joint jurisdictions. For example, what happens if there is a total breakdown in industrial relations of the steel industry and the public interest is being adversely affected? What action could then be taken? I have no ready answer but this is something which might be arranged with the provinces in order to see that strikes do not hold the Canadian public to ransom, because all too often that is the ultimate result. In the case of those strikes against the public sector by the employees of any Crown corporation, and we have had a lot of them, it is the Canadian public that is being held to ransom. It is not management, in the conventional sense, that is being held up, ana it is not the shareholders or directors who are hoping to operate a concern at a profit for private benefit; it is the Canadian public at whose head the gun is being held.
If there is any loss as a result of the strike of CBC employees, it is John Q. Public who will have to absorb that loss. If Air Canada suffers a loss, it is John Q. Public who pays. If the CNR suffers a loss as a result of a long and disastrous labour dispute, it is John Q. Public who has to suffer and pay. So, there is no question that there is greater reluctance to strike ultimately against a publicly owned as against a privately owned operation. In my opinion anybody who, as an advocate of nationalization for the sake of achieving greater industrial peace, says this is the case, is going completely against the record.
I wonder why this bill did not provide for some sort of alternative, and in this regard I have to be very careful of my grammar. I wonder why there was not some sort of alternative to that which we now have. It seems to me there should have been provision for a mandatory cooling-off period. Once there has been a breakdown in the normal course of negotiations, and conciliation and mediation have failed, assuming a work stoppage were to be against the general public interest, then in so far as those industries affected by the Canada Labour (Standards) Code are concerned, the executive should have the power to issue a directive declaring the work stoppage in that industry to be against the public interest.
At that time a mandatory cooling-off period of somewhere between 80 and 120 days could be called for during which the parties must resume negotiations and arrive at a satisfactory settlement. This could be some form of mandatory mediation or conciliation, but the answer must come within that definition. Other countries use labour courts, but what is a decision of a labour court other than the mandatory laying down of the terms of the labour
April 17, 1972

agreements? These exist in many countries in the world. In this country, people have shied away from any question of compulsory arbitration. They do not like it, but many other countries have resorted to some form of this as an ultimate sanction by the public.
When the public of Canada, whose interests are paramount, say "That is enough; there must be a settlement", all we have is some sort of ad hoc solution whereby, if the government feels there is an adverse effect on public interest, it will call parliament into session. What has parliament done under the circumstances? The parliament of 1958 or 1959 had to deal with a strike by the employees of the west coast ferries. What was done then but the invoking of a compulsory cooling-off period during which the parties were directed to renegotiate? Certain minimum terms were established by the legislation. But the parties on either side were under no illusion that on the date specified in the bill-and the same thing applied with respect to the Canadian National Railways I believe in 1964 or 1965-there would be a settlement, and if there were no settlement it would be at the peril of the party disagreeing. That is the force of the public interest.
Therefore, I say it is unfortunate that in this bill there is not a provision to obviate the necessity to call in parliament and involve, shall we say, partisan political considerations. The machinery should exist whereby a mandatory cooling-off period could be imposed in appropriate cases. I will admit that in this area most provincial governments have jurisdiction, but in those circumstances this bill could be some sort of a flagship. I know organized labour does not like the legislation in some of the provinces because it goes too far in another way, but it would seem to me that if there were a reasonable course laid out in this bill there could be a rallying to that reasonable point and an example could be shown to other administrations. Much of what the government has done with this bill has resulted in leaving a great void. It has abdicated its responsibility, as I say, in failing to provide for that option. I would be the first person to approve if someone could think of a better or more reasonable alternative. I would welcome it. I say, however, that one must never neglect the public interest as is now being done.
There is another area in which I think this bill is deficient. Here, I am very conscious of the rights as well as the responsibilities of both sides and the experience we in Canada have had over several years. I would say one of the chief reasons there have been excesses on the side of management and excesses on the side of organized labour is the fact that unions are not legal entities. Unions, unfortunately, in order to redress wrongs the members experienced, because they could not sue, have had to resort to other action. After all, they will not remain inactive. If we read any responsible newspaper that comes out of Montreal we know that on the picket lines at the present time there is violence; there are actions which would otherwise be illegal. There are wrongs being perpetrated against the public and against other honest, law abiding and innocent employees. This is all done under the mantle of an industrial dispute. Damage is done, injury is perpetrated and there is no recourse under the Criminal Code. Recourse under the Criminal Code is not
Canada Labour Code
the answer. We limit the remedies under the Criminal Code.
All too often after an industrial dispute has been settled, one of the terms of the settlement is that there shall not be any prosecutions or if any charges have been laid that they shall be dropped. But if striking employees in an industrial dispute enter the plant or property of owners with whom they have a dispute and damage or destroy property, why should they be above the law? If I enter my neighbour's property and vandalize it, even though I may have a quarrel with him, have I the right to say that because I had a quarrel, an honest dispute, I should be able to inflict these damages on him? Of course, that would be wrong. Yet, in industrial disputes sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage may be done in a spirit of vengeance, in a spirit of coercion, sometimes by hired thugs and goons. Then, I say such actions should not be above the law nor should it be possible to circumvent the law in respect of that sort of thing.
In the same way if management hires thugs and goons to coerce and victimize its employees with whom it has a dispute then the bargaining unit, the union itself, should be able to sue the owners. But today this cannot be done. It must be the individual who takes action. What chance would one lone worker, two workers or even three workers have to establish a case? What funds would they have with which to fight the case? If the union were a legal entity it could take action on behalf of its members who had been victimized. It seems to me by refusing to recognize a bargaining unit as a legal entity, we have forced both sides to take other courses of action which are not as acceptable as a proper proceeding through a court. It is for that reason I believe there is a serious deficiency in this bill. I do not take this position because I feel if organized unions were legal entities they could be the subject of pot-shots or persecution through the courts. This is not the case any more. It may have been in the days when they were fledgling organizations unable to take care of themselves. Perhaps then they would have been disseminated by the strength of owners dragging them through the courts, but that is not the case today. It seems that far too much reliance has to be placed on other courses of action in order to clear up some of the difficulties that arise as a result of an industrial dispute.
There is another matter on which I think this bill is deficient. The previous minister discussed this with me, and I was hopeful he would include it in the legislation. At least there was some hope and encouragement offered. However, I fail to see it in this particular bill. To that extent, I am sorry, I think the government is again showing a lack of leadership in this particular range. After all, the way has in part been blazed, and I say in part only, by the government of Ontario in its industrial relations legislation. I refer to my bill C-48. Frankly, this bill is popularly known as charity versus closed shop union dues. There are people in this country who have bona fide religious principles which preclude them from paying dues to unions organized in the way they are today. If an individual is working for a concern which has entered into a closed shop or union shop agreement whereby there is a compulsory check-off of union dues, that person, having

April 17, 1972
Canada Labour Code
bona fide religious views which prohibit in conscience that person from belonging to such a group, it should be possible for that person to have an amount equivalent to the union dues deducted from his periodic pay and paid to a charity that is recognized by both the union and the individual, a recognized public charity.
There have been cases in Ontario, and I must say they are to my knowledge limited to Ontario, whereby long term employees in some concerns that have become unionized have been discharged by order of the Ontario Labour Relations Board because of refusal to pay union dues but offering to pay an equal sum to a charity. That was prior to the present Ontario act and, I must say, the present act is far from perfect. It only went part way. However, can there be any justification whatsoever for an individual who has been employed or is qualified to take employment being prohibited, because of his religious views from taking that employment?
We have all sorts of legislation starting from the Bill of Rights down through the piece which states there shall be no discrimination as a result of religious beliefs, yet we have this situation as a result of our industrial codes. This bill does not prohibit it. I think these legislative guarantees are a hollow mockery because, as a result of the demands of the big unions, the individual worker is denied the freedom of his religious beliefs. They say you can believe what you want, but because of your beliefs you cannot work at this particular plant or concern. I suppose the next thing we might have might be a denial of the right to work because of an individual's political beliefs. The shoe would then be on the other foot. There would be screaming to high heaven about denials of the fundamental rights of the individual, yet in the labour code we fail to provide safeguards for those rights.
I say it is totally wrong to victimize those individuals of recognized faiths in this country which object to this sort of thing. But any individual should not be allowed to say casually that he does not believe in this type of organization and that it is against his religion. The proof must be there. Yet all we now say to these objectors is that they can work somewhere else. They do not have to work for that particular concern. I am sorry that the minister or the government did not have the political courage to include such a provision in the bill.
In my bill I do not advocate that an individual have the right to pocket the $5, $10, $15 or $20 per month which he would normally pay in union dues. The dues may be less, but there are many who pay $10 or $15 a month. There would be a transfer to a recognized charity. Surely, to the extent the charities are supported by the people making such a stand, the unions could consider this a valuable contribution to public charity in this country. They are not that poor. What I find even more fundamentally wrong is that this is a back door denial of the freedom of religious belief.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member to inform him that his time has expired. He can, of course, continue with the consent of the House. If the hon. member wishes to pursue his remarks, I will inquire whether there is such consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank hon. members. I will not transgress upon their generosity. I will soon bring my remarks to an end.
There is one point in the bill which I find very satisfactory. No doubt there are others. I refer to the change in the composition of the Canada Labour Relations Board. I have objected many times to the composition of conciliation boards and other bodies of a similar type set up to resolve a dispute. The board is usually composed of a representative of one side, a representative of the other side, and a neutral chairman. In 90 per cent of the cases, unless there is unanimity, the judgment that finally comes down is that of the chairman because the other representatives of management and organized labour have vested interests and will not cross that very definite line down the middle.
I have been engaged in this sort of thing under industrial contracts. Many of my colleagues who practice law and with whom I was associated before entering parliament have told me the same story. They said they were appointed with instructions. They were responsible to their clients. Quite often the representative of a particular bargaining unit was some individual from another union, and also had a vested interest. We never got really worthwhile settlements. I am glad to see that the Canadian Labour Relations Board from now on will be composed of individuals who have an intimate knowledge of, or a particular ability to sit in judgment on these matters. They will be independent of any vested interest. This, hopefully is a great step forward.
I fully agreed on this point with the brief of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I foresee two difficulties. The first is with respect to the extension of bargaining rights to employees who have supervisory duties over other employees. It seems to me that supervision is a managerial function. If there is to be an extension of bargaining rights to supervisory employees, surely this should not be a matter of legislation but of collective bargaining?
The second point I wish to make is in connection with the provision that a representation unit may get certification on the basis of 35 per cent of the membership initially voting favourably on a representation application, not 50 per cent of the totality of the membership, but decertification must be approved by the majority of the membership of a union.
Other hon. members have spoken about the difficulties arising out of the provisions with regard to technological changes. We know that Bill C-183 is much different from Bill C-253. I hope that at committee stage amendments will be accepted that have the purpose of promoting industrial peace, and that will not afford further opportunities for industrial strife. Bill C-253 had provisions that were rife with opportunities for disputes and strikes. I do not know what it would have contributed to industrial peace in Canada.
I have spoken beyond my allotted time, Mr. Speaker. The House has been very kind to allow me to complete my remarks. I hope that most hon. members of the House will speak at this stage. This is a very important bill. I hope that there will be much interest shown by the public at
April 17, 1972

committee stage, so that we can get the best possible legislation and that when the committee reports back to the House we will have an improved bill. I hope that a way will be found to overcome the matters which I have described as failures. I realize there may be some procedural difficulties, but the government could readily overcome them by taking appropriate action. This is one of the most important bills that we will consider this year. I hope I have approached the debate on it with the appropriate sense of responsibility.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate, I speak as one who has been on both sides of the fence. I have spent a good part of my working years as an employee and trade unionist, and for the last 25 years I have had some knowledge of management. Despite the years that I have been associated with management in my own business, I have never forgotten how it feels to be an employee in the shop, and therefore I think I have some perspective in that sense when dealing with a labour bill.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) tended to lose his perspective when making certain comparisons. I was particularly offended by his inference that trade unions and working people were above the law, that they could not be prosecuted because trade unions were not legal entities. I was surprised that he did not know better. All he has to do is pick up any newspaper and he will see that people are prosecuted if they contravene the law in any encounter between labour and management.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And then the charges are dropped.


Max Saltsman: By whom? Nobody in this country is above the law, neither a trade unionist nor anyone else. It is wrong for the hon. member for Edmonton West to make that kind of inference because it simply does not stand up to the facts.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Domtar case.


Max Saltsman: The hon. member for Edmonton West says the charges are dropped. If the charges are dropped, then somebody wishes to drop them. There may be reasons for that. The charges are dropped by the person who lays them, and not by the hon. member for Edmonton West. It is not his decision to make whether or not the charges are dropped.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You have got it so wrong.


Max Saltsman: I think it is wrong to come into the House and make charges of that kind which incite people against labour, which distort the role of working people in this country. That is what is wrong.
I was also interested in the hon. member's analogy in trying to equate a trade union with a corporation. Actually, they are reverse situations. Each member of a trade union is accountable and responsible under the law. To say that the association of which he is voluntarily a member must also be responsible is like saying that if a member of parliament commits a crime inside this House or outside it, then the House of Commons is responsible.
Canada Labour Code
A trade union is not a corporation. It is a group of people who have voluntarily banded together to look after their interests and pursue their objectives. In many cases, people in trade unions are elected to the offices they hold. They are not like corporation officers. Is this worse than a corporation that hides behind its charter, and whose officers say, "We have no responsibility; pick up whatever assets you like."? Today, most corporations have limited liability. You cannot touch the members of a corporation, and in most cases you cannot touch its assets beyond a certain definite amount. Yet, we have agreed to that situation. We have said that limited liability is necessary in our society. We do not throw people in debtors' prisons, as used to happen; we now have the procedure of bankruptcy for discharging debt. We recognize in each instance that there has to be some idea of what the liability of the particular group may be. Each group is different and it is not fair for the hon. member for Edmonton West to make a comparison between a corporation, which is one thing, and a trade union, which is something else. I know this is done continuously when even a cursory examination would show that they are different things.
Let me suggest something else to the hon. member regarding the way society looks at rights. If a person owns a factory and has capital in it, he has absolute rights under the law. Within the law he may do whatever he chooses with that factory. He can walk in one day and shut it down, throwing a thousand people out of work. The law allows him to do that because it is his money that is invested and he is free to do with it whatever he wishes. The havoc that may be created by the shutdown is not his responsibility, according to the law. The man who has worked there for 30 or 40 years giving his loyalty, his energy and brains to the work of that shop has no rights, beyond two months' notice of lay-off in some provinces. Labour has no rights in the eyes of that kind of law. We are still living in a society that says that property has ultimate rights and labour has virtually no rights.
I am surprised that my hon. friend would niggle about the minor rights being conferred upon labour in this bill, and the fact that the Parliament of Canada is moving to redress some of the differences that exist between the rights of ownership and the rights of labour. It is a philosophical question I admit, but a very important one to the man who works in the shop. He has a real sense of grievance if he is thrown out of work after perhaps 30 years of service. Sure, the company has paid him, perhaps even been good to him, but he has worked hard too and the company has not suffered through him. They made a bargain and both worked out the arrangements, but if the company decides to close down or realize a capital gain or move its operation somewhere else, that man who has worked in that shop all his life has no rights. I say, Mr. Speaker, that any rights this parliament can confer upon him, any sympathy or understanding that this parliament can muster on behalf of the working man, is not misplaced and he is entitled to it.
Like everyone else, I would like to find a resolution, a reconciliation, between absolute individual freedoms and social responsibility. I would like to feel that it is possible to maintain social responsibility while everyone does

April 17, 1972
Canada Labour Code
exactly as he pleases. We know, in fact, that this can only be an objective; we know, in fact, that we have to make some kind of compromise between these two objectives and sometimes we have to give up some of our freedoms in order to ensure social responsibility. In this chamber we have heard many debates in which members argued against one type or another of legislation because it infringed upon the right of the individual either not to pay taxes, not to be part of a program or not to be included in the legislation, yet in so far as the whole of society is concerned, some of those rights are infringed upon every time a piece of legislation is passed. I do not think there is any legislation on the books that does not infringe upon those rights in some way.
I make these remarks in connection with the statement of the hon. member for Edmonton West about people who are members of religious groups and who do not want to pay union dues. I wish there were some way of working that out.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We will find a way.


Max Saltsman: Very often these things cannot be worked out. Whether a person belongs to a union or not, in a shop he receives the benefits of membership; he may even receive benefit because there are unions in the area. This confers a social responsibility upon that person to make some kind of contribution to that union.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What about religious beliefs?


Max Saltsman: It is very difficult to deal with religious beliefs and I admit that. The situation is not quite as black and white as the hon. member for Edmonton West would have us believe. It is not that a union wants to force anyone in this way. In my conversations with trade union leaders, they indicate that they wish a formula could be found that would be fair to the trade unions, that would bring justice to all and enable them to give a greater measure of freedom to those with religious beliefs. This is assuming that it is a violation of a person's religion to belong to a trade union. We know it is a difficult problem, but to say that unions are terrible because they cannot resolve that problem is to say that parliament itself or all legislative bodies are terrible because they have never been able to resolve that problem either. In fact, we have difficulty in trying to reconcile the problem of individual rights with social responsibility and collective action.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can you belong to the law society without paying fees? *


Max Saltsman: Yes, that is the way it works. I would have been far more impressed if the hon. member for Edmonton West, while he was talking about religious beliefs, had stretched his imagination a little to take in the corporation as well. He talks about the problem of the person whose religious beliefs are offended because he has to pay trade union dues. What about those people who buy shares in a corporation and are offended by the contributions given to political parties or the fact that it may be interfering in the affairs of another country? There is a quizzical look on my hon. friend's face. Apparently, he does not comprehend that kind of comparison.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am trying to catch the analogy.


