1972-03-29

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 29, 1972
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Gerald Fauteux, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 29th day of March, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant, Louis-Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister oi State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I would like to table, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), copies in both official languages of the joint report by Statistics Canada and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce entitled, "Private and Public Investment in Canada, Outlook, 1972".



LE DAIN REPORT-STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT ACTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING TREATMENT OF ADDICTS

Hon. lohn C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I undertook some time ago to make a statement to the House concerning the government's reaction to the remaining recommendations of the last instalment of the Le Dain report on treatment. I am
pleased to indicate to the House the action taken to date by the government relative to the report on treatment.
As hon. members are aware, this report was submitted to the government only a few weeks ago. We have already taken significant steps to implement major recommendations contained in the commission's report. These may be summarized as follows: First, with regard to methadone maintenance, recognizing the necessity to rationalize treatment of opiate dependence I announced in the House on February 24, 1972, government action to control the drug methadone used in treatment of heroin dependent persons. I am pleased to announce that my officials are completing arrangements for the designation of physicians who will be authorized to use methadone.
Those so authorized will be considered to possess the necessary expertise and will have available to them necessary facilities and ancillary services to properly utilize methadone. Principles to be used in determining the criteria for good medical practice in the use of this drug are in full agreement with recommendations in this area by the commission.
Hon. members will be pleased to learn that full support for the government's action to control methadone use is being received from the medical profession. The methadone control program I announced on February 24 is expected to be fully operational by June 1, 1972.
Second, heroin maintenance. Included among the recommendations in the commission's report was one which dealt with maintenance of heroin addicts by providing them with heroin. The commission concluded that heroin should be made available for administration by physicians to heroin dependent persons, under very strictly controlled conditions. As I have indicated on several occasions, I felt it advisable to withhold comment on this recommendation pending careful study of it. This study now has been completed and I wish to indicate the government's views on the commission's recommendation.
In arriving at a position on the recommendation I have, of course, been aware of the views expressed by Canadian physicians regarding a heroin maintenance program. As some hon. members may be aware, the Canadian Medical Association has stated it disagrees "in the strongest possible terms" with any program of providing heroin to those dependent on the drug.
Having carefully considered all the factors involved, I have concluded that if patients must be maintained on an opiate drug, use of methadone is to be preferred, on both medical and social grounds, to use of heroin. Furthermore, the possibility of abuse of a heroin maintenance program is intrinsically high, even if one considers the safeguards suggested by the commission. For these reasons the government cannot accept the recommendation

March 29, 1972
Treatment of Drug Addicts
of the commission of inquiry relating to heroin maintenance. We agree with the Canadian Medical Association that there is no place for such a method of treatment in the Canadian setting.
Third, treatment of rehabilitation facilities. Officials of my department have been actively engaged in discussions with their counterparts associated with treatment and rehabilitation facilities for opiate dependent persons. These discussions have centred on the need to establish criteria for the evaluation of treatment programs and the necessity of periodic reappraisal of their effectiveness.
Fourth, use of amphetamines. I announced in the House on February 24 plans to limit the use of amphetamines to the treatment of two relatively rare medical disorders. Physicians wishing to use amphetamines for these two conditions will be required to receive authorization from me for this purpose. Amphetamines will not be permitted for use in the treatment of obesity as with so-called diet pills. Details of the administration of this program are now being worked out in conjunction with the medical profession. Plans are under way to convene an expert advisory group to consider the feasibility of developing an effective amphetamine antagonist and consideration is being given to sponsorship of research in this area.
Fifth, treatment manual. The treatment manual presented in the commission's report is being enlarged and brought up to date through the co-operation of medical consultants. The revised manual will be sent to all physicians in Canada within the next few months.
Sixth, therapeutic communities. Recognizing the general validity of the commission's recommendations regarding the value of therapeutic communities, my department has provided funds to assist a therapeutic community in British Columbia and is completing final details relative to the provision of financial assistance to a second therapeutic community in the Montreal area. Research and evaluation of the effectiveness of these communities are integral parts of the programs.
Seventh, the treatment of alcoholism. My department agrees that alcohol is the most widespread drug dependence problem. Consultations are being held with provincial governments and key provincial agencies to determine what form of assistance the federal government might most appropriately provide in the fields of prevention, education, treatment and rehabilitation of alcohol dependent persons.
May I say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that the commission has identified a number of community treatment service needs for drug and drug related problems. My department had already responded to some of these needs- information for parents and teachers and the development of laboratory services are good examples-and will continue to promote fulfilment of these needs through its non medical use of drugs programs.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). This is the quickest action I have ever seen from this government. It was just yesterday that I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) about the drug heroin about which the minister has spoken. If we can get this type of reaction every day, let's keep it up.

The minister spoke of the rationalization of the methadone treatment and the appointment of doctors who are skilled in the art of treating this particular type of addict, and has seen fit to reject the report of his own commission, one which was in keeping with the report of the research committee of the American bar association which only a couple of weeks ago stated that after a full survey it had reached the conclusion that federal centres should be set up across the United States for the treatment of heroin addiction. This is very similar to the recommendation of the minister's commission which proposed allowing physicians to treat heroin addicts across Canada under strict conditions.
However, the Canadian Medical Association after looking at the situation felt, I believe rightly, that there are two sides to this coin, one being the art of interference with the medical profession and their conscience and the other being the power of government to do as they like. You have those two sides of the coin to keep in mind. However, as I say, the CMA after looking at the situation did back the idea the minister has expressed and felt it was safer to treat heroin addiction through the use of methadone in properly oriented centres. The reasoning behind this is obvious. Research facilities are necessary if one is to know how a heroin addict is progressing during his methadone treatment and whether or not the result has been successful. It has to be accepted that this is scientifically necessary in connection with the treatment which addicts ought to take.
The minister went on to speak of the use of treatment and rehabilitation centres. I am not quite clear what he meant in this regard. I am sure the medical profession has not heard of this. I do not believe the minister has consulted the CMA, any other medically oriented body of which I am aware, or the provinces. If he has, we would like to know about it.
This brings me to another point. The minister has often made excuses for not taking action on the ground that he cannot interfere with health and welfare arrangements or seek to control the medical profession because these are areas within provincial jurisdiction. But in this case he takes another position entirely, as far as I can see. He also states that amphetamines have a limited use in the treatment of two relatively rare disorders and that physicians using amphetamines for the treatment of these disorders will be required to obtain authorization. I am sure the minister intended to add "on the advice of medical commissions or medical experts in their particular fields."
The minister said that amphetamines would not be used in diet pills, and we approve of that. However, amphetamines and like drugs are used for other purposes, and used medically correctly. I hope that the minister is not regarding this as a criterion for stepping in and interfering with proper medical practice in this or any other field. On occasion he has stubbed his toe. I need only remind him of the interference that took place in the use of diet on diabetic sweeteners for sugar not so long ago. I am sure he recalls that.
However, I do want to congratulate him for something. It has taken me a long time to get the minister around to
March 29, 1972

realizing and to expressing in the House the fact that alcohol is the most widespread drug dependent problem in Canada and costs us more than the rest of the addictions put together. I congratulate the minister for finally realizing that. I knew that if I kept after him long enough, some day he would get up in this House and agree with me. For that I am very grateful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: We may also be making a start on educating young people of the age to consume alcohol, of the dangers thereof. I sincerely congratulate the minister for taking this step. I also appreciate the fact that he is setting up centres for this purpose. On the whole, Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of the points made by the minister but I ask him to keep in mind that this must not be considered any criterion for interfering with good medical practice or the conscience of the doctor. As the minister said in his statement, this matter falls under the provinces and the medical profession and it is they who must exercise the necessary discipline.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second declaration or statement by the minister to the House during the past month or five weeks which we have had to chew, ingest and digest. Fortunately, we have not yet become addicted to the same sort of approach that is advocated by the minister in his statement. With one exception, I look upon the minister's statement as a sort of expanded progress report on the statement that he made on February 24.
With regard to the use of methadone for the maintenance of addicts, the minister has gone a little further in his statement than he went earlier. He said that they are now in the process of selecting those members of the medical profession who will be considered to possess the necessary expertise and they will be authorized to use the necessary facilities and ancillary services that will be made available to them properly to utilize methadone.
However, I suggest that this is a rather vague and ambiguous statement. What is the necessary expertise that a doctor must have? What are the criteria which are to be established? Again, where will methadone be administered? I take it from the February 24 statement that it will be administered in conjunction with the clinics. If that carries with it the implication that these clinics will be in urban areas only, then to the extent that methadone maintenance may have some value, the people living in rural areas and small communities will be precluded from taking advantage of the program.
I suggest that the whole of the medical profession must be involved in the methadone maintenance treatment program so that addicts who want to cease using heroin and move on to the methadone maintenance program will be able to avail themselves of it no matter where they live in Canada. To confine the program to metropolitan areas where there are clinics at the moment would, I think, do a disservice to any value that methadone maintenance may have.
The minister stated that the medical profession is in full support of the government's program to control methadone and the like. I am not overly impressed with the
Treatment of Drug Addicts
opinion of the medical profession as to what methadone is or can be. I do not know of any doctor who uses methadone and I wonder how doctors can know what it is all about. I do know, as I am sure other hon. members do, from conversations with former heroin addicts who have given it up and moved on to the use of methadone that they contend that methadone, its after effects and addiction are worse than heroin itself. I understand that the idea is still endorsed by the state that a person can take intravenously or orally a chemical in order to create for him an internal condition that permits him to escape from reality. This is still the promotion of an addiction type program.
I foresee that when there is a shortage of heroin, heroin addicts will be moving in to see these doctors, who will be chosen for having the necessary expertise, and simply using the methadone program as a substitute for heroin addiction during the time there is a shortage of heroin. As soon as the supply picks up they will go back to the use of heroin. The idea behind methadone maintenance carries with it relatively little in the field of rehabilitation or the moving away from addiction to drugs, because methadone is a drug and the state is saying, "We endorse the concept that you as an individual should continue an existence which is dependent upon a drug, and we classify methadone as a drug that is legal." But this does not touch the core of the problem at all.
The valuable part of the minister's statement-I congratulate him for it, but say he should have done this the day the Le Dain report was made public; he did not have to wait for an opinion on it-was his reference to the fact that heroin should be used and given a semi-legal status to support or maintain an addict where the individual may not desire to follow the methadone treatment, for whatever value that may have for the individual. The minister will recall that on February 24 I made this suggestion to him, and I am glad he has accepted my advice so quickly.
The minister also talks in the statement about therapeutic communities, as did the Le Dain commission, in respect of treatment. The Le Dain commission expressed some very commendable thoughts about therapeutic communities as mentioned both in its treatment report and its first or interim report in which was mentioned, with some commendation, the X-Kalay Foundation program which has been in existence in Vancouver for some time and which now has expanded and moved into Winnipeg. I am pleased that the department, the minister and the government have understood this and are providing some financial support and assistance to the only therapeutic community in British Columbia, as well as doing something about establishing one in Montreal.
I think the minister would be well advised to extend this area of activity of his department and financially support therapeutic communities far beyond the program he has announced. Such communities could be of value to addicts wherever there is need, such as in Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto and other large centres. Having accepted the value of the X-Kalay Foundation, I am convinced that without further examination or study the government should very quickly extend its support.