Max Saltsman: You may say, "Do not invest in that corporation if you do not like what it is doing".


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I said religious beliefs.


Max Saltsman: It could be my religious belief not to support a corporation that was making bombs to drop on Viet Nam or that was supporting a political party that was doing it.


An hon. Member:: What religion is that?


Mr. Osier:: You could sell your stock.


Max Saltsman: I think that anybody's religion would be offended by that sort of thing. I admit it is rather stretching the point-


An hon. Member:: It is.


Max Saltsman: -but my hon. friend's statement is stretched and tends to focus on one aspect of the problem. When it comes to the freedom of stockholders and the way corporations treat stockholders, in some cases they do not know what activities the corporation is engaged in but that does not seem to offend my hon. friends on my right. However, if there are a few examples, and because they are few their importance is not diminished, of some infringement of rights by trade union activities the hollering is beyond belief. Let us be honest and frank on this problem; let us not be one-sided and say that trade unions are the only groups involved in this kind of conflict.


Mr. Thomas (Moncton):: That is the whole point of the exercise; let us not be one-sided.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I had originally intended to speak on the sections dealing with technological change, but as always it is difficult to follow the hon. member for Edmonton West. It is difficult because he makes such a useful and clear contribution to the debate and difficult because he always manages to say something which antagonizes my sense of fairness.
We have to be very much concerned about industrial peace in this country, Mr. Speaker. We know that very few people benefit from labour strife or strife of any kind. This is not to say that all strife can be eliminated, but certainly where it can be avoided it is important to avoid it. I think one of the best ways of avoiding labour strife would be to incorporate a clause in the labour code that would provide for participation by the worker in the decision making process when technical change is involved. In that sense the bill before us is somewhat worse than the original version, because it permits this matter to be negotiated in the new contract but does not permit the opening of an existing contract for that purpose. I have received a number of letters, as I am sure most hon. members have, which are violently opposed to the inclusion of a technological change provision in the labour code. Many people are far too afraid of the so-called dangers of such changes. I am of the contrary opinion. I think that if you bring the workingman into the picture when you consider making technological change
April 17, 1972

there will be a great deal more labour peace in the country than there has been in the past.
You know, much depends on how one views labour, on the image one has of labour. For some in this country, labour, unfortunately, is some kind of beast that must be restrained and chained. According to those people, any attempt to bring labour into the picture or to rely on the intelligent judgment of labour is bound to meet with failure. If, on the other hand, you feel as I do, that labour is intelligent, concerned, and willing in most cases to reach an agreeable, intelligent settlement based on legitimate positions, you will have a great deal more confidence in the clauses dealing with technological change. This bill is only making suggestions; there are not many improvements in it. What it speaks of is already happening in our society. Therefore, the bill is not breaking new ground. It is not as though management is not consulting with labour. It is my impression, after having visited many plants in my riding, that management recognizes the value of consulting with labour when changes are contemplated. Intelligent management officials have been doing that for a long time. This bill will provide them with additional encouragement. It will encourage others as well to continue the dialogue between management and labour.
The great enemy of the workingman in the plant is fear, fear of the unknown. You must be a workingman to understand that fear. True, the businessman has his own fears, his own problems. He wonders about solvency; and he must compete with others. He has his worries. One tends to forget that the man working in the plant also is beset by worries. He is worried about his job continuing, about being displaced by a machine, about what will happen to him. His worries are genuine. Any effort made by management or by legislatures to allay that fear and bring the two parties together to discuss these problems openly will bring more industrial peace. That, Sir, more than anything, is what is necessary if there is to be true industrial peace in this country. Even if you were to outlaw unions tomorrow and outlaw strikes, there would still be dissent. There is ample evidence to show that there is dissent without unions. There are slowdowns, and things of that kind, where unions do not operate. History shows that unions have brought more industrial peace, rather than less. In countries where strikes are outlawed, there is more industrial strife, more dislocation and more damage to the economy through wildcat strikes, revolts, and disagreements, than has ever been caused through labour-management disputes in countries like Canada where strikes are legal.
Let me talk more about fear, and about how that fear arises. At one time most of the plants in my riding were family owned. Management was paternalistic, that is true. The bosses and the workers went to church together. They knew each other. Sometimes they even came from the same villages in Scotland. Their parents knew each other. The result was that if a man stepped out of line once in a while, if he did not show up for work because of something that happened at his birthday party or at a wedding celebration and he had a big headache on Monday morning and was not perhaps as efficient as he
Canada Labour Code
might have been, his boss understood. The boss knew him. He knew the man was sorry he was late for work. The boss knew the man did not drink all the time and that this happened only once in a while. He knew the man had worked in the plant for 20 years, and that his father had worked in the factory before him. There was understanding and communication there. In a plant like that, there was mutual confidence. After all, the worker could say, "I go to church with Mr. So-and-So and our children know each other. He says hello to me." That relationship meant something, and there was a great deal of security in it. That security has gone today.
Today, the workman does not even know who his boss is. Everything is done on orders from a computer. Computers spill out instructions. The guy on the line is set aside from his foreman; the foreman is set aside from the managers. There is a whole new pecking order, a new hierarchy. The corporation is now a big organization. Corporate bureaucracies have developed. Things are done in triplicate and quadruplicate. It is small wonder that men cling to their rights. The workers think that their rights must be guaranteed on some kind of paper, otherwise they are without protection. Even though the guarantee is written on a piece of paper, the worker does not feel secure, because he does not know just how good the guarantee on paper is. In Canada, the situation is even worse because the boss is away in Milwaukee most of the time, or in Vienna, or in California. Faceless ones run the bureaucracy. They do not know the worker's job. In his work, the worker is a little cog in the whole operation. He does one small part. Nobody really knows what his talents are. He might be a fine machinist, yet on the production line, even though he has been trained as a machinist, he must stand there and punch a press and turn out little parts in large quantities. That is the kind of climate you will find in our factories. True, some plants are still run on the old basis; there is some rapport between labour and management, and the workers retain some sense of identity. For most working people, and I am talking about white collar as well as blue collar workers, that identification has largely gone.
If, because of this bill, management consults with labour on technological change, we shall take a small step back in the direction of understanding between the two parties. We are opening the door to some kind of consultation so that the parties can call on each other for advice and assistance, and so that the workers will know what the future holds. If they do that, that will be all to the good. In cases where this fails to take place, rumours fly and fears are generated. Often those fears are worse than the truth. It is better when there is confidence between the parties. I speak from experience.
I am thinking of two specific occasions that involved workers in my riding. One case involved a shoe factory, and the other, Polymer Corporation. Certain changes were to be made; plants were to be phased out, employees were to be let out because of technological and managerial change, and so on. In both cases management was wise enough to call employees together and explain what was to happen to them, what the position of the company was and why those things had to be done. Management did that before rumours circulated. They tried to make arrangement for the re-employment of affected workers
1360

April 17, 1972
Canada Labour Code
in other parts of the corporation or in other parts of the community. The result was that the people who worked in this plant were sympathetic and understanding rather than hostile. They did not like what was happening, and they could not be expected to like it. But they did understand the situation, and these changes were effected with the minimum amount of friction because management had shown sufficient intelligence to take its work force into its confidence. Had this not been the case, a climate of fear and rumour would have been created in which intelligent discussion would have been impossible.
We tend to forget that North America has led in the field of productivity, that despite difficulties in labour-management relations this has been an enormously productive society. We sometimes forget that labour has not, in fact, opposed change or automation. In many instances, labour has been an ally of management particularly when it has been shown that labour, too, will benefit from changes proposed. Perhaps the most obvious example is the case of the coal workers in the United States under John L. Lewis. An agreement was made providing for the most far-reaching technological changes, even to the extent of contemplating the displacement of a large percentage of the miners. The union in question, whatever its other faults, realized that if its members were to receive decent wages the industry needed to be productive. Management has been able to modernize in North America in a way which has astonished the world. This has been made possible largely with the co-operation of the trade union movement. Why is this always forgotten? Why is it forgotten that the trade union movement in North America has never stood in the way of change? There are examples to the contrary, but usually these have arisen in circumstances where a climate of fear and uncertainty existed. This brings me to my final point.
If any labour legislation is to be effective, if technological change is to be accepted, we must, as a prior condition, provide for full employment. It is difficult to expect a man who is to be replaced by a machine to be sympathetic to that machine or to the rational argument of the engineer if he cannot hope to find a new job to replace the one he has lost. The legislation before us will have its value. It is an improvement. But until we live in a society committed to full employment, all the great legislation which comes before this House, all the changes we are making, will not work-I have said this on other occasions, and I say it again, now; I am sure I speak for every member of my party. Given a policy of full employment, given a policy of reasonableness, of trying to understand the frustration felt by men who make their living in factories, men who do not own the shops but who must depend, now, on the government, because they cannot really depend on their employers to understand them, the legislation is likely to prove its value.
I hope I may be able to convince the hon. member for Edmonton West of the reasonableness of the labour position, and I hope that some of the hysteria created in this country and directed against the labour movement will diminish, that the normal Canadian attitude of fair play will reassert itself. Of late there have been many hysterical outbursts against trade unions. Trade unions are not

perfect, of course. I am close enough to them to say I have seen things with which I do not agree. But by and large, the trade unions are being attacked in a way they do not deserve. In many quarters there has been a lack of sympathy and understanding of the work they are trying to do.


Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) on his recent appointment? I believe he is a very kind and considerate minister and, like the former minister, is very interested in providing a sound legal framework for the process of free collective bargaining in the federal jurisdiction.
Bill C-183 updates the industrial relations section found in Part V of the Canada Labour Code. Since this Act has been unchanged since 1948, it is not surprising we should be called upon to change our thinking in the field of labour relations. We have not kept pace with the times; workers are not happy with their lot in life because the cost of homes, rents, clothing and groceries, the basic necessities of life, has far outstripped the capacity of weekly take-home pay to meet them. The old idea that one week's pay was sufficient for one month's rent, or one month's mortgage payment, no longer applies in our society. As a result, workers are not able to provide the necessities of life for themselves and their families on one pay cheque.
Our society has failed to provide workers with the type of home they can afford to buy, largely as a result of red tape and regulations of all kinds applying to building construction. Construction companies have not been able to provide the average Canadian with the type of home he can afford. Consequently, he is obliged to pay high rent, making it impossible for him to save the down payment for a new home.
Many years ago, workers were easily satisfied to receive annual wage raises of 5 per cent or 6 per cent because they knew that out of these annual raises money could be set aside for future emergencies or for saving against retirement. Today, though, our society has changed and in the process the worker, the old age pensioner, the war veterans, have been unable to keep pace, largely because most of them are living in quarters whose cost is not in keeping with their take-home pay or monthly pensions. There seem to be no apartments available for rents which the worker can afford to pay while at the same time accumulating the down payment on a home-the down payment is too high, anyway. Thus, the worker feels that although he is employed, he will never be able to get ahead. New industries choose locations outside town and city boundaries in areas not serviced by vast, economical transportation systems. The worker is therefore forced into purchasing a car to take him to work and back. These are the main complaints of workers as they strive to be successful. At every turn their expenses run ahead of their ability to make the necessary money to survive.
I believe in the process of collective bargaining. If both sides bargain in good faith and if the impact of technological change is fully discussed at the bargaining table, there is no reason for strike action. One does not need to be a well educated person to realize that when a worker cannot supply living quarters and the basic needs of his family on the amount left to him from his monthly pay
April 17, 1972

cheque he will be a hard man to satisfy when it comes to negotiating a raise. This is because he feels he is doing no more than working to keep even, that he cannot save toward his future.
For many years labour and district management of federal companies were able to solve many of their grievances on a local level because regular meetings were held to iron out differences of opinion on small issues. Management personnel were men who had come up the hard way; they were interested in the employees and their families and enjoyed watching the men progress in our society. To me, this was collective bargaining at its best because both sides bargained in good faith, so that small issues were kept under constant revision and did not become big issues at contract time. Years ago, strikes and lockouts were an integral part of free collective bargaining; but the main issues were big, and thus they had a far-reaching effect on all workers.
I believe that today strikes are outdated. Neither side can afford to strike, and if both sides bargain in good faith there is absolutely no need for a strike. Management must make a dollar in order to remain competitive, to pay the bills, replace worn out machinery and keep the plants up to date. At the same time, labour must realize that management has to borrow the money to pay salaries, even if sales are down in slack periods, and to expand plants in order to create more jobs. Both sides must work together if the business is going to be successful.
The former Minister of Labour was correct when he tried out the idea of labour specialists being involved in labour contract discussions. At least 60 days before a contract runs out, the government should force both sides to start meaningful talks on the terms of the new contract. At all these talks, a government labour expert should be in attendance. Sooner or later, regardless of the use of the strike, both sides will sit down and settle their differences, so why not do so before the contract runs out so that there will be no interruption of work? If both sides talk com-monsense there is absolutely no need for the strike.
Labour and management both have the same goals, namely to create a successful industry producing goods at the lowest possible cost. We must remember that it is the people who work who buy the majority of the goods produced. If industry had to depend on selling goods produced to management personnel, the same industry would starve to death. It is the little man who makes the wheels of industry turn by his constant buying of the goods produced. Any successful industry has been built on a combination of money and labour. One cannot work without the other; therefore, it is in the interests of all people to have industrial peace.
Is it not correct to say that the worker should share in the fruits of his labour by helping to make an industry successful? Is it not correct to say that he should be consulted when technological change takes place in his industry? All workers in all sections of our economy have a democratic right to expect fair, humane treatment and consideration for the many years of service they have contributed to helping industry become successful. In many cases, these same workers were the men who
Canada Labour Code
dropped the tools of industry in wartime and went away to fight for our democratic system so that it would not be destroyed. Surely they deserve every consideration when changes are to be made in industries. It is also correct to say that management has the right to expect a good return on their investment as well as the right to make changes in their plants so that they can remain competitive.
Each year many industries of this nation decide to make changes in their production methods. Some have decided to lock the door and to move to some other part of the world. The rapid pace of technological progress and economic growth can and does have adverse effects on the working population. If employees' resistance to change is to be less harmful, as it must be if Canada is to achieve its full potential as an industrial power, employers, trade unions and government must accept responsibility for the development and implementation of policies to cushion the impact of the change on individual workers. It is certainly not in the best interests of employers and residents of the communities affected to be saddled with the problems of relocating the employees without the help of the industry causing the shift through its technological plans.
When one looks at the railroad industry, one finds that since the introduction of the diesels thousands of once proud workers of the nation's railways have been dumped on the streets with nowhere to go. Today many of these workers have not recovered from the effects of this technological change. Canadian law should not permit this to happen. Many of these railway companies were given financial and other incentives to locate in various districts in Canada. Therefore, they have an obligation to provide service to the district in which they located in order to stabilize employment in the area. All these companies should be made to provide some type of compensation or retraining for their workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own.
In this period of fast technological change, businessmen must have maximum freedom to employ new ideas and inventions that improve efficiency and keep their industry up-to-date. The workers affected by such change must have reasonable guarantees. When a machine wears out, it is thrown out on the scrap heap; but our human resources-the workers-have a responsibility to help us build a better society for all Canadians. Therefore, their future must be protected in such a way that society is rewarded by the work and ideas of the displaced worker. We must remember that these same new machines that displace workers do not buy homes, cars, furniture or the weekly groceries. They contribute nothing to our way of life other than to make man's labour less. At the same time they take away man's livelihood; also they pay no taxes or union dues.
Time and time again when there is a strike, management of large companies think up ways to eliminate jobs by the introduction of machines. They should have some responsibility to the area in which they locate to make certain that their former employees are retrained or relocated so that they do not wind up on welfare. There are far too many cases where our society as a whole is called upon to pick up man's broken dreams, desires and ambi-
1362