March 29, 1972
Treatment of Drug Addicts
In respect of the social question, the statement moves away from the need to make a major assessment as to why people, especially younger people, are social dropouts, why there is cynicism among the younger generation, why they reject the values which have been established and built up over the years and why they turn away from the realities of life and substitute the intake of a chemical, no matter of what sort, in order to create for them some kind of subculture within which they feel comfortable.
I think something must be done to establish a different form of society. We should try to create a concept in society that will be acceptable to people so they will not want to take alcohol, heroin, methadone or any other drug in order to live in an unreal situation. The statement misses completely the fact that there are 10, 11 and 12-year old children in this nation and in North America generally who are addicted to heroin and who reached that state by the route suggested by their peers through the intake of chemicals. The statement also misses the point completely that 6, 7 and 8-year old children are able to go to a hobby shop, purchase glue, get high and damage themselves mentally and internally.
In the past few years there has been a fantastic increase in drug abuse. There has been a fantastic increase in the number of people using alcohol, methadone, marijuana, acid and all the other chemicals and psychotropic drugs. The statement of the minister does not do much to cope with this problem and unless something more positive and worth while is done we will have a steady increase in the use of drugs and a year from now we will be in an even worse position.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Canadian people will be happy to learn about the decision just announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) in which the government took into account the recommendations of several Canadian doctors who, upon publication of the Le Dain report, expressed their views on the dangers of drug abuse both under medical control and clandestine.
Mr. Speaker, drug abuse has caused considerable ravages in Canada to date. A commission of ten doctors reported, after the publication of the first volume of the Le Dain report, that in British Columbia alone, 10,000 adults use heroin illegally and that the use of LSD is increasing considerably among the young especially. In addition, marijuana and hashish continue to attract ever more young Canadians.
The House is now studying a program against the illegal use of drugs, with the co-operation of the medical corps. But, to my mind, we have waited too long before taking efficient steps against the use of drugs.
Only a few years ago, sale or distribution of heroin, opium and drugs of all kinds were limited to adults. However, the pushers discovered, in universities, CEGEP's and even secondary schools, a potential clientele lured by the kicks to be derived from the use of drugs.
We therefore witnessed the development of what I shall call a shocking trade with young people in our schools.

And there have been instances, particularly recently, of both Canadian and American police seizing enormous quantities of drugs of all kinds. Nevertheless, distribution continues even at school levels.
Therefore, to be consistent in this fight against drug abuse, a major publicity campaign should be launched first of all, geared more particularly to young people, to make them aware of the deleterious effects of drugs. There should be a concurrent fight against the drug-distributing mafia, which seems to be very well organized.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am also gratified to see that the minister's release includes a very small paragraph about alcoholism. There again, Mr. Speaker, government coffers are being filled year after year by taxes derived from sales of spirits, but so far very little action is being taken and very little money spent for an anti-alcoholism campaign in Canada. In recent years, the provinces have launched such an offensive, which so far the federal government has not participated in.
I therefore urge the minister to consider the problem and to have his officials, the physicians employed by his department, also study it and give it all the attention it warrants. I think this will benefit all Canadians.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement with respect to dairy policy for the year starting April 1, 1972. The Canadian Dairy Commission has been authorized to implement a program for the coming year that will permit a substantial increase in the base support level for manufacturing milk.
While prices paid to producers for milk are a matter of provincial jurisdiction, the program will provide for an increase in the support price of the order of approximately 20 cents or more per hundred pounds of milk. The Canadian Dairy Commission has been authorized to pay a subsidy on manufacturing milk and cream under its quota system at the same rate as in the year just ending; that is, $1.25 per hundred pounds of milk testing 3.5 per cent butterfat, or 35.71 cents per pound butterfat. The price at which the commission offers to purchase skim milk powder in support of the market price will be 29 cents per pound, up 3 cents from the present level of 26 cents.
There will be no change for the present in the commission's purchase price of butter, which is 68 cents per pound, or of cheddar cheese which is 54 cents per pound. The market price of cheddar cheese has been well above that support level since last July. Emphasis in the program on skim milk powder will provide a better balance between butter and cheese production and should avoid the possibility of the overproduction of cheese.
There is a holdback from payments to producers to finance the cost of disposing of surplus dairy products, mainly skim milk powder, exported at prices below Canadian support levels. While the Canadian support
March 29, 1972