April 17, 1972
Canada Labour Code
tions and try to piece them together. Surely, we must find some method of cushioning the shock of change.
I sincerely believe that the new Canada Labour Relations Board should be formed from public, labour and management personnel. Its full time members should have years of experience in their various fields, and there should be effective communication between them, the minister and his department, and all parties involved. I believe that, if the board is comprised of good, sound, experienced people, it can and will bring good industrial relations to all our labour problems so that decisions are made in the interests of the nation as a whole. Good industrial relations are based on an understanding of the problems involved. It is very important that the minister give the board the regulations which will help eliminate problems of management and labour and do not allow suspicion and hostility to creep in and slow down new methods of preserving industrial peace. I also believe that the extension of bargaining rights is a step in the right direction. For too long, many people in this group have found themselves in the area of no man's land and had to take what was handed to them with no hope of trying to help themselves.
As we move ahead into the 70's, we all have much to do to try to increase our production in a fiercely competitive world market so that employers can stay in business and give the working people of Canada the benefits of technological change, at the same time maintaining full employment. This is the challenge of the 1970's. Management and labour of this country can and must co-operate to help all Canadians build a greater country in which all of us may live.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, like my friends, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) and the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), I have worked in an industry that has been hard hit by technological change. We have all been affected financially by the results of the change and it is very hard to watch thousands of your fellow workers lose their jobs after many years of long and faithful service and be forced to try to build new lives for themselves and their families.
I sincerely hope that this legislation will help cushion the shock of workers losing their jobs in a fast changing society, so that all workers can be retrained and become productive members of our Canadian way of life and we can have industrial peace in Canada.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced at a time when the Canadian people, especially the people of Quebec, can say that labour relations are not peaceful.
The preamble to Bill C-183 could lead us to believe that those who drafted this bill were really inspired by lofty principles. However, we know that given objectives are not always achieved, and the past has proved that though certain principles motivated the introduction of this bill, its application may be entirely different.
The measure introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) deals with several points. First of all, it deals

with the extension of collective bargaining. It also deals with the creation of labour relations board, with an erroneous definition of unfair practices, with the settlement of labour differences through the intervention of the minister as well as the procedures for the application of collective agreements.
Those are surely issues of current interest.
In addition, Bill C-183 provides a few amendments for the enforcement of the legislation when technological changes are involved.
Hereafter, an employer bound under a collective agreement who intends to make a technological change will have to give to the union a written notice 90 days before making it.
One can wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether a 90-day period will alter the present market for unsold products.
It is true that workers need a certain protection to guarantee their job and to avoid dismissal.
On the other hand, the manufacturer is compelled to make certain changes in his plant and to carry out new ideas, either to maintain his competitive position or to reach a high level of efficiency.
It is a well known fact that workers lie at the employer's mercy.
One must bear in mind that when a company or an industry is created, when industrialists decide to invest somewhere, it is not in order to provide work for people but simply to make money. We know that if it does not pay, it does not take long for them to scram.
We remember the poor work and pay conditions that labour experienced not so many years ago. And it is this situation which, in my view, has incited workers to unite in order to claim better conditions and pay.
In short, unions arose from a requirement. In my view, they will remain in several instances an essential instrument and way of protecting workers, as long as they are directed by leaders who are conscious of their responsibilities and the means used are sensible when it comes to remind some industry heads of their social responsibilities.
There have already been, and there can be more concrete results following negotiations when there is something to negotiate about. However, I see nothing in the bill likely to force a plant to remain open. And precisely because of closing down of operations, whether in the area of Montreal, of Trois-Rivieres, of Quebec City or of Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean, it too often turns out that the worker must accept the status of unemployment.
Everyone is aware, for instance, of negotiations undertaken a few months ago, not to say a few years ago, and pursued by the CNTU on behalf of the "Lapalme boys". Now all the efforts of this union with Mr. Lapalme remained without result for the simple reason that Mr. Laplame, a former post office contractor, had just decided not to renew his contract.
Therefore no law can constrain businessmen to remain in business when it does not suit them.
April 17, 1972

And even though there is often a tendency to consider the employer as a big bad man, it should not be forgotten that he also has problems.
First he must keep up with technological change which requires considerable investments, and furthermore he must keep up with trends and major changes in the markets.
For the manufacturer, for the employer, another source of trouble is often the income tax. And it is not the least, Mr. Speaker, when one considers the income tax being paid by them.
Frankly, it is rather difficult for us to take a hard stand where the interests of some workers and some employers are concerned.
Industries able to provide work for hundreds of workers and with a turnover of several thousands of dollars are not always free of debt.
And even if powerful trusts do control such strong enterprises, we all know that some medium size industries, which play an important part in our economy, having been launched with very small capital investments, have managed to reach a certain level of prosperity and to obtain a fair share of the Canadian market. If those industries have managed to do that, it is simply through the great skill of their directors and also sustained and titanic efforts.
And it happens that the income tax act provides that such medium size industries shall pay their income tax before paying their debts.
In my opinion, such a procedure is absurd and as unfair as it is dangerous, since the survival of our employers in many cases is directly threatened by that bad tax system.
Under such a tax system, in allegedly prosperous years, our medium size industries can barely make it. It is useless for them to think of expanding or building reserves for bad days.
We all know that turnovers may vary greatly from year to year, especially in manufacturing.
We also know that the profit margin may vary. So, for a given year, the industrialist whose financial statement is fairly good has to pay a large amount in taxes, regardless of what his debts may be. If business changes for the worse he may even have a deficit and be compelled to borrow in order to remain in operation.
During rather good periods, the same person has often had to pay sizeable amounts in taxes. I know personally of the amounts paid by an industrialist who employs 75 people. The turnover increased thanks to the superhuman efforts of the workers under bad conditions. Despite everything, this man had, for three years, paid $25,000 per year in federal taxes.
But with a plant where everything had to be rebuilt, with an extremely small warehouse, he decided to borrow from the Industrial Development Bank in order to expand his undertaking. Today, he faces a changing market with a heavy financial burden and he is now wondering whether he should carry on his business or simply close down.
Canada Labour Code
Mr. Speaker, I think it is not normal that a manufacturer paying $75,000 to the federal government within a three-year period should have to face a $125,000 debt. In short, this man has to pay high interest on money he has already paid to the government. This is ridiculous.
I wonder if the present government, with all its experts, should not contemplate a system keeping in reserve the taxes paid up by manufacturers.
In case of real profits, the government should collect taxes and use that money to administer the affairs of the country. But this money, as I say, could remain the property of industrialists. A special account could be open for them so that they could use it whenever needed.
Thus the businessman who has allowed the government to use several thousands of dollars of his money over a number of years should also have the right to use this money whenever he needs it, and without any interest. Unfortunately, until now the tax has been strictly collected to serve only the government administration. Therefore, it seems to me time has come to think of something else.
The Canadian government, whose wish is to establish a just society, could establish a precedent in allowing industrialists to use this money, interest free; after all it is their own money that they have lent to the government during the years when their business was prosperous.
Mr. Speaker, if there are some bad businessmen, there are also a great many good ones who recognize their responsibilities towards their employees and who are also entitled to reasonable profits. The employee has always the right to live. Personally, as a member of Parliament, the majority of complaints I receive from ill-treated labourers are not coming from people who work in industries, whether small or large, but rather from federal government employees. In my view this is in striking contrast with the fourth paragraph of the preamble which reads as follows:
And Whereas the Parliament of Canada desires to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their co-operative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices, and deems the development of good industrial relations to be in the best interests of Canada in ensuring a just share of the fruits of progress to all;
Mr. Speaker, this preamble simply states that the Canadian government desires to serve the genuine interests of the people by insuring that everyone gets a just share of the fruits of progress. It is somewhat unusual to read such statements in the preamble of a bill when this government does not hesitate to reclassify some of its workers to avoid paying them a salary increment. At this point, I will take the liberty of reading a letter I have received from the Quebec local of the Canadian Union of Transport Employees. It reads as follows:
Mr. Roland Godin M.P. for Portneuf Parliament Buildings Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
Some members of our local, which is a member of the M.D.O. group of the Quebec City airport, have submitted to us their grievances concerning the reclassification decided by the Department of Transport in respect of these employees.

April 17, 1972
Canada Labour Code
In view of the present circumstances marked by an ever increasing cost of living, you will realize the confusion besetting these employees who are now faced with a salary decrease as a result of that reclassification.
We join them in their emphatic protest against a move we consider both unrealistic and inhumane.
These employees suffer the consequences of this reclassification with their hands tied up and can absolutely do nothing to offset the situation.
To alleviate this inequity, we suggest that section 7 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act be amended to enable the public service to negotiate the classification criteria by which we are now victimized through no fault of our own.
This letter is signed by the secretary of Local No. 10109.
Mr. Speaker, there is a marked difference between the bill preamble and what actually happens. Unfortunately, Department of Transport employees are not the only ones to complain since this juggling with the employees' classification is also taking place in the Department of National Health and Welfare.
For example, before integration in the Department of National Health, family allowances and old age security section in Quebec City, certain employees of the Department of Supply and Services which were working in Quebec City in the transfer unit were classified CR-2 with a yearly salary of $4,900 while those holding the same position in Toronto were classified CR-3 with a salary $1,000 higher.
This enabled the Quebec City office to have an administrative surplus of $107,000 for 1969-70; this amount was transferred to Toronto and allowed this office to pay the salaries I just mentioned.
It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, but I must point out that this deplorable situation still exists in Quebec.
If the hon. Minister for National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) wants proof that the Quebec employees of his department are underpaid, let him read the duplicate of a grievance at the 4th stage signed by his deputy minister, Mr. Willard, which indicates that all positions in the family allowances units will be classified CR-3, starting June 1970. Even though the grievance settlement provides for a retroactive adjustment to June 1970, nothing has been done as yet.
Moreover, some hourly paid employees of the Quebec offices have not yet been appointed permanently and even after three years are still getting very low salaries and are deprived of all the benefits which they would otherwise enjoy.
As for the permanent employees here is what happened.
The employees held a well determined position, performed specific duties and were classified at level CR 3 whose numerical assessment was 424. One day the department decided to amalgamate all units into a single one, which meant that an employee who worked within a given unit-transfer, Indians, Eskimos, school attendance, maintenance and residence-had from then on to do the job of all those units, not to mention book-keeping. In order to do all this they had to get acquainted with the proceedings of all those units, which logically could only increase those five points used to assess a position: knowledge, complexity, consequences of errors, contact and

supervision. According to the national bureau that raised the numerical assessment from 424 to 434. Some time later the assessment of those people was raised from 434 to 441. Since the numerical code of a CR 3 varies between 324 and 450, that gave them the opportunity of reaching a higher level.
Now, what happened was that classification officers probably did their work half way, with their feet up on their desks, and finally assessed the new position at 401. Since the Public Service Alliance of Canada had classification officers who could do that work, employees at the Quebec office asked that the same positions be assessed, and precisely, the Public Service officer came up with a figure of 471, which would have allowed employees to be paid according to the scale and salaries in force in Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, this situation exists in Quebec. This is abnormal, and I think that since members of Parliament receive the same salary no matter what area of the country they live in, whether they come from Halifax, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal or Quebec City, the Department of National Health and Welfare, which has to concern itself with and look after the welfare of every Canadian, should do its utmost in order to eradicate the difference of $1,000 between salaries paid in Toronto and Quebec City for the same duties.
Mr. Speaker, in this bill they even have the gall to talk of freedom, and clause 110, on page 7, reads as follows:
Every employee is free to join the trade union of his choice and to participate in its lawful activities.
But the word "freedom", Mr. Speaker, is a big word which has several uses. I can tell this House that it is a word which has a hollow ring, for instance, for Canadian National employees. If the individual is really free to do as he likes where unions are concerned, how is it then, that a section which appears in the small brochure on agreements published by the CN provides that unions and railway companies have to unite whenever it is necessary to sue a union member?
If the worker wants to sue his union or the railway, he already knows that he will have to fight both. So, he stands no chance of winning.
It has also been referred to "freedom" but this is a little untrue, as it is well known that today membership in a union is compulsory, at the risk of losing your job. Before the implementation of the Rand formula, this obligation did not exist.
I must say here that this is not true of all unions, because there are still some union leaders who work, but I say once more that in the case of our Canadian railways, the unions do not work so well.
And we have proof of this, for before the Rand formula was first implemented, railway employees were the fifth or sixth best paid Canadian workers. Since the formula became compulsory, as union leaders get their union dues whether they work or not, railway workers who again ranked sixth fell down to twenty-sixth position.
According to a federal government survey whose results were published recently, of $69 million in union
April 17, 1972

dues paid to unions whose central offices are located in the United States, $10 million represent a net profit remaining in that country. How is it, then that railway workers' union dues are increased without prior consu'ta-tion with them and that the railway companies subtract such dues from their pay cheques without asking for their consent? We know that railway employees paid $1 per month in union dues. A little later, in accordance with the Rand formula, those dues rose to $2.50, later still, they were $4.50 and now, in some cases, they are $7.50, $8 or $9. We know also that today the unions may even ask for $50 per month, and no worker can say anything about this.
Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that railwaymen are always told: Ask your unions, they will pay for you. Such Canadian employees are in no position to plead their own case. When they attend an annual meeting for instance, they may be told: There will be a discussion on the internal administration of your local union. If you have complaints make them to the union headquarters in the United States.
In fact, at least 30 CNR employees sent letters of protest to their U.S. union headquarters in 1967 and they are still waiting for an answer. Such behaviour is far from being satisfactory.
I think we should recognize the right of workers to be consulted and to really share in decisions concerning their work and union contributions. I believe they should also be entitled to select their own representatives when negotiation time comes.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are many cases where the trade unionist cannot get the advantage of certain laws. He should also demand that the machine be at the service of man instead the other way around as it is being done nowadays.
Therefore, we should call for a thorough measure and not only a bill like the one now before us. This measure will be of value to very few people; it should be of a more general nature and universal in its application. Otherwise, it will boon be retrograde and will even become unjust before long.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I should like to emphasize that the Canadian government really has a long way to go if it wants to be able to say that Canada is a place where life is worth living, a place where a worker may still chose his kind of work freely.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in many ways this bill seems to meet with general approval with regard to some aspects and considerations. I should like to confine my remarks largely to technological change which is the one area that has created considerable comment from industry, particularly as applied to the old bill. With the changes in the new bill, certain improvements seem to have been made.
While the bill seems to go a considerable way in meeting the objections of industry, it seems quite obvious that the passage of the bill will in the future create some difficulty in interpretation. It is quite difficult to define technological change. Many others changes occur that are allied to technological changes such as tariffs, delivery, wages, prices, depletion of resources and so on. These create
Canada Labour Code
conditions whereby change is necessary and cannot be disregarded, in spite of the situation in which industry or employees find themselves. In relation to technological changes and their effects, there is the very human social element of protecting an employee and his family who may suddenly find himself without a job as a result of technological changes beyond his control. In the new bill consideration has been given to the fact that the provision for a strike occurring during the life of a contract would act as an incentive for parties to include technological change provisions in a collective settlement.
The inclusion of the right to strike during the life of a union agreement, as has been suggested, causes other problems such as using the harrassment technique where the unions would threaten to appeal to the Canada Labour Relations Board on technical change provisions in order to get action on some other demand. It has also been suggested that it would cause many more negotiations, that is every innovation would require negotiation unless there were some very elaborate technological change provision in the contract beforehand. The Chamber of Commerce suggested that, in the face of increased industrial conflict, this would be an improved feature in the new bill. It has been suggested that objections to technological change would reduce benefits to everyone. This slower rate of change would be controlled by the labour union rather than by management. As was suggested, this would eventually mean increased costs and perhaps increased prices for consumers and would increase the risk in capital expenditure, ultimately driving up the price of the product in the economy.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: 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 Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather)-Public Service-Settlement of contracts on regional basis; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-Pollution-Great Lakes-United States veto of sewage disposal projects-effect on joint program.

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

April 17, 1972
World Problems Study Centre



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private Members Notices of Motions.
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider, in furtherance of the objectives of the United Nations, the establishment and operation in Canada of a world centre to program and administer co-operation between and co-ordination of the efforts of experts and institutions in their studies of compelling world issues respecting (a) international relations and peace (e.g. problems of peace-keeping, arms control and disarmament, human rights and intercultural communications) (b) global problems of development (e.g. the use of natural resources, international trade and problems of developing economies, transfers of science and technology, population problems and concerns of youth) (c) the environment and, in particular, the impact of science and technology on the environment.-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: This can only be done by unanimous consent. This motion has already been stood, and it should be dropped unless it is agreed by unanimous consent that it stand.


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that Motion No. 4 stand in its place.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



MARINE RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private Members Notices of Motions.
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the development, encouragement and maintenance of a coordinated, comprehensive, and longrange national program for the recovery and use of the resources of Canada's sea-coast waters and continental shelves; and to this end, effectively utilize the scientific and engineering knowledge and skills of the public service and government agencies and co-operate with private investment enterprise in the exploration, technological development and industrial use of the resources of the marine environment of Canada.-Mr. Forrestall.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Le meme chose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it unanimously agreed that this motion stand in its present place?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]



PENSIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to the advisability of amending the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to provide for the pensions payable under these two acts to be available at age 60 to all persons who meet the other requirements of the said acts and are prepared to withdraw from the labour market, and also to provide for the basic amount of the pension payable under the Old Age Security Act, at age 60 for those not in the labour market and at age 65 for all others, to be increased to $150 per month, for this basic amount to be escalated each year by an amount that will enable pensioners to keep up with rising living costs and to share in rising living standards, and also for the elimination of any means or income test from the Old Age Security Act, so that the full pension thereunder will be recognized as the established right of all our people.
He said: Mr. Speaker, during the years that I have been in the House of Commons I have received many thousands of letters on the subject of pensions, the overwhelming majority of them approving of various proposals I have made. However, I must say that seldom have I had the volume of support that I have received in connection with this motion.
If my mail says anything, it says that the people of Canada are strongly in favour of improving our pension arrangements, and in particular they like and approve the idea of the necessary steps being taken so that those who wish may retire at age 60 and receive sufficient pension to make that retirement possible.
I know, Sir, the usual treatment that is given to private members' motions in this hour. They are usually talked out, sometimes with kindness and approval, but nevertheless they get talked out.