price for powder is being raised by 3 cents a pound, the holdback on each milk shipper's deliveries within his quota will be retained at the 1971 level of 10 cents per hundred pounds of milk. This is possible because of the greatly improved export price. There will be no holdback on cream deliveries within quotas. While the threshold at which over-quota holdbacks apply will revert to the quota level, production patterns will be closely watched and, should production so warrant, exemption levels can be reinstituted retroactively. I refer to the 10 per cent quota threshold.
The program for the coming year, plus the steps taken in the year just ending, and the quota arrangements provide a price to producers which should ensure adequate supplies without risk of serious butterfat surpluses.
The commission's support prices for skim milk powder and cheddar cheese were increased in February, 1971. There was a further upward adjustment in those prices last August, as well as in the butter price. As a result, a downward trend in production was arrested in the last quarter of 1971 and production is now on an upturn. The arrangements for the coming year should consolidate that trend and ensure adequate supplies for Canadian consumers.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express our thanks and appreciation to the minister for having provided us with a copy of his announcement on our entry into the House. I should like to say that this announcement is not unexpected; as a matter of fact, it is a policy that for many months has been vigorously pressed for by the entire dairy industry. This policy cannot be attributed solely to the political expediency of an approaching general election but is, rather, an act of desperation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harold Warren Danforth: It is an indication of another attempt by the government to use the taxpayers' dollars to buy themselves out of a misinterpretation and lack of proper assessment of a major Canadian problem. It is an outright admission by this government that the policy which they have instituted for the Canadian dairy industry during their term of office has been tragically wrong, in its thrust and in its ramifications, for the industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: As a result of that policy hundreds of thousands of small cream producers have been put out of business, many of the best herds in Canada have been dispersed completely and small cheese factories have been closed down never to reopen. Now the government expects that through the payment of more money at this time they will reinstate the dairy industry of Canada.
The government's policy has resulted in consumers having to pay more for butter and cheese than ever before in the history of this country. It has resulted, for the first time in Canadian history, in producers of agricultural products actually being fined for production. We have seen chaos in the industry. The government was warned
Manufacturing Milk Price Increase
of this by all opposition parties in the House and by the entire dairy industry of Canada. They deliberately introduced a policy of cutbacks in Canadian production at a time when every international food gathering in the world was forecasting a drop in dairy and protein production, saying that it would be necessary for dairy production to be increased rather than decreased.
The final sentence in the minister's statement reads:
The arrangements for the coming year should consolidate that trend and ensure adequate supplies for Canadian consumers.
This is not a statement made in face of the facts but is, rather, a prayer on behalf of the government. To that prayer I say amen.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. McBride:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: It is very kind of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) to cheer me on.


An hon. Member:: You need some cheering.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: It would have been better had the cheering come from the minister. The objectives mentioned in the statement are laudable enough. The government hopes to achieve in this year a balance between supply and demand, to correct the errors made last year when we had a shortfall and to increase payments by a small amount.
I should like to take this opportunity to point out to the minister that certain areas of this policy are in need of adjustment and correction. This dairy policy is probably the beginning of a first major supply management program in a major food area of this country. It is an attempt to achieve a balance between production and consumption. In the process, a great deal of injustice has been done to some small producers in this country and I point out to the minister that these injustices have not yet been corrected. It should be a major concern of the government to correct these injustices, especially in western Canada where cream producers have been denied quotas which they cannot get back. The least the minister could do is correct these injustices.
I know that some producers are getting their payments back, but many are being left out and are being told to buy another herd or to buy another quota. It is a large enough problem for farmers, particularly small farmers, in this day and age to meet the capital costs of machinery and land, without having imposed upon them another capital cost which will be a burden on their farming operations. The minister's department should look at the situation of producers who have continued to produce cream with a minimum return and should now be given a quota. Those who were held down to a low quota should be given an additional quota.
I say to the minister, also, that if we are to have supply management for food, attention should be paid to people who have such a low level of income that they cannot readily purchase adequate supplies of protein which is available in skim milk powder and dairy products. The government should be working on a program to make protein available to the disadvantaged people in our community, and by that I mean the total community of

March 29, 1972
Manufacturing Milk Price Increase
Canada. I hope that one day he will stand in the House and announce such a policy.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has anticipated our desires today. I had intended to ask him whether the new 1972-73 dairy policy would soon be announced. I thank the minister for having sent us a copy of his statement at the beginning of the sitting.
We are pleased to note that the dairy industry is now popular in Canada. Once, we used to refer somewhat diffidently to the dairy industry in the House, because it was considered as a secondary industry operated by uninteresting, deficient or uneducated people.
I now realize that all Canadians, including hon. members, are concerned with that vital industry whose annual production is worth $2 billion. Indeed, the industry supports to a large extent the rural areas which are more seriously affected by losses of income or unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, there is more still. This industry helps provide some 300,000 jobs, most of them outside the farm. So, this industry concerns all Canadians because not only on farms but outside as well in villages and even in cities there are people who depend on that industry.
I would also say that the subsidies received by industrial milk and cream producers or others in the dairy industry do not benefit only this category of producers. In fact, these subsidies also help the consumer because otherwise he would be required to pay these amounts granted by the government to support higher prices for producers, which would mean a still much bigger increase in prices.
Mr. Speaker, this is no gift by the government to the producers of industrial milk. It is one way to distribute in the fairest possible manner, the purchasing power across the country in order to create an exchange in production between consumers and producers.
In Canada, the proportional value of subsidies equals only 6 per cent of the gross value of finished products, whereas U.S. subsidies for milk products are much higher. Canada is not a leader in this field. Sometimes I hate to see that the moment the government loosens the purse for industrial milk producers we are left with the impression that they are granted important gifts.
The government is convinced of the proper use of these piecemeal amounts which are doled out to industrial milk producers. Fortunately, they are made good use of and we know how to administer them. That is why the situation can be improved and why I suggest to the government and the hon. Minister of Agriculture to do more because this is a good investment which will bring benefits and which will be profitable to the entire population.
However, I am somewhat puzzled by the minister's statement because although there is the matter of an increase of 20 cents or more per cwt. for the year 1972-73, the estimates for dairy products indicate a decrease of $21 million. In that case, will it cost less because production will be down from last year or will the consumer be asked

to make up most of the increase announced by the minister?
In any case, I think it is the government's duty to make the dairy industry prosperous because if it is we can expect that agriculture as a whole will be healthier.
I notice that in its brief the Canadian Federation of Milk Producers made this recommendation, and I quote:
A careful analysis led us to conclude that there was need to adjust the support levels. Our delegates recommended a 50-cent-per-hundredweight increase in the support prices for manufacturing milk because such an increase is imperative if we are to make sure that there is enough milk in stock to meet the demand on domestic markets. Or else, from another standpoint, those increases are necessary to strike a reasonable balance of income relative to the other sectors of society and in order that the new system of supply management be fair and viable.
In my opinion, that recommendation is most sensible. I for one find it reasonable, but an increase of 50 per cent would certainly not have been exaggerated.
In closing, I would like to point out that the minister has already stated in the House that his department is prepared to allocate many millions of dollars to assist small family farms so that they may survive. I find that amazing; having drilled holes in the boat of small enterprises and of small farmers who are about to sink because water is seeping from everywhere, they tell them: Here is a bit of plastic, try to patch up the holes so that you may come safely into port.
In my opinion, the best plastic that they could be given would be a guarantee for more reasonable prices, more in line with the increase in production cost; they would thus be able to get a better income, to have a more waterproof boat to allow them to reach their goal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before proceeding I am led to comment on the length of the statements and comments which have been made during the last hour. I would hope that hon. members might like to consult Standing Order 15(3). I wonder whether the spirit of that Standing Order is not somewhat offended if we have ministerial statements and comments on such statements of the length of those we have heard this afternoon. I may be wrong in this respect. I appreciate the importance of such statements and the importance of and interest in the comments made by hon. members who speak on behalf of their respective political groups. I think an effort might be made when we meet again next month to limit the length of the contributions under the terms of Standing Order 15(3). The hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Mr. Skoberg:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that on page iv of today's notice paper there is a notice of motion in my name for concurrence in the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications which calls for public hearings to discuss the study of rail passenger service in southwestern Ontario, commencing on April 17. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications is in hospital. In view of the urgency of this matter I should like to ask for unanimous consent to move my motion today.
March 29, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the Standing Orders the only thing on the order paper is notice of a motion. The hon. member would be authorized, under the Standing Orders, to make that motion tomorrow. If he wants to do that he may find that some of us will not be here. He cannot proceed with the motion unless with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member will have to wait a while before the motion can be proceeded with.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the unanimous consent of the House to make a motion under Standing Order 43. I do so for the following reason. A short time ago there was a very serious incident on the Grand Banks in which Russian trawlers, in the process of a gang fishing operation, very nearly collided with the Canadian trawler Zonne Mier. The Canadian fisheries patrol vessel Cape Freels was dispatched to the area and endeavoured to make contact with the Russian command ship. The Russians refused to talk with the Canadian government. The refusal of the Russians to discuss rules of the road and conservation of certain species which are threatened with extinction by gang fishing methods, and the failure of the federal government to obtain an agreement with the Soviet Union-


Some hon. Members:: Order, please.


James Aloysius McGrath: -constitutes a danger to-


Some hon. Members:: Order, please.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has experience in connection with motions under Standing Order 43. He knows what the Standing Order says. I have brought to the attention of all hon. members that this is a Standing Order which should be relied upon only in exceptional circumstances. It is available to hon. members provided they limit their remarks as much as possible to indicating the urgency of the matter without argument, and the submission of a motion for consideration.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have concluded my brief and very important preamble, Mr. Speaker. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan):
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's
Penitentiary Leave
East under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent and the motion cannot be proceeded with at this time.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax East-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I should like to move, if given unanimous consent, in light of the arrest in St. Catharines following the shooting of two men of a convicted murderer who was an inmate of the federal penitentiary at Collins Bay and who did not return after his Christmas leave, the following motion:
That the House instruct that innovative programs of the Solicitor General regarding leave be confined to inmates whose offences do not include elements of violence.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Halifax East-Hants. This motion, proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth said no.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to propose a motion under Standing Order 43. I request the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of the most urgent and pressing necessity. It concerns the present consideration by the government of tenders to originate northern resupply ships in Montreal and divert such shipping business from the port of Churchill and supply business from the western area. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson):
That this House urges the government to reconsider its policy to promote Montreal as the exclusive eastern supply port and depot for northern Canada, without regard to the economic prejudice suffered by other areas of Canada, as evidenced by its immediate

March 29, 1972
Small Loans Act
intention to divert 4,000 tons of shipping and supplies from Churchill, Manitoba, and by the recent statement of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Montreal.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Alexander:: What do you mean by saying no?