Mr. Francis:: You fare no better if they are passed. I had one passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member says he had one passed, and fared no better. I suppose that is true. I have had many motions talked out, but I have had the pleasure of seeing the principles involved accepted a few years later. Even so I would hope that the House might consider this motion today as one that does represent the thinking of members in all parties, and the thinking of many Canadians, and that it might just let it come to a vote, might just let it pass and say to the government that the House of Commons would like the elements proposed in this motion to be given consideration.
There are, as will be clear to anyone who reads the motion, four basic elements to it. In the first place it asks for the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to be amended to make it possible for people to draw their pensions under those two pieces of legislation at age 60 if they leave or are out of the labour market.
The second element in the motion is one that calls for an increase in the amount of the pension to be paid under the Old Age Security Act. My suggestion is one that I have made quite a few times, and I shall stick with it until we win it. It is that the amount ought to be, as of now, not less
April 17, 1972

than $150 a month. I make the point that if we are going to take steps to permit people to retire age 60 then the amount of pension they will receive must have some form of adequacy or it will be meaningless just to give them the right to retire.
The third element in my motion relates to the escalation of pensions. For a while it did look as though we were moving ahead with the principle of escalating all pensions. We do it with respect to the pensions of retired public servants, retired RCMP personnel, retired Armed Forces personnel, retired members of parliament if they are over 60, and a few other groups. We also do it for those who are on the guaranteed income supplement. In their case the legislation still provides for an escalation of up to 2 per cent of the entire amount they are receiving. However, the government in December, 1970, brought in a piece of legislation that took away the escalation of the basic pension, which since that time has been fixed at $80 a month.
But this is a bit of digression which I ask to be regarded as part of my defining the third element in the motion which is to the effect that all pensions ought to have an escalator clause. In fact I think the rule should be established that a pension is not a pension if it is for a fixed amount for all time. There must be provisions for an escalator clause. We must also get to the point where we realize that escalation itself is without value unless it is realistic, unless it enables the pensioners concerned to keep up not only with the rising cost of living-and a two per cent increase when the cost of living goes up by five per cent is not good enough-but also with the rising standard of living. In my motion I put it in those terms by suggesting that there should be an annual escalation "by an amount that will enable pensioners to keep up with rising living costs and to share in rising living standards."
The fourth element in my motion is one that relates to the income, needs or means test that is applied to the guaranteed income supplement, which I feel should not be in the Old Age Security Act at all. I deal with this by asking for, "the elimination of any means or income test from the old Age Security Act, so that the full pension thereunder will be recognized as the established right of all our people." Let us pay the full pension universally, and let the income tax take it back from those who do not need it.
Sir, I feel that each of these four points is important. Perhaps in an immediate sense, thinking in terms of the persons who are on the pension at the present time, the most important is that the amount of the old age security pension be increased to $150 a month.
The other points, the escalation, and the removal of the means test are likewise of great importance. But I suppose I must say that if there is a reasonably new element in this motion it is the one that calls for lowering the eligible age. In the long run I think that is the most important one, for those who will be pensioners if this change is accepted, for those who will be pensioners in the future, and for our economy as a whole.
There was a day when work and the volume of work was such that retirement at age 65 was the accepted thing.
Proposed Pension Increases
I recall that many years ago when I started arguing and presenting private members' motions to reduce the eligible age from 70 to 65 some hon. members said that it was impossible. Even so, we finally got it down to age 65 for old age security. In the Canada Pension Plan we have the option that a person may draw benefit at age 65 or keep on working and contributing in the hope that the benefit might be larger by the time he reaches age 70. But, Mr. Speaker, the nature of work has changed and so has the philosophy of life. We have come to the realization that old age should not be just a few years when body and soul are held together until it is time for the graveyard; that it is a period of life in which old people, like young people, should have a chance to pursue their own interests, to do their own thing. If old age is to have any meaning in those terms it has to start while people are still capable of adapting to new ways of life. I suggest that 70 is old for that and so is 65-60 is a better age. If there is any criticism in the letters I receive, it is that retirement should start even younger than age 60, perhaps 55.


An hon. Member:: Forty-five.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear one of my 45-year old friends wanting it lower still. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in terms of the philosophy of life it is a sensible proposal to advocate voluntary retirement on pension at age 60. I emphasize the voluntary nature of this. Anyone who examines my motion carefully will see that I am suggesting that the one condition people must meet to come under the terms of the motion in addition to age, residence and so on, is that between the ages of 60 and 65 they are either out of the labour market or prepared to take themselves out of it.
As with the Canada Pension Plan I suggest that other income that one might have between ages 60 and 65, another pension, interest on investments, ownership of a house, and so on, should not count. These do not count now under the Canada Pension Plan between 65 and 70; the only thing that counts there is income from employment. I would like to have it that in both the Canada Pension Plan and under the Old Age Security Act, between the ages of 60 and 65 you can have all the other pension income you can garner, you can have various forms of income but the one thing you cannot have is income from employment and still expect to draw pension from either piece of legislation.
There is a fair amount of opinion to support the idea that there should be provision for a spouse who is under the age of 65 to receive the old age pension. This has been proposed in this House and I have supported it. I suggest this motion would take care of that to a considerable extent; perhaps it is all we need. In the usual case the husband is a little older and if he wants to work to age 65 when his wife is somewhere between 60 and 65, under this provision she could draw the pension without waiting until she reached 65. I think if hon. members will look at the motion as a whole they will realize that it meets the kind of situation that has been set out in this House a number of times and that we feel ought to be dealt with as soon as possible.
The other thing to be said and said very strongly on a proposal of this kind is that it is a way of doing something
1368

April 17, 1972
Proposed Pension Increases
about the unemployment problem that faces our young people. It seems a bit silly to keep the old man working past 60 and put younger people on grants to do something that can be thought up just to keep them from doing nothing. Why not pension the old man and let the young person have the job? I do not suggest this as a complete solution to the unemployment problem. The statistics I saw today suggest that there are just over 700,000 people in Canada between 60 and 65. I was not able to ascertain how many of those are in the work force, but bearing in mind that most unemployment is amongst the younger people there is a pretty good possibility that 250,000 to
300,000	of the 700,000 people between ages 60 and 65 are employed. I would guess that at least half of them, if they were given the opportunity to retire and draw the full old age security pension, particularly at $150 a month, and to draw their full Canada Pension Plan benefit and any other pension they might be entitled to from industry, would leave the labour force and take advantage of this proposal. I submit that we would create perhaps 150,000 or even 200,000 jobs. That does not completely solve the unemployment problem but it makes a bigger hole in it than I see in some of these press releases that come to our desks about the number of jobs created by certain departments of government.
I also point out that if you increase the purchasing power of the people over age 60, both those not now working and in effect those whom you retire, it would create a demand for more goods and services which in turn would create work and make a significant contribution to the solution of our present unemployment problem.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because this resolution makes such eminent good sense, because it expresses views I have heard expressed by members in all parts of this House, because there is such wide public support for it, I submit it to the House this afternoon in the hope that the House will indicate that it favours the elements of this resolution, particularly a lowering of the eligible age on a voluntary basis, increasing the amount of pension, putting the escalation on a realistic basis, and doing away with a means or income test so that the pensions our people receive when they retire will clearly be theirs as a matter of right.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member will accept the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I have listened carefully to the hon. member and I have read his resolution. I will quote the last part of the resolution which reads:
-for the elimination of any means or income test from the Old Age Security Act, so that the full pension thereunder will be recognized as the established right of all our people.
The first part of the resolution reads:
-the advisability of amending the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to provide for the pensions payable under these two acts to be available at age 60 to all persons who meet the other requirements of the said acts and are prepared to withdraw from the labour market-

May I ask if the retirement test is clearly to be part of the Old Age Security Act between ages 60 and 65 under the hon. member's resolution?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct. The retirement test would be an additional point that would have to be met but only between ages 60 and 65. Over 65 there would be no retirement test, just as at the present time there is no retirement test under the Canada Pension Plan over age 70.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Would the hon. member concede that there might be some difficulty "for the elimination of any means or income test from the Old Age Security Act" because there is a fine line between a means or income test and retirement test under many circumstances. Would that not sometimes create difficulties of administration?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the hon. member is asking my opinion, I do not think it would. This business of whether it is a means test, a needs or income test is a matter of definition. I would call what we now have a means test and my hon. friend would call it an income test. As for a retirement test, we already have one in the Canada Pension Plan and the administration of that plan has had plenty of experience in drawing the line between a means or income test and a retirement test. All I am suggesting between age 60 and age 65, in the case of either pension, is the retirement test, namely, that a person is out of the labour market.


Mr. David Weatherhead (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon on the notice of motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with respect to increasing pensions for senior citizens. I am especially happy to do so because this matter is of great concern in Metropolitan Toronto, the city I come from, and very important in Scarborough West, an area which has more than its share of senior citizens, being one of the oldest suburban areas of Metropolitan Toronto. Even though the government has considerably improved the lot of senior citizens in recent years, and rightly so, by introducing the guaranteed income supplement, which I believe now is at $137 for the senior single citizen, including old age security pension, and at $260 for senior citizen married couples, that supplement not being taxable as of January 1 this year, and even though the government increased income tax exemptions for single people to $1,500 and to $2,850 for married couples, the government has, for the first time, brought down an additional $650 exemption for senior citizens age 65 and over.


Mr. Gilbert:: That is not enough.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: And the qualifying age was reduced from 70 to 65.


David Bennington Weatherhead: As the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) rightly observes, the government reduced the qualifying age at what senior citizens may receive the guaranteed income supplement from 70 to 65. These are
April 17, 1972

big improvements. Also, let us not forget the heavy involvement of the federal government in the building of senior citizens homes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Not enough are being built. The situation is terrible.


John Gilbert: I agree.


David Bennington Weatherhead: I am talking about the heavy involvement of the federal government in senior citizens housing. We supply most of the money for building senior citizens homes. We should not forget an area that, until recently, was the subject of much controversy, the area of medicare. Substantial benefits are available to senior citizens under our medicare program, and particularly to those in great need, for senior citizens probably need medicare more than any other group. This program is now fait accompli, and its accomplishment is now passing into history. Yet the medicare legislation was proclaimed less than four years ago.
However, as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as well as others would no doubt say, much remains to be done for senior citizens of this country. They are the ones who made the country what it is. Before most of us were born, they went through the great war, they went through the great depression and, later, some of them went through the second world war. Some of us were around then. Those are the people who, during long decades, earned low and, in many cases, fixed incomes. Only in their later working years could they earn the greater incomes that our younger people have been able to obtain. Therefore, I think there is a good case to be made on their behalf, and the federal government should look on their circumstances with compassion.
I must confess that I am in sympathy with much of what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said about senior citizens. I am in sympathy with many of his philosophical ideas in many areas. Nevertheless, I am surprised that an hon. member who has been here for nearly 30 years can speak about increasing senior citizens' pensions without once mentioning how much those increased pensions would cost us. As I said, I am in sympathy with much the hon. member says. I work with him on committees and appreciate the great deal that he does. I also appreciate his strategy in what he is doing. Yet it seems strange, as I see it, that an hon. member can make a speech advocating substantial increases in pensions to certain senior citizens and advocating that the qualifying age be reduced to 60 for those not in the labour market, a change which might affect perhaps half our senior citizens, and not mention once, as I remember, the cost of this additional increase.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was the government's answer to a $20 pension 50 years ago.


David Bennington Weatherhead: I confess I decided to speak about an hour ago and haven't had much chance to research my figures. I am willing to be corrected if my figures are wrong. Speaking from memory, I think there are about
1,700,000	senior citizens in this country at present; and of these about 1 million get either the whole of the guaran-
Proposed Pension Increases
teed income supplement or some part of it. About 700,000 senior citizens presently get the basic $80 per month. It seems to me that increasing the pensions of the 700,000 senior citizens who now get the $80 per month basic pension and no GIS to $150 a month would cost us nearly $600 million a year. I am talking about those who get their pension at age 65. Secondly, if you increased the pensions of the one million or so senior citizens who are getting the guaranteed income supplement, and, on average, they get about $120 a month, a figure which is pretty close, the expense would be about $360 million a year. Those are my rough calculation, increasing the pensions of people over 65 in the way the hon. member suggests would cost the taxpayers of this country approximately between $950 million and $1 billion a year. That is an additional cost.
However, that is not the end of the financial calculation, because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has come up with an interesting and worthy idea for getting workers of 60 and 65 out of the work force. I do not think he suggests that this would solve the unemployment problem by any means. His idea I think is that if we could get about 150,000 senior citizens between 60 and 65 out of the work force, there would be more jobs for the younger people, the group with the highest unemployment rate. I think we ought to discuss this theory about whether people between 60 and 65 want to retire, and whether they are better off as retired people or as working people. There really is not much time this afternoon for me to go into this since others wish to speak on the motion.
Coming down to the financial end of it, and that is not the only consideration by any means, one can say several things. The hon. member has spoken about 700,000 people between 60 and 65 who are in the work force. I thought the figure was closer to 1 million; however I will accept the hon. member's figures since he has done some research and I have not had much chance to do any. Let us say that of these 700,000 people, half are out of the work force already. Of course, the half of those between 60 and 65 who are no longer in the work force include married women who once worked but no longer work, men who have retired early through sickness, company options, and that sort of thing. I think at least half of the
700,000	people the hon. member referred to are not in the work force.
If we do not entice any other people to leave the work force between the ages of 60 and 65,1 believe the additional cost of giving $150 a month would be roughly $630 million a year. Then, if we were successful in enticing a further 100,000 to leave the work force, the cost to the taxpayers would be an extra $180 million a year. I realize that what senior citizens are entitled to receive and what they deserve to receive is not a matter simply of dollars and cents, but it does seem to me there is need for a measure of financial responsibility even when we are talking about people for who we care so much. Unless hon. members can find some great fault in my admittedly rough arithmetic, I would suggest that the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which would cost between $1.75 billion and $2 billion a year, would be a difficult burden for taxpayers to bear. I might remind the House that we have recently been discussing the idea of a
25104-28?

April 17, 1972
Proposed Pension Increases
guaranteed income for all Canadians at a cost of perhaps $2 billion a year. So hon. members can appreciate just how much money we are talking about this afternoon.
As hon. members sometimes do in their own speeches, I should like to express agreement with parts of the hon. member's motion. I agree we have no excuse whatsoever for failing to provide for annual increases in connection with the guaranteed income supplement and the basic old age pension corresponding to the actual increase in the cost of living during the previous year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


David Bennington Weatherhead: The hon. member refers in his motion to the basic amount being escalated each year by an amount which would enable pensioners to keep up with rising living costs and to share in rising living standards. Frankly, I cannot understand why this has not been done. I know there are some who would argue that the guaranteed income supplement has been increased by a large amount and that this increase is going to people who need it the most. It is said we cannot afford to give an annual increase to people drawing basic old age security pensions. I feel that most of the people drawing basic old age security pensions cannot by any means be considered to be wealthy even though they may have a little more than the ceiling established in connection with the guaranteed income supplement regulations.
It is true that there are a few E. P. Taylors about, a few wealthy people-lawyers, doctors, dentists and a few others who have made good investments and are still working in their late sixties and seventies-but these people by and large are paying high taxes anyway. If we gave them an extra 5 per cent or 6 per cent on their pensions, whatever the figure might be, we would get most of that money back by way of income tax in any event. For these reasons I believe it is essentially a phony argument to say that all those who are not receiving the guaranteed income supplement are well off. They may have a little more coming in than the others, income from a few stocks and bonds, but they are not well off. It would be much better, in my view, if we could give them a fair increase every year.
We all receive letters on this subject from retired schoolteachers and others who are now finding it difficult to get along on their pensions. My primary concern, of course, is for the people who have no extra income at all; for the two-thirds of our senior citizens who have no other source of money. At the same time, we should strive to make the old age security plan fair and meaningful and the best way of doing so,'while not bankrupting the treasury, is to make provision for reasonable increases each year in line with the actual increase in the cost of living.
One area in which we can increase pensions without placing too great an additional burden upon the treasury is that of the guaranteed income supplement. Senior citizens in receipt of these payments are now getting $137 a month, which is a lot more than they received a couple of years ago. But it is still well below the poverty line. Two senior citizens who are married and living together can possibly get by because their expenses can be shared, but single people especially are being asked to live well below the poverty line. I agree with the hon. member that these

senior citizens should be entitled to $150 a month rather than $137 a month as at present. If we were prepared to allow annual increases based on actual increases in the cost of living, we could go a long way toward giving this important part of our population its just due.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, until half an hour or so ago I was not aware that this motion would be discussed today. I do not particularly wish to say anything in rebuttal of the contentions put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. It seems to me it would be very easy to say that the pension should be raised by a more or less arbitrary figure. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests $150 a month, and the hon. member across the way seems to agree with him. It would be an easy thing to say, "I think it should be $200 a month," but I would still be pulling an arbitrary figure out of the air.
I do not think a member of the opposition, in particular, should be expected to cite an appropriate figure. After all, the government has access to the work of various boards and commissions, including that of the Economic Council of Canada. The government has this expertise at its disposal and it should be able to arrive at a reasonable and practical figure at which the pension should start, tied to the cost of living, of course.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says the Old Age Security Act should be amended in order that people may draw pensions at the age of 60, provided they are willing to retire from the labour force. I see this as a means test in itself; at any rate, it is a string attached to the pension. I might say I am not at all convinced that these pensions should be granted without any strings being attached to them. I am willing to accept the government's word that the state cannot afford to provide a reasonable standard of living for everybody who reaches a certain age. While I agree that that is the ultimate, barring that I think the emphasis should be placed, as indeed it has to some extent, on those who are actually in need. Therefore, I do not agree that $150 is the magic figure, because it might be even more than that; I do not know. However, our pension provisions are due for an overhaul and the government should have those people who are expert in this field produce a reasonable, sensible starting point for a new pension scheme.
I subscribe wholeheartedly to escalation of pensions. I suspect that the reason various governments are not too receptive to this suggestion is that this would remove pension increases from the political arena. With pensions escalated on a regular basis tied to cost of living increases, no government in need of a few extra votes would in an election campaign be able to promise an increase in the old age pension. As I say, I subscribe 100 per cent to this suggestion, knowing that within the next year or so we will be forming the government. Even so, I do not think we would want to be subjected to this kind of temptation and this is why I endorse the proposal to remove it from the political sphere.
With regard to eliminating the means test, as I have indicated I do not think I could subscribe to this in light of
April 17, 1972