Mr. Speaker:: I must inquire whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard at least one negative response, which means that the motion cannot be put.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Who is that hon. member?


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton, I think.



SMALL LOANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Mr. Rowland-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Small Loans Act."
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Selkirk has supplied the Table and the Chair with a copy of his bill. I have had an opportunity of looking at it in advance. I hope the hon. member will not be offended if I confess that I find the purpose of the bill somewhat difficult to understand. On that basis I would also find it difficult to rule that it is not in order. Perhaps the meaning of the bill will become more apparent when the hon. member has explained what its purpose is as he is permitted to do under Standing Order 68.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-187, to amend the Small Loans Act.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Explain.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to include under the provisions of the Small Loans Act the practice of the short-term discounting of payments by governments to individuals, such as unemployment insurance benefits, pension payments and income tax rebates, by defining the discount fee charged by persons lending money on this basis as being interest and therefore restricting interest rates charged by discounters to 2 per cent per month. In this way the financial attractiveness of this practice would be removed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it might be simpler if the question were put at this time. Is it the wish of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Mr. Rowland-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan".
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Selkirk has also provided the Chair with a copy of another bill he seeks to introduce about which I have some procedural reservations. I am tempted to wonder whether this bill does not in some way infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown. I have looked at the bill and I can tell the hon. member that I discern more than faintly the scent of money in this bill. Perhaps the hon. member might be given an opportunity to indicate what the purpose of the bill is.


Douglas Charles Rowland: for leave to introduce Bill C-188, to amend the Canada Pension Plan.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the explanation in this case will be somewhat simpler than it was in the case of the bill previously introduced. The purpose of this bill is simply to include within the terms of the Canada Pension Plan housewives who pay, or have paid for them, the employee and employer contributions prescribed by the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

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

Mr. MacKay: What has been the total amount spent by the Unemployment Insurance Commission on advertising of all varieties (electronic and printed media) up to the last day of January 1972, to promote or otherwise explain the new UIC program?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The reply is, about $700,000.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM
Mr. Orlikow: What moneys have been allocated to date in each federal constituency, in each province, under the federal government's Local Initiatives Program?

March 29, 1972


Raymond J. Perrault: This information cannot be provided because the records of the distribution of funds are not recorded by federal constituencies. To provide an accurate answer would entail costly expenditures ar.d the hiring of additional staff to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather this information. The Department is preparing a consolidated approved list of all projects in Canada which will be available shortly.
Questions
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND Question No. 74


Robert Jardine McCleave: What amounts were there in the Unemployment Insurance Fund as of the end of each month during 1971, how much was paid into the Fund each month and how much was withdrawn therefrom each month?


Raymond J. Perrault: 


ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION BY INCOME GROUPS FOR 1961, 1966 AND 1971
[Stage Direction]
Paid	Withdrawn	Balance1971	Into Fund From Fund	In Fund
Mr. Orlikow: In Canada, for the years 1961, 1966 and 1971, what was the distribution by income groups of families and individual taxpayers, and particularly the groupings of income above $1,000,000; $500,000; $250,000; $100,000; and below $6,000; $5,000; $4,000; $3,000; $2,000 and $1,000 annually?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: No
distribution by income groups of families is available in so far as this Department is concerned. The following distribution of individual taxpayers is based on the annual analysis of tax returns. 1971 data are not available; the latest available are for 1969 and these are given in lieu of 1971. Incomes above $200,000 are not further classified. The figures for individual taxpayers are as follows:
January 31	54,522,611.09
February 28	48,957,422.95
March 31	47,920,939.75
April 30	48,399,870.22
May 31	50,006,007.30
June 30	51,834,550.96
July	55,490,172.44
August 31	61,261,413.66
September 30	56,742,282.08
October 31	60,834,731.24
November 30	59,943,126.60
December 31	57,009,818.57
85.712.900.75 100,928,124.33 114,298,710.61 100,008,016.92
77,540,851.01
49,199,842.42
43,870,914.10
46,094,219.65
48.869.955.75 52,241,721.99 69,449,959.46
102,378,505.14
441,985,470.73
390,014,769.35
323,636,998.49
272,028,851.79
244,494,008.08
247,128,716.62
258.747.974.96
273.915.168.97 281,787,495.30 290,380,504.55 280,873,671.69 235,504,985.12


PUBLIC WORKS-RENOVATIONS TO PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
Number of Taxpayers
Income Class
[Stage Direction]
Based on Total Income	1961	1966	1969Under $1	,000	... 23,566	56,918	44,802$ 1,000	to	2,000	... 619,275	685,525	722,2952,000	to	3,000	... 876,115	940,942	895,2803,000	to	4,000	. 976,212	1,044,646	983,0114,000	to	5,000	.. 836,780	967,104	905,4895,000	to	6,000	... 491,384	839,448	833,4466,000	to	7,000	.... 258,145	610,658	764,5377,000	to	8,000	136,336	377,465	617,4738,000	to	9,000	... 78,282	228,241	453,9949,000	to	10,000	.. 50,977	139,522	315,98710,000	to	25,000	141,363	347,761	757,33625,000	to	100,000	.... 18,730	37,424	68,570100,000	to	200,000	. . 507	803	1,553200,000	and over	.... 95	122	190Total	
4,507,767	6,276,579	7,363,963

Mr. McCleave: Were any loans made from the federal treasury to the Unemployment Insurance Fund since January, 1971 and, if so, in what amount or amounts, on what date or dates and how much is still outstanding?


Raymond J. Perrault: No loans were made from the federal treasury to the Unemployment Insurance Fund since January 1971.


Mr. Coates: 1.	Were renovations carried out recently in the office of the Prime Minister and, if so (a) were they carried out under contract (b) by whom (c) at what cost?
2.	If renovations were carried out in the Prime Minister's office
(a)	what was the extent of the renovations (b) what was included in the way of furnishings, carpeting and redecorating (c) were these renovations and redecorating a part of the contract or were they done by the Department of Public Works and if done by the Department of Public Works, at what cost to that Department?
3.	Were a new chesterfield and chairs provided in the refurnishing of the Prime Minister's office or was there upholstering of existing furniture and in either instance what material was used for the chesterfield and chairs?
4.	Were new carpets and drapes included in the renovation of the Prime Minister's office and, if so (a) what were the materials of the carpet and drapes (b) what was the cost of each?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
Yes, renovations were recently carried out in the office of the Prime Minister, (a) Contracts were arranged and the lowest bidder was accepted for each phase of renovations.
(b)	Coady Construction Limited; D. Lyall Hanes Ltd.; A. G. Reed Ltd.; Henderson Furniture Repairs; Modern Decoration; Bond Brass Ltd.; (c) Cost of renovations $16,487.
2.	Renovations consisted of: (a) Refurbishing of existing woodwork, Renovations of lighting system, Installation of built-in cabinet work, Installation of window shutters, Repairs and painting of ceiling, Refinishing of desk and telephone table, (b) Furnishings provided consisted of chesterfields, chairs, end tables, coffee table and carpeting. (c) All works and procurement of furnishings were arranged under contract by the Department of Public Works at a total cost of $24,058.00 (includes costing detailed in 1 (c))

March 29, 1972
Questions
3.	New chesterfields and chairs were provided and material used was Suede. Existing furniture was not reupholstered.
4.	New carpeting was provided. There were no new drapes, (a) Material for carpeting consists of wool pile, 76oz. Wilton and is of Canadian manufacture, (b) Cost of carpeting, underpad and installation was $1,263.


CRIMINAL CODE-DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the total number of inmates in Canadian penitentiaries who have been convicted and sentenced under the Dangerous Sexual Offenders sections of the Criminal Code?
2.	(a) How many of those sentenced were paroled (b) how many have violated their parole (c) how many have been re-convicted while on parole and was the offence the same?
3.	What is the average length of incarceration for such offenders before parole is considered?
4.	What programs are made available to these inmates while they are incarcerated?
5.	Has the medical profession been consulted as to the type of treatment being given?
6.	(a) How many inmates have received medical or psychiatric treatment (b) how many failed to improve after such treatment (c) have any been denied such treatment?
7.	Has the government made any provisions to implement such recommended treatment services?
8.	Have the inmates a choice in case they wish to seek out such treatment and, if so, what provisions have been made?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: 1. Sixty-three (as of January 1, 1972).
2.	(a) 28; (b) 12; (c) 2 (1 similar).
3.	Pursuant to Section 694 of the Criminal Code, the National Parole Board reviews the inmate's case once in every year to determine whether or not he should be granted parole.
4.	A diagnosis of each individuals's case is made which includes an evaluation of his potential for treatment and training. An individualized program to meet the inmates' social needs is determined by the Inmate Training Board following completion of reports by members of the professional staff. The findings and recommendation of the Board are discussed with the inmate, who is invited to express his views on the matter. This program may provide for individual and group therapy in addition to the regular training activities which include educational, vocational, religious, recreational, social and trades training.
5.	Yes. An Advisory Board of Consultant Psychiatrists, composed of five members who are representatives of the areas of Canada in which there are penitentiary populations, and three members at large, has been appointed to determine the need for psychiatric services in each region to provide adequate treatment, to recommend a program to meet the needs of each category of mental illnesses as well as the location and type of physical facilities required.
6.	(a) All inmates in this category have received the available treatment; (b) nine of those who received such treatment violated their paroles; (c) no.
[Mr. Dub^.J
7.	In so far as the Department of the Solicitor General is concerned; yes.
8.	The first thing penitentiary psychiatrists must decide is the nature of the treatment best suited to meet the requirements of the inmate. If better facilities are available in neighboring outside psychiatric clinics in mental hospitals, the inmate is transferred to the facility until his condition is such that he may be returned to the penitentiary. In addition, should the penitentiary psychiatrist feel the need for assistance in making important psychiatric decisions, he is free to consult with or call in any psychiatric consultant he wishes.