COMMONS DE3ATES

[Stage Direction]
present conditions in our country. However, I do think that those with no means of support other than their pensions are entitled to at least a half reasonable living. The Economic Council of Canada has already drawn a poverty line, and although I do not recall the figure at the moment I suggest that this would be a good starting point for paying a pension to those with no other means of livelihood.
John Gilbert: That would be over $150 a month.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: If it is over $150 a month, I do not want to be arbitrary but it would seem to me that this is a decent, reasonable starting point without going into specifics. One aspect of pensions on which I welcome the opportunity to support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre relates to those receiving the old age pension, having reached the age of 65, and supporting a wife. The hon. member referred to bringing a lady of 60 under the plan. I do not think this would go nearly far enough. For example, in my own part of the country terrible situations are caused where the wives of pensioners are aged 53, 54 and 55. There might be a few select areas in the country where a woman of this age can find gainful employment, but there are none in my part of the country and I suspect there are none in most other parts of the country.
If a man of 65 has a wife the same age, then together they draw a combined pension of $255 a month. However, living next door to them may be a male pensioner who has reached his sixty-fifth birthday and receives a pension but who has a wife of 55 who receives nothing, and although he has the same expenses he has to exist on $137 a month. From a common sense point of view, this is neither just nor decent. I think the government is beginning to recognize that when a man reaches this age he should be given the opportunity to live with certain dignity. I contend that the government should also give him the opportunity of discharging any other obligations he may have to his wife or members of the family who live with him. I support 100 per cent the hon. member's proposal in this regard.
To repeat, rather than pulling any arbitrary figure out of the air, I think the government should keep a close watch on this aspect. If the government pays any attention at all to this kind of debate, I think it should zero in on this problem and try to discharge its responsibility with a degree of common sense and justice. The family income security plan bill will be before the House again within a few days. This bill recognizes that the cost of living increases every so often, but even yet it has no escalation clause. At least, I do not think it has. However, when the bill becomes law it will triple family allowance payments in respect of children of some families.
I suggest the government should not only show great concern for one sector of society; it must show concern for all sectors. I think our old age pensioners are long overdue for further consideration and for a complete overhaul of their benefits. I suggest that those in government circles who read these debates should pay attention to the views expressed and give this situation the attention it deserves.
Proposed Pension Increases


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words, during the few minutes remaining before recess, in support of this motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
On many occasions already, the hon. member who has seriously examined this problem has submitted motions or bills for the purpose of either increasing the pension rates or lowering the statutory age for becoming eligible. Once again, I commend him for it.
I was very pleased earlier to hear him say that he favoured the payment of a pension to the spouse of the pensioner, even when the spouse has not yet reached the statutory age. Although the hon. member had not dealt with this problem in his motion, he insisted on saying a few words about it during his comments. I think I was, if not the first, at least one of the first to submit a motion in this respect to this House.
I note also that the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) who spoke before me shares the same view.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest this matter is very important and it should be considered as early as possible.
The hon. parliamentary secretary who spoke after the member for Winnipeg North Centre said that after all the cost of such amendments to the Old Age Security Act would be prohibitive. In the Liberal Party, they think in terms of dollars rather than in terms of goods and services that can be offered to the people of Canada, and particularly to senior citizens.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, thanks to our means of production which are steadily developing, we could enable a great many people aged 60 or more to retire from the work force and still ensure enough production and services to all the Canadian people without depriving anyone.
This morning, I found on my desk a letter from a senior citizen who receives the old age security pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, or $137, starting this month. However, two persons have to live on this one pension; besides, both are seriously ill and it is a well known fact that drugs are tremendously expensive. These people have applied to the Quebec government for additional aid to enable them to pay for the drugs they have to buy every month. This was the reply: We are willing to pay any amount in excess of $30 a month for the purchase of drugs.
This situation, Mr. Speaker, is utterly ridiculous. This couple would have to spend $30 a month out of a total monthly allowance of $137 and would have to live on $107 a month. This is an all too frequent and unfortunate situation wherein pensioners have no choice but to live in poverty and misery. As a stopgap, they have to go without drugs in order to provide for other needs that are as essential as those of health.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that-as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicates in his motion-we do not have to pass that measure at once but rather to consider it. By the way, the parliamentary secretary himself

April 17, 1972
Proposed Pension Increases
thought that it contained very important elements and he deplored that the government has not yet taken the appropriate steps. In fact, it seems to me that the cabinet should consider that situation as soon as possible in order to make the necessary changes.
Much could be said in every respect about the merits of this motion, but I wish to leave it to the House to reach a decision this evening on this bill. To conclude, I will support the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Are you for it or against the motion?


Edmund Boyd Osler: You will have to wait and listen to my speech; and we would be honoured if you would come into the chamber to do so. I do not think that kind of question really needs to be asked of me, because in the short time I have been in this House I am on record as being in agreement with a great deal of what this motion stands for-and I am, like my colleague, a great admirer of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He is just across the street from me as far as ridings are concerned, so perhaps I am on a little more intimate terms with him than my colleague. But that does not mean I am disillusioned with him or am not an admirer of his.
I think the words "give immediate consideration" are the hopeful words of this motion, but I must say my priorities are quite different to those of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do not believe in the necessity of going back to the universal concept. I do not think the country could afford that. However, I do believe that basic old age pensions should be tied to the cost of living. I suggested a year and a half ago, when the minister first brought forward his aborted bill, that this was the situation. That bill was later withdrawn.
This matter involves the savings plans of all those who do not have a large income but whose income is enough to disqualify their receiving the benefit of the supplement. They should be paid a pension tied to the cost of living. It is the responsibility of the government to see that the cost of living does not go too high; and if it has to shell out from time to time because of an error, the people as a whole should have to pay, not just those who expect to have their basic retirement plans increased by $80. I am not capable of saying whether the country can afford to go higher than $137, but I think pressure should be maintained to go higher. Therefore, I think the government should be asked to consider, as the motion asks, whether or not we can go to $150 at this time for individuals.
Personally, I would rather see some other glaring errors corrected first. Somebody referred to married couples. I think it is a crime that just because a girl married a man a few years older than herself she should find herself, when she is older, not able to take part in the scheme until she is 65. Her husband may be incapable of bringing in the salary to which they were accustomed. I would like to see these hardship cases considered perhaps before anything else. I think it is a crime that some wives feel they are a drag on their pensioned husbands. Many of them cannot work because of health or lack of training, and it is a
[Mr. Laprise.J
terrible thing that they should not be able to participate. My priorities would be different from those of the hon. member.
Having said that and having rejected the principle of universality, I suggest the question is fundamental and it would not do the government any harm to again consider it. Therefore I will sit down now and see what happens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I knew it would happen.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: There is a certain game being played in this House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This is not a game; we are talking about our senior citizens.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to speak. He had an opportunity to speak had he wanted to do so, but did not take that opportunity. We have listened to the speeches of three or four members on the other side of the House and the opportunity should be given to us to say a word or two, as is our parliamentary right.
I want to go on record as stating that I think the government should give serious consideration to the escalation formula for old age pensions which is embodied in part of this motion. Let me support particularly the suggestion that there be an increase in the rate of escalation of pensions, because I think the 2 per cent formula has clearly proved to be inadequate in light of experience. I should like to support 3 per cent as being reasonable and feasible. I hope the government will give serious consideration at the earliest possible time to this kind of change, which I know will have to be implemented not only in relation to the Canada Pension Plan and an increased supplement but to a wide range of retirement pension plans including those of the Public Service, Crown corporations, and so on.
The whole question of pensions is a matter of public debate and the creation of a public image or public awareness. The hon. member in bringing forward this motion today is accomplishing just that. As he said earlier in the debate, he is not here to score debating points. He is not concerned whether the motion or certain parts of it are adopted, but with creating public opinion in Canada in respect of measures directed toward increasing the benefit of those retired from the labour force and supporting themselves on retirement savings and the pension.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. O'Connell that Bill C-183, to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was detailing some of the problems of technological change in respect of this bill. I believe the technological change proposals must be criticized and assessed as a remedy to the problem. The problem is very simple but very difficult to rectify. The problem is to incorporate technological changes into Canadian industries so that they can compete with foreign industries in our domestic and foreign markets. At the same time we must minimize the adverse effects of such change upon members of the Canadian labour force, protect the public interest and carry out our public responsibility.
The present urgency in seeking solutions to this problem is twofold: the kinds of technological change Canada has experienced in the last decade or so have been introduced at a more rapid rate than in earlier years, and current technological change has a far reaching effect on Canada's manpower. The effect of technological change upon manpower requirements is diverse. It is generally associated with a substantial increase in the number of skilled, technical and professional occupations with a slower growth rate for the semi-skilled and unskilled occupational groups as well as among the Metis and Indian populations. I think this can be given as one of the reasons for the difficulty in respect of job placement.
Certain variables in the past few years have accentuated the effects of these trends. The rise in value of the Canadian dollar has made foreign competition more difficult to cope with and has led to a need for increased efficiency in production by Canadian firms. On the other hand, a very high level of unemployment prevents the reabsorption of displaced, semi-skilled and unskilled occupational groups into the labour force. Where Canadian industries have failed to take advantage of technological advance, labour lay-offs have resulted, one example of which is in the pulp and paper industry. Another problem of technological change is that it most often occurs in highly unionized industries.
The effects of accelerating technological change and a high level of unemployment upon highly unionized industries have contrit uted to uneasy industrial relations in Canada. Obviously, industry and unionized labour have an interest in technological change. It is equally obvious that the Canadian public has an interest. In the first place,
Canada Labour Code
the Canadian public is the beneficiary of an efficient and technologically competitive industry, or the financial victim of an inefficient industry that is protected by tariffs or bolstered by government subsidies. In the second place, taxes are variously used to assist industry to make technological changes or to assist employees to weather such changes. In the third place, the public has an interest as the victim inconvenienced by industrial strife arising out of management's and labour's failure to reach agreement on technological change.
The public, through its government, has an interest in technological change and its effects. This public interest is not one of convenience or inconvenience but of responsibility, because the public is responsible for the economic, fiscal, tax, tariff and trade policies of the government of the day. These policies may encourage or discourage an industry from making technological change, or encourage or discourage labour from co-operating in such changes. It is reasonable to assume that the public has a vested interest in the problems of technological change and, arising only from that interest, the right and responsibility to be a third presence, with management and trade unions, in contributing to the solution of such problems.
One area which is clearly difficult to define is what is meant by technological change. It is obvious that where a new machine displaces workers, this will be a technological change. However, there are many other areas where technological change will not be so obvious. Therefore, I think there will be a major problem in defining technological change. There is also the provision that a significant number of employees will be affected. In a large concern there may be quite a number; in a small concern it will be as great in number in relation to the total working force. This in itself is an element of discrimination. It is just as important a matter for one employee who is displaced by technological change as it is for 100 workers who are being displaced. One of the interesting developments that may occur with technological change is whether or not the stability of the long-term collective agreement will be maintained because strikes are possible in mid-contract. There seems to be general agreement that the long-term contract has been beneficial to management, labour and the labour union. These matters will have to be resolved in the future.
Any discussion about the effect of this technological change clause and its actual working mechanism must, I believe, be considered in light of what the country will need in the way of new jobs. In the very interesting survey conducted by the Science Council of Canada, entitled "Technology in a Cold Climate," it appears that we in Canada have promoted and encouraged a large amount of skilled labour and highly trained people but we do not yet have the technological industries to employ them. Canada is faced with the urgent problem of creating a large number of new jobs in the 1970s. However, our industrial production has been disappointing. Canada's index of industrial production rose by 3.1 per cent in 1971, compared with 2.1 per cent in 1970. During the last decade, the sixties, the growth factor was 6.4 per cent. Therefore, the 3.1 per cent figure of last year is disappointing compared with the sixties. Manufacturing production increased, in

April 17, 1972
Canada Labour Code
volume terms, by 2.3 per cent compared with a decline of about 1 per cent in 1970. There has been in recent years relatively slow growth in industrial production, even with the pick-up of industrial and manufacturing production in the 1970s.
In the April 14 edition of the Globe and Mail there is an article headed "Exports to U.S. offset reductions elsewhere". The article points out that the first three months of this year showed a substantial drop compared with Japan, the European Economic Community and Great Britain. Without the increase in exports to the United States our trade position would be in dire straits. What does this mean? Our increase in trade with the United States was composed largely of crude petroleum, natural gas and lumber-both renewable and non-renewable products. We have been questioning whether we should export these materials in large quantities.
This technological change provision will be very important for the balance of the seventies. Statistics indicate that the peak of entry into the labour force has passed. Last year the labour force growth rate was 3.1 per cent, and total population growth was roughly half that. As the projections of the Economic Council show, the role of the labour force will in fact be slowly diminishing in relation to the rate increase. However, it will still be among the fastest of any industrialized country.
The impact of technological change has a dual role. We as a nation desire technological change because, presumably, only in this way will we make any changes to increase our productivity, create new jobs and achieve a sustained standard of living for our citizens. However, as far as the individual worker is concerned, in many cases technological change will mean only disruption of his way of life and he will become understandably unhappy with his situation.
As far as the effect of technological change is concerned, and notwithstanding the clause in this bill, I think it will greatly depend on the situation at the moment. If there is not high unemployment, it is likely that technological change will be accepted with minor effect. Increased employment benefits, severance pay, and so on, should take some of the sting out of these changes, but if unemployment remains high technological change may well become a bone of contention.
The bill affects two important groups of federal employees about whom I am concerned both from the point of view of my constituency and western Canada in general. This bill affects railway and transportation workers employed in grain handling and grain elevators, industries under federal jurisdiction. There are many ways in which changes have affected employees and communities without, perhaps, falling directly into the area of technological change. Technological changes will make a vast difference to grain handling, railroading, the agricultural structure and, ultimately, social and rural life in western Canada.
For a long time there have been rumours and suggestions that wholesale changes in our grain handling system will be necessary. Although the grain transportation committee has made a report, the minister in charge of the wheat board has not yet seen fit to divulge its contents to the public. However, enough seems to be filtering out of

the secrecy adopted by the government to indicate that the report will contain a somewhat centralized grain delivery system. This will mean the phasing out of many smaller elevator points throughout western Canada. Those employees under federal jurisdiction will be affected.
With the abandonment of the branch line protection by 1975, many railways in western Canada will be abandoned. Weeds will grow along the tracks. In my own area, the possible abandonment of a whole subdivision between Dauphin and Hudson Bay junction, via Swan River will cause significant changes in the whole agricultural economy. Many of the proposed changes do not seem to make sense. I urge the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to make public the report on grain handling as soon as possible so that we can begin discussion on the merits and demerits of the proposed changes. The technological changes that will be present in the rationalization of grain handling and its effects on railroading and the agricultural economy will be enormous. The value of grain production in western Canada has not changed in the past 20 years. This means that the increased costs of transportation will have to be met out of greatly reduced income. The provisions regarding technological change might well be too hasty or premature in the areas of grain handling and railroading.
If there is any doubt about the effects of technological change that will be forthcoming affecting transportation workers and, in particular, railway workers and other employees involved in grain handling, no clearer indication need be noted than that a senior official of the CNR in western Canada has said that the time will shortly come when present rates for the transportation of grain will not be sufficient to sustain the flow of locomotives and boxcars necessary to meet the needs of the grain industry. I think the request by the CPR that the federal government assist in the leasing of American diesels and boxcars to move grain to the east indicates the future trend. There will be a request for an increase in transportation charges with respect to grain. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we will see an attempt made to have the Crows-nest Pass freight rates set aside.
Coupled with so-called rationalization of the grain transportation industry there will be widespread technological changes which will affect the employment of many railroad workers and of elevator workers both at inland terminals and local elevator systems. How this bill will help with respect to technological changes remains to be seen.
The government seems to have made some reasonable changes compared with the provisions of the original bill. Obviously, it should be an advantage that during negotiation of a new contract an employer will be able to bargain with a union on the laying down of guidelines for technological change. This should go some way toward preventing strikes.
So far as the grain handlers are concerned, I point out that a situation exists in Vancouver where the handlers have been working without a contract since last November 30. Should a strike be called by their union, it could well be disastrous. This bill can have an important effect
April 17, 1972

on transportation and grain handling and in committee I will be interested to hear the views of expert witnesses on this aspect of the problem.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to concentrate my brief remarks on one aspect of this proposed legislation, that part of it which, as the case may be, has to do or has not to do with the fishermen of Canada and, more particularly, their status in regard to collective bargaining. This is a very important issue in the part of the country from which I come, as it is important in other parts of Canada.
My colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), who is our spokesman on these matters has already voiced several of the opinions which I am about to put forward. I am sure that following his return to Ottawa this evening from the west coast, he will again be on his feet either in this chamber or in the committee proposing amendments to improve the legislation.
Last week I was glad to learn from the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) that he is quite willing and indeed would be happy if representatives of the British Columbia fishermen, through their organization the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union of British Columbia, appeared before the committee which will be discussing this legislation in detail. I know, as the minister pointed out, that this is a matter strictly within the purview of the committee; it alone can decide what witnesses to call. But I think Canadian fishermen must be encouraged to know that the minister has no objection to their representations being placed forcefully before the committee. I believe it is important that this be done.
To put the matter briefly, Mr. Speaker, the fishermen in British Columbia contend that the legislation as drafted could deny collective bargaining rights to a majority of the fishermen of the country. Surely this should not be the case. The fishermen of Canada are working people; they should not be denied the rights of working people. As drafted, the bill proposes to include some fishermen within the definition of "employee" in the Canada Labour Code, but unless the present wording is amended it could exclude a great many fishermen, indeed the majority of British Columbia salmon fishermen who have been organized and have bargained collectively since 1893.
The exclusion of fishermen who are employed on their own small boats, fishing for large processing companies, contradicts in the first place the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1956 which deemed all fishermen to be employees within the meaning of the act. In the second place, it contradicts the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act and section 411 of the Criminal Code which granted all fishermen in British Columbia equal exemption with all other workmen from the anticombines provisions of the legislation. Thirdly, it contradicts the recommendations of the Woods task force which proposed that all fishermen who are economically dependent for the sale of their product on a very limited market be given collective bargaining rights.
The provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland recently amended their legislation in order to provide collective bargaining rights for fishermen. Formerly their legislation excluded inshore fishermen who used their
Canada Labour Code
own small boats. The amended legislation included all fishermen. It is upsetting to find that the legislation which we are discussing tonight has been drafted in such a way that a great number of Canadian fishermen could be denied collective bargaining rights.
Judge Nathan Green, industrial inquiry commissioner, stated in 1970 that the co-adventurer principle is an "unrealistic, outmoded idea which has no relevance in this day and age to this type of operation." The artificial division of fishermen, by legislation, into employee fishermen and self-employed fishermen is unrealistic and outmoded. It deprives thousands of Canadians of basic rights already available to most citizens.
Again, we find indications that the government plans to remove the majority of commercial fishermen from enjoying the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The term "self-employed," if it were applied to all fishermen working on their own small boats could effectively be used to exclude a considerable number of fishermen in British Columbia from UIC protection. All fishermen in Canada were covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am sure they wish to continue to be covered by it. The situation reminds me of an old slogan first used many years ago in a campaign in British Columbia to secure coverage for fishermen under the Workmen's Compensation Act of that province: "Fishermen are workmen in fact. Why not under the Unemployment Insurance Act?" One might add-"and the Canada Labour Code?"
From the point of view of fishermen, probably the most important change they would seek in this bill is one providing basic equality for all fishermen. They need a more adequate and all-inclusive clause defining fishermen as employees. I am not a member of the fisheries and forestry committee nor the labour, manpower and immigration committee, but I suggest a definition along the following lines:
A fisherman shall be deemed to be an employee under this act. Fisherman means a person engaged in commercial fishing in waters under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Fisheries or on the high seas, accepting or receiving payment according to the volume and price of fish caught and delivered to an operator who purchases fish, regardless of whether such fisherman (a) owns and operates his own fishing vessel (provided he as master-owner of a fishing vessel does not employ or engage more than two additional fishermen who share in the proceeds of the fishing voyages); (b) shares in the operation of a fishing vessel owned by another person and receives in payment for his services a share or portion of the proceeds of the fishing voyages; (c) operates a fishing vessel owned by another person under a rental agreement or conditional sale agreement or any other form of oral or written agreement or (d) receives wages for all or part of his employment on a fishing vessel or in fitting out a fishing vessel on which he will be employed.
I think the intention should be to make sure that all fishermen engaged in commercial fishing on smalle " boats are included whether or not they be owners of the small boats on which they are employed. At the same time, I would propose to exclude from the category of employee those vessel owners who employ more than two men on their vessels. That would really mean that the master-owner of a fishing vessel who employs three or

April 17, 1972
Canada Labour Code
more crew members would not be classified as an employee.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister and the members of this House, particularly those who are or will be members of the committee to which this legislation will shortly proceed, to harken to the voice of the fishermen and make definite provision for their spokesmen to appear before the committee and explain the difficulties involved in this legislation which will handicap them in their earning capacity through collective bargaining. This will give the spokesmen an opportunity to present the type of amendments, changes or improvements which they seek in the legislation in order to protect themselves.
This is a matter of very grave concern to many thousands of workers on the seas and, incidentally, to their families. The Minister of Labour has so far indicated a fairness of mind and of procedure to a greater extent than some of his predecessors. I am told that the minister believes or has said that the position of the fishermen in this matter is basically unassailable. I, too, believe that it is unassailable and that my few remarks tonight should be taken as some indication of the view of the fishermen, particularly those of British Columbia and, I am sure, of other parts of the country. I conclude by saying that I am sure the committee to which this legislation will be sent will give full consideration to the protection of the workers in one of our basic industries.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to say how gratified I think most members on this side of the House are that both the official opposition and the other opposition parties have expressed support for this measure. I think we have come to the realization in this country that the rate of change in society, the rate of change in industry makes mandatory the introduction of measures to assure that the price of technological change is not going to be borne by the working people with countless tragedies province by province.
We know that there has been substantial change in the nature of industrial development, especially in the last ten years, and that people who up to this time regarded themselves as beyond any possibility of unemployment are now being rendered unemployed, not because of some fault of their own or because they have been found to be inefficient but because new machines have been invented. The revolution of automation and cybernation is sweeping this country as it is many other countries. We are now told that a man will hold at least three different occupations during his working life.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Under this government.


Raymond J. Perrault: My friend, when your government left office it had one of the most disastrous records of unemployment of any Canadian government, and when the official opposition lectures us on how to create full employment it is like an arsonist giving a fire prevention lecture.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Carry on.


Raymond J. Perrault: I simply want a reasoned approach here tonight and I welcome the support of the official opposition, but we do not want that kind of aside.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Not if you are responsible.


Raymond J. Perrault: Technology is not only affecting the man who works at the lathe, in the shipyard or the auto assembly plant; it is affecting those in the executive suite. Some people in this country who are today criticizing this measure-and I do not think they fully understand Bill C-183- will perhaps find themselves in an economically insecure position in a few years. We are told by the Economic Council of Canada that at any given time 3.8 per cent of the work force will be seeking employment even during times of technical full employment. This is why since 1968 the government has introduced such a wide range of measures including those designed to provide temporary income support through the new unemployment insurance program, new working opportunities through the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and why this winter, for example, the special employment program will see almost $500 million invested by the government in providing jobs for 150,000 Canadians who would not otherwise have work.
The government is quite properly and deeply concerned with the whole matter of the technological revolution. The present law, which we are really seeking to change, has not been changed since 1948. The section dealing with technological change has been given a great amount of publicity, yet misunderstandings remain.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Then why did you change it?


Raymond J. Perrault: In recent months I have met with groups in different parts of Canada. I have visited Halifax, Nova Scotia and I have spoken on Vancouver Island, and at points between. There are still some people who believe they are somehow going to be affected by this bill which proposes to provide a measure of protection for those affected adversely by technological change. A funeral director in Ontario contacted the department and said that he felt this proposed measure would cripple his intention to introduce technological change in his operation. But, of course, the profession of mortician is not within federal jurisdiction. This measure applies to industries within federal jurisdiction. There are people who say that may well be true, but when a law like this is brought in at the federal level some provincial government is going to pick it up and bring in a similar measure.
I submit this measure is a good one and we should get it into committee where we can make modifications. If it can be demonstrated that these modifications would improve the legislation, we should make them; and if the legislation is good, it should and will be imitated by the provinces. If it is a bad measure, if this is bad law, then of course it should not be emulated in other jurisdictions.
Surely we in this House day after day receive tragic letters from those who have been displaced in jobs as a result of automation or new technology. We hear of economic tragedies which occur in all provinces from British Columbia to Newfoundland. We have a responsibility, in
April 17, 1972

so far as it lies within our ability to act at the federal level to make sure that these tragedies do not take place.
We propose that the terms of this proposed law shall not apply to collective agreements which contain provisions designed to cushion the impact of change. Happily, progressive companies in this nation have entered into contracts which make provision, in some cases, for the impact of change. In my province, British Columbia-a highly unionized province-many leading companies have brought in the kind of provision in contract agreements that we seek to bring in under federal jurisdiction.
Of course, these clauses of the bill do not apply in cases where there are provisions in the collective agreement for the negotiation and settlement of problems arising from technological change and where notice in writing of the change was given during the open period of a contract. The technological change provisions would not apply to existing collective agreements, but only to those made after the bill comes into force. The pertinent sections have also been modified, so that when an employer gives notice of a change during the open period this notice will not be invalidated because he is unable to give precise information as to the likely effects of the future change.
Hopefully, when the bill is studied in committee we shall hear from various groups of this country. I assure the hon. member who spoke previously that representatives of the fishermen will be invited to come before the committee to submit their case. I have met with them, as has the hon. member. They have raised persuasive arguments in some areas. We should not enter the committee hearings with dogmatic views. We should enter the hearings with the absolute determination and concern that is necessary if the legislation is to meet the needs of the workers of this country.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member should speak for himself.


Raymond J. Perrault: Some say they are disappointed with this proposed law because we are not to get tough, we are not to bring in compulsory settlement of labour disputes; we will not bring in labour courts. Mr. Speaker, arguments advocating that we do these things always interest me. It seems to me that there is some correlation between our having one of the highest standards of living in the world-


An hon. Member:: Despite the government, and not because of it.


Raymond J. Perrault: -and one of the most productive work forces of the world, and our having lived under free, collective bargaining up to this time. Our present economic difficulties do not lessen my basic confidence in the free collective bargaining process. It is too simplistic to suggest that if we could just get tough with labour, or just get tough with management, we could remove all the inconvenience and hardship that is caused by certain lockouts and strikes. That sort of argument is one of deceptive simplicity because any government that accepted it would soon be resented both by labour and management. If any government bureaucracy were established to bring about compulsory settlements and to take punitive action against those who failed to obey, the government setting
Canada Labour Code
up such bureaucracy would soon meet the resentment of both labour and management.
Some people talk in terms of labour courts. Have they really studied that proposition? More work days are lost in Australia, where there are labour courts, than in Canada. For years we have heard about the mature relationship between labour and management in Sweden. I have been to Sweden, as have many in this House, and I think it is a most impressive country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond J. Perrault: What happened in Sweden last year? There was inflation of 10 per cent and a breakdown in the so-called mature relationship between labour and management. So far they have been able to negotiate and consult as to how large wage increases should be in Sweden, and they have arrived at a percentage applying to various industries. There appears to be no hard and fast method for conducting labour-management relations and no method whereby difficulties may be totally removed. During recent months, as some hon. members may know, there was a massive walkout of workers in Sweden and the Social Democrat government of that country had to order a return to work through compulsory, government edict. That Social Democrat government did not want to take that action. It had to do so because the situation was such that economic problems far more serious threatened to ensue.
I suggest that free collective bargaining is the best method of conducting labour-management relations in the North American context, Mr. Speaker. It might not be right for other countries. It certainly is right for this country. Since we have achieved so much through the free collective bargaining process down through the years, the government is determined to make the system work better. It is no accident that since the introduction of the industry specialist concept in Canada there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of work days lost through strikes and lockouts in this country. There were 132 man-days lost per 10,000 man-workdays in 1968. For last year the figure way eight days lost.
The whole key to Bill C-183 is this: it seeks to remove all those factors that apart from monetary factors lead to deterioration in labour-management relations. It seeks to remove the bricks of misunderstanding that arise during the life of an agreement-and during the open period labour and management can talk about monetary matters and economic issues. One of the basic causes of labour-management discontent in this country has surely been the festering sores which develop during the life of a contract. Some of this misunderstanding arises from fear of economic insecurity.
With new technology spreading throughout the world and affecting everybody's job, people are concerned. They want to know if they will hold their job next year. That is one of the misunderstandings we must remove if we can. That is why the technological change provision is included in the bill. That is also why, to the disappointment of some Canadians who really have not thought the matter out, the bill does not contain proposals for the arbitrary settlement of labour-management disputes.

April 17, 1972
Canada Labour Code
There are certain situations in which the public interest is so clearly being affected adversely that governments must act directly. But, Mr. Speaker, these situations must be so extraordinary that we deal with them on an ad hoc basis with the method which appears to be most effective at the time. If through some extraordinary circumstance a government of Canada, be it this or any future government, should decide that the Parliament of Canada here assembled must vote on a certain matter affecting the public interest, that government should take its chances at the polls and let the people decide whether its action was truly in the public interest.
The bill before us, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, is just one in a series of measures designed to help the Canadian worker. We have had the first major overhaul of the Unemployment Insurance Act since its inception 30 years ago. We have encountered some problems since the introduction of universality on January 1 but there has been a dramatic decline in the number of complaints received, and members of all parties who voted for this bill are finding their judgment confirmed that they voted well.
The Canada Labour (Standards) Code increased the minimum wage ot $1.75 and gave the governor in council power to enact further increases. It provided for maternity leave, strengthened provisions concerning equal pay for similar work, prohibited dismissal for reason of garnishment, provided for advance notice when employment is terminated and made provision for severance pay. These and other measures are complementary to the measure now before us. Each one is designed to remedy the irritations, the misunderstanding and the economic insecurity which had led to a deterioration of labour-management relations in some jurisdictions of this country.
The transitional benefit program protecting workers affected by the automotive pact has been extended to July 3, 1971, for application and to July 3, 1974, for benefits. We are extending the industry specialist concept in order to promote meaningful communication between employers and employees and to attach more importance to preventive mediation. This initiative has resulted in early settlements of disputes in such industries as railways, airlines, longshoring, and so on.
This is the pattern of government legislation, to make sure that in this highly competitive world not only will companies be encouraged to introduce useful technological change, so that Canada may compete successfully, but to ensure that there is a minimum of misunderstanding and disruption in labour-management relations. I hope this measure will be referred to the committee as quickly as possible. I have appreciated the opportunity to speak tonight. I know that members from all parts of the House will attend those committee meetings in a constructive spirit determined to improve, if possible the bill we have before us.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make some general comments about the bill before us. I wish to refer to a group of people in our society to whom little reference has been made during our discussion as to the effect of Bill C-183. The measure deals

mainly with two groups in our society, labour on the one hand and management on the other. Each of these groups is well organized.
The labour unions made their appearance many years ago and gained considerable power during the depression years. They continued to work for the benefit of wage-earners generally and it is undeniable that they have improved their lot over the years. In doing so, they have acted responsibly and by and large have won the respect of Canadians. Today the unions make up one of the most powerful forces in our economic society. Although, as I say, they have won the respect of the majority of the people because in the main their actions have been responsible and just, there are some today who feel that the unions have become too strong and that they are no longer acting responsibly. I suppose it depends which way you look at it, whether this criticism appears justified or not. The fear is expressed, too, that the voice of the small man is no longer being heard in the labour movement; that the small man is being increasingly dictated to by those at the top, often from beyond our borders. So much for one of the groups we are talking about in this debate.
Opposing the unions is, of course, management. Management varies from ownership or control of small businesses employing very few people to the corporate giants, the great companies which have grown to their present position through continued expansion or through amalgamation with other corporations. In any event, they now wield tremendous economic power. Not only can they expect this power as individual companies, but many of them are banded together to form what is known as the Canadian Manufacturers Association. So we find these two great groups confronting one another.
This seems to be an age of confrontation, an age of war. The ultimate weapon used in this confrontation, is, of course, the strike. Strikes sometimes lead to violence, something we deplore and which can certainly bring no benefit in the long run to anyone. In extreme instances the right of the mob takes over. It appears that today any person with a cause or a campaign believes he is entitled to use violence to achieve his ends. Someone said it is the divine right of the mob to use violence. Canadian society deplores this; it can only lead to destruction of property, and so on.
The Canada Labour (Standards) Code, built up through the work of successive parliaments, has served as a means of modifying the effect of clashes between two great forces in our society. It also seeks to devise ways and means to prevent labour disputes reaching the strike stage, much less the violent stage. The bill before us is a further landmark on the road to better labour relations. It is the outcome, as we know, of the Woods task force study and embodies many of the recommendations made by that task force. When we get to the committee stage, we on this side of the House will be suggesting further provisions which we believe should be included in the legislation. As the previous speaker said, there appears to be general agreement on all sides of the House that the major proposals contained in Bill C-183 are acceptable.
The thrust of my remarks this evening, however, is not directed to the two groups I have mentioned, groups which are sufficiently well organized to enable them to
April 17, 1972

look after themselves: I am more concerned with the silent majority-the silent, unorganized majority, as it might be called-within our country; the suffering public, if you like. These are the people who were inconvenienced by the strike of postal workers, a dispute which affected everyone in the land. These are the people who are caught up in the confrontation between government and public service employees in Toronto where garbage collectors have walked off the job. The citizens of Toronto are suffering the effects. At this moment a general strike is gripping the province of Quebec; it is causing untold hardship, much of which is felt by ordinary citizens who have no means of rectifying the situation.
I have called this third group an unorganized majority despite the fact that some people might argue that their interests are represented by the Canadian Association of Consumers. Nevertheless, it appears to me that the consumers association is a somewhat loose and voluntary organization which does not pack sufficient punch to be of real effect when situations of the magnitude I have been describing take place.
It is estimated that the labour force in this country numbers about 8,500,000, of whom only one-third are organized. The total population of the country numbers roughly 21 million. So hon. members will understand what I mean when I say that the vast majority of Canadians are obliged to sit on the sidelines as silent spectators to watch the giants grapple in the ring of labour conflict. And they are the people who are hurt.
Where does responsibility lie to protect the people in general from the damage being done to them? Surely the two antagonists have some responsibility-management and labour both. They must act responsibly and see the consequences of the demands that they make one upon the other. Just as surely, government has a serious responsibility to protect the people whom we in this House of Commons as members of parliament represent. It is our responsibility to speak up and to take the steps that will prevent the silent majority from being hurt in the way they often are. I think we agree that Bill C-183 is an attempt to do this.
There are some suggestions I should like to make to the minister which can be explored in committee during examination of this bill and which will help to mitigate the suffering about which I have been speaking. I suggest that when we come to discuss division II and section 111 which make provision for the new Canada Labour Relations Board the government will be appointing, perhaps an amendment should be moved to provide that one or maybe two representatives on that board be from consumer groups in this country. They should be persons not involved in labour or management organizations on either side but, preferably, persons who have to live on fixed incomes or on a pension. I seriously suggest to the minister that some thought be given to letting these people have a voice on the board so they can bring some sense of perspective to demands being made during negotiations.
How do we avoid labour chaos? The Financial Post has some suggestions on how to avoid labour chaos, and I
Canada Labour Code
should like to take an opportunity of putting them on record. The Financial Post for April 1 had this to say:
This week's general strike by nearly all public servants in Quebec once again underlines the urgency of new moves to stabilize labour relations in the public sector. It should be obvious by now that bargaining in the public service has been working badly and is deteriorating. Federal civil servants each time they are asked, vote in growing numbers to use bargaining machinery that includes the strike rather than alternative machinery that ends in arbitration. What's to be done? Some realistic ideas have been put forward in Quebec by the Conseil du Patronat, a broadly representative employer federation. The conseil would have essential services defined clearly in law and it would have stiff penalties for those who violate this law.
This is always a stumbling block, I submit, Mr. Speaker. What is an essential service? No person in this country can agree on that, so the suggestion here is that it be clearly defined in law, with stiff penalties for those who violate this law. The article continues:
It would also insist that no strike in the public service take place until the union and the employer have agreed how essential services will be provided. If they cannot agree, some public agency should decide for them.
Perhaps that is something the committee can work out in its study of this bill. Speaking to the Rotary Club in the town of Simcoe not too long ago, a labour relations expert from Hamilton made some suggestions which might be helpful to the committee in regard to trying to reach a peaceful settlement of this thorny problem. Among other things he said this:
The public must be shown that they will benefit from an industrial climate that is not impeded by long, costly and unjustifiable strikes.
He expressed opposition to compulsory arbitration, which he said has eroded the decision-making process and led to buck-passing, especially in police, fire and hospital employee disputes.
Instead, he advocated legislation giving government industrial relations agencies the power to take steps to avert strikes and to act quickly in advance of crises.
He proposed the new laws should provide for ministerial or legislative intervention, and open the way to a variety of procedures. A fact-finding board appointed by the Minister of Labour would be useful in effecting settlements.
Some of these suggestions are now new, but I think we should take another look at them. What I have been saying is that a great portion of our population gets hurt without having any way to defend itself. Some people have referred to it as a ploy, a jockeying for position and power between labour and management verging on what might be termed brinkmanship. I should like to put on the record a quotation from the Gazette for April 12. The writer of this editorial pretty well sums up what I have been trying to say, in these terms:
A strike is similar in some respects to war. It may be just, although a just strike is as hard to define as a just war. It is a question of causes, objectives and alternatives.
In no case does a strike settle the question as to who was right and who was wrong, however these terms may be understood. Reasonable arguments do not decide the issue. In a strike, as in war, superior force and staying power win out.
In other words, it is the little man who suffers. This quotation points out rather dramatically, I think, the crisis in labour-management relations. I hope that when the bill gets to committee in the very near future those who are charged with responsibility for studying it at length, with listening to the evidence that will be presented by various

April 17, 1972
Canada Labour Code
groups in society, will pay heed to what is said. Members of parliament, as representatives of the overwhelming number of innocent people in this land, have a very heavy responsibility in this regard. The bill must be discussed and studied logically. Political expediency should be put into the background. The government side of the House should be ready to listen to reasonable proposals which we of the opposition are ready to present and which we feel are just and fair. Members of parliament must see to it that the majority of the Canadian people are protected from the unfair and unjust effects of prolonged strikes.


Mr. Steven Otto (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I have no particular objection to this bill. It is a nice little bill. I am not going to put too much blame on the minister at the present time, since he took over the bill from his predecessor, but I am wondering whether the government and the bureaucracy which had a great deal to do with the bill are really looking at the facts of today's situation.
Reading the preamble to the bill, it speaks of "promoting the common well-being through the encouragement of free collective bargaining," "labour-management relations," "support to labour and management in their cooperative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining," and so on. A short while ago I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) speak of this concept of labour-management dispute, and hon. gentlemen opposite in their speeches continue to say what a nice little bill this is and similarly talk about labour-management dispute. If hon. gentlemen were talking about the circumstances that existed 30 or 40 years ago, then I would agree. However, I would suggest that there is no such thing today as labour-management dispute; there is only labour-consumer dispute or, indeed, labour versus labour in another field.
When was the last time an hon. member here obtained evidence of an entrepreneur taking a profit cut because of a strike? An entrepreneur may be in difficulties after a short time, depending upon his contracts, but in the past 15 years or more any increase in wages has been passed on to the consumer. We are talking about the preamble to this bill and the bill itself as though we were dealing with a set of circumstances surrounding a strike by organized labour when it originated 100 years ago, when money was locked into a certain community or nation. Money is not locked in today; it is a fluid thing.
If, indeed, there were such a thing as a labour-management dispute, and if there were some method by which management could be forced into absorbing a demand for an increase in wages, a great deal of investment money would have remained in the United States. Why do you think almost 38 per cent of the European economic market is owned by U.S. interests? That was the place they could get more productivity with cheaper labour. They could get this in Japan, and they put money in Japan. Consequently, for the last number of years there has been no such thing as a labour-management dispute. These disputes have been strictly labour attempting to

obtain an advantage for itself at the expense of the consumer and that is the fact.
Let us consider the question of strikes which is referred to throughout the bill and its preamble. I have no particular objection to the section about technology, because industry will absorb that and has nothing to fear from it. It does not matter how great a problem labour becomes, prices will be increased. Since every segment of industry is organized today, you cannot control this and you cannot say one entrepreneur will be able to do better than another because they are all in the same boat and are faced with the same unions and organizations.
What happens today is that a strike, the principle of which was developed long ago, is of no benefit to the labourer, the union man or the nation. Obviously, a strike is of no benefit to the country. The parliamentary secretary said there was always a .8 per cent loss; in other words, eight days lost per 1,000 days of labour-management dispute. I venture to suggest that those figures are based only on direct strikes. I attempted to find out about the other reactions in respect of people who could not work because of a strike in a certain industry but there was no record of it.
I inquired about the results on productivity per month before and a month after a strike, but found there are no figures. I know from personal knowledge and from what friends have told me that before a strike is entered into when there is no contract, production keeps dropping until about a week before the strike. A firm is lucky to have 10 per cent production at such a time. After a strike is settled no one is really happy. Certainly labour is not happy. Therefore, there is a gradual increase in productivity. It starts very slowly and takes at least a month before reaching maximum productivity. Therefore, everyone loses in the process.
I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that in reality what happens throughout the nation as a result of a work stoppage is a reduction in productivity which in turn causes an increase in the price of goods. Perhaps the price increase does not occur for four, six or ten months, but it certainly does eventually.
I think it is wrong to suggest that we still have labour-management disputes. These disputes are really between labour segments in different capacities. This is what is disenchanting to our nation today. This is why we have a demand from various centres for wage and price controls.
The hon. gentleman opposite who just concluded his speech spoke about compulsory arbitration. I put it to him that compulsory arbitration will not work, because even when you get the people back to work there is no way you can guarantee productivity. The people can be back at work, drawing wages, while at the same time productivity can be dropping. These people can work to rule, as experience has shown, and productivity is not immediately recovered. It is inconceivable that everyone will be happy with any sort of compulsory arbitration. There will always be those who are dissatisfied. The same thing applies to wage and price controls. I discount these two methods as feasible alternatives to what we now have.
Just for a moment I should like to review what I meant when I said a strike today has really no effect on industry.
April 17, 1972

A strike is a bad thing for the nation and it is bad for unions and organized labour. Let us consider what happens when there is a strike or a work stoppage. As I indicated to a union meeting I addressed five or six years ago, during the term of that particular strike the employees would lose in the neighbourhood of $1,180 in wages. That was based on a pretty good guess of the length of the strike. I also anticipated the settlement, and I was very close. The strike lasted 42 days. The employees received the increase they wanted, but they had to dig into their savings to make up for the loss of $1,180. It took them 2j years with the new increase to make up that loss. This sort of thing has occurred over and over again. Labour does not profit from a strike. Indeed, this is what George Meany was talking about. I recall that the leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis) said exactly the same thing in Montreal two years ago. A work stoppage does not benefit labour at all; it penalizes labour.
This bill should be attempting to solve the problems of today. It should be an adventurous bill facing the realities of strikes and containing methods of putting an end to work stoppage as a means of settling disputes. It is work stoppage that really causes harm. I think one might suggest that work stoppage is the cause of the inflationary spiral we are suffering. If an industry does not produce, it must lose, because it has to pay wages. One of the things this government must face immediately is how we can adopt alternatives to methods we now have to prevent work stoppages.
I disagree with those who suggest that unions have no place in our society. The requirements of the past have not changed; the only purpose of a company is to make money at any price. Having been involved in business, I am the first to admit that business today does not display any sort of social conscience. Perhaps this is because of the general structure of business with its one purpose, that of making money. If it were possible for an enterprise to do so it would operate as a labour baron of 50 years ago, so the unions do have their place.
I should like to see this bill containing provisions requiring every industry to be organized. It is not fair that 60 per cent of the work force should not be organized while 35 per cent or 37 per cent is organized. If we accept the idea that there is nothing wrong with organization-and I accept it-we should all be organized.
The problem we face is the work stoppage. I believe we are mature enough to realize that in business when there is a strike there is a carrying on of expenditures, and so on, and the company does not make much money. Suppose we had a situation where there was no contract or where a contract had come to an end, and in lieu of management and labour taking practical positions and trying to outdo each other the company continued in operation, the employees continued to work and the profits made during the period until there was a new contract went to the government as 100 per cent taxes. The industry could not complain, because it would be better off than if it were on strike. On the other hand, how long would the shareholders support a corporation which declared no profit, because a strike might continue for a long period?
Canada Labour Code
If production continues, the working man is better off because he does not have to dip into his savings, and the government and the nation are better off because there will not be any loss in the gross national product. Business will be better off in reality because at least there will be greater incentive to negotiate a contract. How long can it retain the shareholders' confidence if it does not declare a profit?
Then there is the question of whether or not union dues would be paid to the government. I am not suggesting this is the only way to handle the situation, but the prevailing thought in this government's mind should be how to solve these problems without work stoppages. Every unionized man has the same problem. He has perhaps gone through a strike five or six times and realizes he is no better off today than he was ten years ago. Most people in this country feel there is something wrong with labour-management disputes since they receive no benefit and industry receives no benefit. On the other hand, we lose productivity and ground to other nations which have solved or partially solved this problem.
So I see no great difficulty in accepting the technological change section of this bill. I think industry will absorb it and I do not believe there will be the rash of strikes which has been suggested. If the government is at all aware of this problem, it should know there is something wrong with its whole technology in respect of settling disputes. I suggest this bill should have been as dramatic as the criminal reform legislation in which the government took a position that was audacious and realistic. At that time we had the nerve and guts to put in the Criminal Code amendments which meant something and which the people wanted.
I think the same urgency prevails within the structure of our labour-management or labour-consumer difficulties. The government must face the issue and make up its mind whether it intends to introduce price and wage controls which will not work, introduce arbitrary or compulsory arbitration which is doubtful, or bring in other provisions by which all of us in Canada will be better off and through which we will not have to suffer work stoppages time after time, an old weapon which has become useless. I think this is the issue which should be covered in the bill. I cannot see anything here to indicate that the government has faced the problem which should not be allowed to continue if anyone is to benefit.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, by and large the bill before us deals with people working under federal jurisdiction for whom the basic right of collective bargaining is generally accepted. The bill has certain proposals which the proposer of the bill and indeed many commentators have agreed go some distance toward improving that basic right.
My main purpose in rising to speak is to deal with one group of workers in this country for whom the basic right of collective bargaining has not yet been established and satisfied. I refer to the commercial fishermen. I believe there has been previous discussion of this subject during the debate, but I should like to add a few thoughts. It seems to me that when one considers the situation of the commercial fishermen and working people in this country, one really must go back to something more basic than

April 17, 1972
Canada Labour Code
the existing labour act or the labour code. One must in the federal field think, among other things, of the Combines Investigation Act. Members who are familiar with that legislation will recall it has in it a section which provides that nothing in the act shall be so construed as to deny workmen and employees the right of free association for the purpose of collective bargaining.
In my view that is the Canadian embodiment in statute of something for which workers fought and for which some workers died over the years in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, namely, basic recognition of the fact that when workers get together for purposes of collectively dealing with their basic rights of working, the kind of conditions and remuneration they should receive as a result of their labours, it shall not be construed to be a conspiracy, seditious or otherwise. This principle really has not yet been given statutory recognition in Canada in respect of the commercial fishermen who harvest the resources of our seas, lakes and rivers.
This, I believe, is a basic fact in respect of the situation in Canada which should be stated in connection with the approach we are taking to this bill. It is true there is some reference in the bill to fishermen. I believe I am right in saying this is the first time there has been such reference in federal labour legislation to fishermen per se. Fishermen, in the sense that we ordinarily know them, people who go out and work their own boats and gear to fish, or at least a segment of them are referred to under the definition section of the bill as "dependent contractors". The bill states that a fisherman who is not employed by an employer but who is a party to a contract, oral or in writing, is a dependent contractor if he is engaged in a joint venture with other like persons. The bill does not include a fisherman who goes out as a single person with his own individual tools of work, in his own small vessel and engages in a fishery.
Under the definition of employee, the bill says that a dependent contractor for the purposes of this act is an employee and, therefore, is entitled to the collective bargaining rights that other employees have under the proposed legislation. I suppose one could say, so far so good. But the fact remains that the bill as drafted excludes large segments of people who are really engaged in identical work under identical kinds of contracts, at least in principle, oral or written, who happen to be conducting a solo operation. If the legislation stays in this fashion, I suggest we are simply going to compound an already confused situation.
I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members a definition of "fisherman" for collective bargaining that was proposed in a bill introduced in one of the legislative assemblies of Canada. It was introduced into the House of Assembly of the province of Newfoundland. This matter may already have been referred to by other members. In the definition section of that bill it says that "fisherman" means a self-employed commercial person. It is very simple and straightforward. It goes on to provide:
-(including a sharesman or person agreeing to accept in payment for his services a share or portion of the proceeds or profits of a fishing venture, with or without other remuneration) engaged in fishing for gain, other than for sport-
I quote this legislation to show that there is a very significant contrast between the definition in the bill before us, and in my view a very important question of principle is involved. The bill which was introduced into the House of Assembly of the province of Newfoundland
begins as follows:
"Fisherman" means a self-employed commercial fisherman ... not falling within the definition of employee in the Labour Relations Act-
It specifically makes clear that it also includes a sharesman who is engaged with one or more other persons on a boat. It seems that the deficiency in the definition in the bill placed before us by the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) becomes very apparent when one contrasts the definition section in the legislation of Newfoundland with the proposed clause in Bill C-183. This includes only those who are together in a venture; presumably-I interpret this from my reading of it-two or more persons. I think the ridiculousness of that situation is apparent at once to anyone who has any familiarity with the practices followed in the fishing industry. In some cases there is one person on a boat, in some cases two and in some cases five or six. In other types of operation there may be eight or ten people on a boat, all engaged in essentially the same operation of catching fish and disposing of them.
The question has often been raised whether such people can properly be considered to be employees in any sense of the word. I am sure the Minister of Labour and the former minister of labour, now the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey), who I note is in the House this evening, are aware that there are some organizations in this country which are still arguing that point, stating directly their opposition to the acceptance of the idea.
I understand that a brief was submitted to the former minister of labour by the Fisheries Council of Canada. At least the copy sent to me so suggests. It states quite clearly that in their view they made a mistake when they did not go to court over the issue of fishermen being considered employees for purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act. We had quite a long debate, at the time, on the question of including fishermen in the act. This was finally included in a government proposal and became operative. That, of course, was the subject matter of another debate not very long ago when we were revising the Unemployment Insurance Act. The suggestion in the brief of the fisheries council that even if a fisherman is an employee, he is not an employee within federal jurisdiction, is another argument. I think that illustrates the complications of the situation in which we are involved.
Hon. members may recall that this matter came up not long ago in relation to certain developments in the province of Nova Scotia. The suggestion was made that if a ruling were to be arrived at as to which jurisdiction fishermen came under, the minister of labour of the federal government and of the province should declare in advance that they would be prepared to introduce the kind of legislation which would ensure proper collective bargaining rights for fishermen. Without attempting to go into all the learned argumentation in that particular case, I think it is sufficient to point out that there appears to be a growing body of evidence that many learned judges in

April 17, 1972

this land believe the concept of fishermen as co-adventurers is outmoded and out of date in this day and age.
Sometimes we are inclined to think that those who sit in high places on the judicial benches of this land are up in the clouds. But from time to time it is most refreshing to see, from the kind of recommendations and suggestions that come from the bench, that some of the judges in the high courts are very much aware of the realities of the developments taking place within our country. One of the realities of the situation in Canada today is that for all practical purposes a commercial fisherman is within the grasp of a large corporation just as much as is a logger, a worker in an automobile plant or a worker in any one of a dozen other industrial activities that one could mention.
It is a fact that in the province of British Columbia the market available to an individual commercial fisherman by and large is in the hands of two large corporations, commonly referred to as the Big Two. To the best of my knowledge one is the wholly-owned subsidiary of an American concern and the other is part of the Weston empire. It may be surprising to some hon. members to learn that the name Weston, usually associated with biscuits, plays a major role in the financial holdings controlling the buying and processing of fish on both the Pacific and the Atlantic coast.
I suggest that since this bill does take a timid step in recognizing the facts of the situation, that fishermen for practical purposes are employees, the minister should go the whole way before the bill proceeds further. I do not know how optimistic one can be about that, but I do know that according to a press release issued by the president of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union in British Columbia on February 25, 1972, it was stated that the Minister of Labour said he believed the union had presented an unassailable case for extending proposed legislative amendments so as to provide bargaining rights for all commercial fishermen. The emphasis there must be on the words "for all commercial fishermen." I hope that before we conclude this stage of the debate the minister will be inclined to make that statement official if indeed he did give that impression, which apparently he did, to the president of that fishermen's union.
However, if the bill passes second reading and is considered by the committee, I am sure the minister must realize that this whole question will be the subject of considerable discussion and debate. Certainly some members of this House are quite determined that that kind of clarification should be made so that all commercial fishermen will be equal in status.
Mr. Speaker, this whole question has been left up in the air so long that I am a bit like the fisherman who when there is a little nibble says, "Let us make it a good, big catch while we are at it." I remember when the whole question of collective bargaining for fish prices in British Columbia was put in jeopardy under the Combines Investigation Act. As I recall it, that was in 1956 or 1957. As the minister well knows, an amendment was made which was passed for one year specifically exempting this process only on the British Columbia coast and not on the Atlantic coast. It was just for the British Columbia fishermen.
Canada Labour Code
That happened to be the place where collective bargaining was well established, with a tradition going back for many years.
That particular amendment, which I regard as an extension of the basic provision that is in the Combines Investigation Act, namely, that nothing in that act shall be so construed as to prevent workmen or employees from getting together to bargain in respect of wages and working conditions, covered a small segment of the fishermen of Canada. When I say "small," I do not want to indicate that it was not a very important segment. The decision was made to meet a problem which was faced by a good proportion of the fishermen of British Columbia. But under that umbrella it did not take in fishermen anywhere else in Canada, whether on the Atlantic coast or inland. That particular act was repassed year after year for quite a time, until finally it got into our statute books in its present form and it will remain in effect until it is repealed or a group of ten members introduces a resolution calling for its withdrawal.
This brings me back to the matter of the Newfoundland legislation. I cannot say that I am fully informed on it, but as I understand it the Newfoundland legislation has been passed but not proclaimed. It is suggested that because the limitations of the existing federal exempting sections of the Criminal Code and the Combines Investigation Act apply only to the British Columbia situation, this complication under the Combines Investigation Act potentially still exists for all the fishermen of Atlantic Canada.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the suggestion made by a judge in Nova Scotia to my mind really means that the logical thing to do to avoid this mix-up is for this parliament to pass legislation including all of them; and if some of the other provinces take similar steps then hopefully by some rational approach, either by a reference to the Supreme Court or otherwise, the situation can be clarified as to where exactly the constitutional jurisdiction lies.
As far as I am concerned there is no excuse for our sitting back. By and large, it has been a fact of life in Canada-it is certainly true in the province of British Columbia-that the only governmental body that shows active concern for the commercial fishermen is the federal government. A joint commission was set up in British Columbia in 1964 to study price and wage disputes in the fishing industry of that province. A report was made, but nothing has happened as a result of it. I cite that as an example of the fact that if this parliament waits for appropriate action by the provincial government, the position of the fishermen will remain for a long time in iife present unhappy state of uncertainty in some parts of the country. They have already endured this unhappy situation for too long; in fact, I have been amazed at their patience.
If it were not for the fact that in some situations the fishermen are being treated as employees, even though under the legislation ordinarily applicable they are not, they might be satisfied to deal, in terms of bargaining collectively, under the umbrella and safeguard of the Combines Act if it were generally applicable. The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the Minister of

April 17, 1972
Canada Labour Code
Labour is aware of this, that there has been a long series of court actions in British Columbia, where the nub of the matter is that the fishermen involved have been assessed substantial damages for certain action taken by them in connection with disputes, on the ground that they did not abide by the labour act of that province. In other words, they did not have the right, because they were not a trade union in this situation, to picket. This question has gone all the way to the court of appeal. The voluminous document in my hand is a copy of the argument in that case. This may not be the end of it because in due course it may find its way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this case makes a strong argument, if we are to have any rationale in the fishing industry and if there is any hope of arriving at a situation where we will not have the unhappy events that surrounded this case which led to court action, for this federal legislation to provide the foundation for collective bargaining rights for all the fishermen of Canada. If it should be challenged in the courts and if the arguments advanced by some parties are correct in the view of the Supreme Court, at least the fishermen will know where they have to go. If they cannot come to this parliament for collective bargaining legislation, they will know it is a matter they will have to deal with through their provincial legislatures. It may well be that a determination will be arrived at which will make it clear that there must be legislation in both the federal and provincial fields in order to protect all commercial fishermen under the umbrella of ordinary labour law.
I would suggest to the minister that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the bill as it is, making workers of some fishermen and something else of others. At least the federal legislation should be clearcut and precise. From my reading of it, I would suggest that the kind of definition section which is in the Newfoundland bill would cover the question as far as making clear that all commercial fishermen are to be deemed to be employees when they are in the kind of relationship that commercial fishermen are in with respect to the buyers of their products.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I realize the legislation before us generally represents the work of many people over a period of time. I welcome some of the steps forward that are contained in it and I know some of my colleagues have discussed them in more detail. I should like to say, however, that I am glad we have this opportunity of a full-dress consideration of changes in the Canada Labour Code. It is certainly a much more useful contribution, to put it mildly, than the burden of amendments to labour legislation that we had a few years ago which, in the view of some of us, emasculated the Canada Labour Relations Board. To the extent there has been that kind of change, I should like to offer a word of praise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I call it ten o'clock Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, on March 24 I had an opportunity to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) about settlement of contracts on a regional basis. I
recognize that I am not the first member of parliament to raise this issue; it is one that has been accelerating since 1967 when the government led bv Right Hon. Lester Pearson established a formula for negotiating settlements of contracts on a regional basis. I think that probably Parliament suffers from all the regionalism that it can stand.
I have tried, in my time here, to eschew adopting a regional stance on every issue. However, this is an issue that affects particularly public servants in the Atlantic provinces and it is my duty to remind the House again of the unfairness of the government's stance in this regard. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), at page 1037 of Hansard raised the issue and questioned the anomaly of the settlement of contracts on a regional basis on the one hand and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion's trying to do its best to equalize conditions of pay, opportunity and so on, across the country on the other hand.
I felt that the parliamentary secretary on that occasion left a good many things unsaid in his answer. He seemed to relate regional pay with the mobility of the public servant involved. I suggest that that surely cannot be the only criterion for regional pay scales. For example, I cannot for a moment imagine the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) accepting the principle that judges of the supreme or district courts of, say, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia should receive less pay than those of Ontario. Those learned gentlemen are by no means mobile; they cannot be expected to move from one part of Canada to another.
One finds the problem of regionalism and lower pay scales prevalent in the nursing profession. I am speaking of women who are in the public service, who are serving at Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals across the country and who are receiving different pay for doing exactly the same work. Mr. Speaker, I put it to you, this is manifestly unfair of the government. This practice has been creeping into wage settlements, if I can put it that way, and I think it is time to warn the government that those who represent areas that will be affected particularly by the unevenness of wage settlements will be pressing the government to reverse a policy that can only work hardship on public servants.
I think the government is obligated to set the highest possible standard as an employer, and it fails in its obligation if in the bargaining process it uses the fact that, unhappily, incomes in one part of our country are substantially below the national average. I suggest, with great
April 17, 1972

respect, that it is time the government took another look at this policy. It is not in the national interest to proceed further with settling contracts on a regional basis.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board's position with respect to regional rates of pay is certainly not an attempt to institutionalize a dilemma of regional disadvantages and disparities. As indicated by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) when the hon. member first raised this question, the regional pay rate system is in fact "an attempt to bring about, in an orderly way, a greater measure of unity".
As employer, the government is committed to paying rates which are equitable and competitive with rates being paid outside the public service for similar occupations. Where the outside pay data for occupational groups indicate significant variations from the Canadian average and where the area of recruitment and the mobility of employees within the public service is limited, the government as employer considers it appropriate to pay regional and not national rates of pay. Paying national rates of pay in such circumstances would serve only to overpay employees in some regions and to underpay employees in other regions in relation to the rates of pay prevailing in those regions. Neither situation, from the employer's point of view, is desirable or viable. In order to avoid this situation, regional rates are considered more appropriate.
The hon. member expressed the belief that the regional pay system is an attempt to institutionalize regional disparities. As the hon. member is aware, the basic objective of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is precisely to facilitate the access of people to productive employment opportunities. If the effect of regional economic growth is to raise rates of compensation in areas of low pay by comparison with other parts of this country, the government as employer will ensure that its rates reflect those changes, subject of course to collective bargaining provisions in the public service.



POLLUTION-GREAT LAKES-UNITED STATES VETO OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL PROJECTS-EFFECT ON JOINT PROGRAM

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on March 17,1 asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) the following question:
In view of recent reports that the proposed $138 million anti-pollution program for an accelerated clean-up of the Great Lakes has been vetoed by the Nixon administration, I wish to ask the minister what effect this decision will have on the joint Canada-United States program to deal with this problem.
I followed with a supplementary question in which I asked the minister whether the veto by the Nixon administration meant that the target date of 1975 for meeting certain standards would need to be revised. In his reply the minister said he felt Canada and the United States would agree in principle on a clean-up program and that he hoped the date of 1975 need not be revised.
Since I asked that question, the Great Lakes water quality agreement has been signed. I attended the signing ceremony on April 15, 1972, and I must admit, frankly, I feel it is a step forward. I am certain it will be welcomed
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
by most individuals in this House and by interested organizations across the country. I must point out, however, that the terms of previous treaties have not been observed by either country. In particular, I would draw attention to the Boundary Waters Treaty Act which was signed in 1910 by the United States and, at that time, by Great Britain. This treaty prohibited the pollution of the Great Lakes by any means or in any manner. It seems to me it would be much better had the two parties who signed the agreement last Saturday undertaken to carry out the terms of the original treaty, because I believe that treaty to be far more inclusive than the agreement which was signed on Saturday.
Conclusion of the agreement on Saturday does not ensure that adequate standards of water quality will either be made or set. In fact, there is every indication that inadequate standards are already being considered. The governor of one of the states bordering the Great Lakes stated yesterday that the standards being considered with respect to phosphates, fluorides, mercury, etc., would not ensure the success of the clean-up operation required. I agree. There is every indication that a very wide difference of opinion exists between Canada and the United States as to the standards required if an appropriate clean-up job is to be carried out. A good example of this difference is clearly outlined in the approach taken by our two countries to the problem of phosphates. We have sharply curtailed the amount of phosphates allowed in detergents used in Canada. On the other hand, the United States has not done so.
A very interesting article appeared in the Vancouver Sun tor April 15 in connection with a statement made by representative Henry S. Reuss of the United States. The article reads as follows:
Henry S. Reuss said today that the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes anti-pollution pact was a victory for the phosphate deterent industry and a potential disaster for Lake Erie-
Canada was put in the position today of signing the agreement, which lacks a ban on heavy phosphate detergents, "or having no agreement at all".
Reuss said a joint U.S.-Canadian study released in February showed that if phosphates continue to be dumped into Lake Erie for the next few years there is the "frightening possibility" of the "irreversible destruction of the lake".
My point is that this agreement talks of a 50 per cent reduction in phosphates, and I say that is not enough. Last August the federal government and the government of the province of Ontario signed an agreement to spend $250 million, I believe it was, on construction of sewage disposal plants. One pollutant they were aiming at was phosphates. We have already on our statute books legislation providing for a sharp curtailment of phosphates used in detergents. Yet we are faced with the possibility of a job being done on one side without a full or proper job being done on the other.
I should also like to point out that this agreement is not a firm commitment or a treaty but merely an executive agreement set out in very broad terms. It does not tie the United States down to any timetable, or Canada either. It is merely an agreement between the two countries which acknowledges that a very undesirable condition exists in

April 17, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the Great Lakes as far as pollution is concerned and that the two countries will do something about it.
I mentioned earlier that I was a little disturbed at the lack of action on the part of the United States over the past three years in regard to cleaning up this great body of water. Only two months ago the Nixon administration vetoed a $138 million program which was to have been the initial start of this clean-up project. It seems to me that we in Canada must push very strongly and do everything we possibly can to persuade our counterparts across the line to get on with the job. I am convinced that high international standards must be set and that these must be policed and enforced by the International Joint Commission if we are to get the job done. This is what I urge upon the minister.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: I should like to amplify the response given on March 17 by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) to a question by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). The inquiry concerned reports that a decision has been taken within the United States administration not to proceed with a group of particular projects for water quality in the Great Lakes basin costing in total $138 million, the largest item reported as being for studies on programs to overcome pollution from storm sewer overflows.
Naturally, we always like to see additional financial and other resources for sound projects to correct sources of pollution on the United States side of the Great Lakes, particularly where such pollution might have a transboundary effect on Canadian waters. We have made inquiries in Washington about this particular group of projects. We have been assured that the decision taken by the administration in regard to these projects will not have any significant effect on the broader programs to abate and control pollution in the Great Lakes which are incorporated in the agreement signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and President Nixon on Saturday last, April 15.
In this context I should like to draw the attention of the House to current estimates of the cost of programs to abate municipal pollution on the United States side of the Great Lakes as announced by the responsible agencies of the United States administration. The United States environmental protection agency has recently estimated that to construct the needed improvements to these municipal plants on the United States side will cost about $2 billion in total, over 31 years. Under agreements for sharing these costs proposed by the United States administration, about one half of this total would be provided in the form of federal grants with the remainder financed by state and local sources.
The flow of United States federal funds to construct municipal sewage treatment plants has recently increased significantly. According to reports issued by the environmental protection agency in Washington, federal United States government grants for the construction of municipal treatment facilities across the country increased from about $215 million in 1969 to $1 billion in 1971. For 1972 and the following two years the President has proposed increasing the flow of these grants to $2 billion annually, or a total of $6 billion for the three years. Of these grants, a substantial portion is expected to be directed toward the construction of needed sewage treatment facilities on the United States side of the Great Lakes basin which, as I have noted, is estimated to require expenditures of about $2 billion in total in order to meet tne terms ot tne new agreement.
I wish to assure the hon. member that it is the intention of this government to carry out the programs envisaged by the recent agreement and we have every reason to believe that our United States counterparts intend to do likewise.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:19 p.m.

Tuesday, April 18, 1972