SECOND NATIONAL PARK, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Southam: 1.	What is the present status of the second national park that was promised to Saskatchewan in the spring of 1965?
2.	Has the Province of Saskatchewan offered a selection of possible national park sites to the federal government and, if so (a) what were the locations (b) what is the reason for the delay in the development of this project?


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.
Negotiations are still being held between the federal and provincial government for the establishment of a second National Park in Saskatchewan.
2. A joint federal-provincial study was made to assess the National Park potential of various areas (a) Cypress Hills; Val Marie; Last Mountain Lake; Saskatchewan Landing; Big Muddy Lake; Moose Mountain, (b) Negotiations are still being held.


AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS CONTRACT WITH H. G. ACRES LIMITED
Mr. Robinson: What is the anticipated cost of the nationwide inventory of air pollutant emissions and cost estimates for their control, as contracted by H. G. Acres Limited of Niagara Falls?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 


$39,400. LOANS TO AGRICULTURE EXHIBITION ASSOCIATIONS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many loans were made in 1971 for agricultural exhibition associations and what was the amount of each?
2.	In 1972 (a) how many loans are anticipated for agricultural exhibition associations (b) what is the total amount of them (c) how much will be allocated for labour, buildings, equipment, etc.?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. None.
2. (a) Fifteen; (b) $10,000,000; (c) Estimated Labour, $4,000,000; Materials, $6,000,000.
March 29, 1972


DAVIE SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, LAUZON, QUEBEC- CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING BENEFITS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse);: Has the Davie Shipbuilding Company of Lauzon, Quebec requested benefits from the Department of Manpower and Immigration under the on-the-job training program and, if so (a) when was the request made (b) was the project approved and, if so (i) on what date (ii) on what date was the agreement with the company signed (iii) how many workers benefit under this agreement (iv) what is the maximum amount the government will contribute to this company under this agreement?


Raymond J. Perrault: Four proposals have been received from Davie Shipbuilding Ltd., three of which have been approved, one rejected. Details as follows: Proposal No. 21575 (a) January 5, 1972 (b) Yes (i) Jan. 18, 1972 (ii) Jan. 19, 1972 (iii) One (iv) $585. Proposal No. 211688 (a) February 15, 1972 (b) Yes (i) Feb 21, 1972 (ii) Feb. 22, 1972 (iii) 20 (iv) $27,300. Proposal No. 211993 (a) February 28, 1972 (b) Not approved. Proposal No. 213061 (a) March 9, 1972 (b) Yes (i) March 15, 1972 (ii) Not yet (pending signature) (iii) One (iv) $975.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-STRENGTH OF ARMED FORCES, FEBRUARY 29, 1972
Mr. MacRae: What was the strength of the Armed Forces on February 29, 1972?


Mr.   J.-R. Comtois@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence: 84,653.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would make inquiries regarding question No. 27. The Department of National Health and Welfare assured me that there would be a revised answer. I hope that it will be available without undue delay.


Mr. Jerome:: I will check into that, Mr. Speaker.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 8, 13 and 36.


COPY OF STUDY BY SUMMEROUR AND ASSOCIATES INC. REGARDING &quot;ANALYSIS OF THE MANPOWER UTILIZATION OF THE MANITOBA GARMENT INDUSTRY&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by Summerour and Associates Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding the "Analysis of the Manpower Utilization of the Manitoba Garment Industry".
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.
Motions for Papers Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Motion stands.


COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND P.E.I. CONCERNING FAR EAST YOUTH HOSTEL, CHARLOTTETOWN
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 13-Mr. Macquarrie:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., between the Government of Canada or any agency or department thereof and the Government of Prince Edward Island, the City of Charlottetown or any other party or individual concerning the establishment of the Far East Youth Hostel at Charlottetown in 1970.
Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is the same as motion for production of papers No. 200 of the last session. As stated at that time, correspondence concerning the Far East Youth Hostel at Charlottetown is considered to be of a confidential nature.
I would therefore request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has heard the comments of the minister. Does he wish to drop the motion?


Mr. Macquarrie:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


COPY OF REPORTS BY GOVERNMENT RELATING TO DEUTERIUM OF CANADA LIMITED
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Hellyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of any report or reports prepared by or for the government recommending that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited assume responsibility for the reconstruction and operation of the Deuterium of Canada Limited heavy water production plant at Glace Bay, N.S.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary secretary to look into Notices of Motions Nos. 16 and 18 in particular, which have been on the order paper since some time in February. It should be possible to obtain a response from the government at this time in terms of what it is going to do, particularly since the Easter recess is before us and it will be almost one week after the House resumes sitting before motions for papers are again taken up.


James Alexander Jerome: I have made a note of the numbers the hon. members has mentioned, Mr. Speaker.

March 29, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Speaker, I have had a question on the order paper for the last two sessions. It is a very simple question regarding the closing of trade missions, embassies and so on in foreign countries. There are not that many involved that the department could answer this question in a very few words. Would the parliamentary secretary ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs why this question has not been answered? What is the department trying to hide?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there is no effort being made to conceal anything. I will conduct an inquiry to see if the question can be answered.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader when we may expect to have put before us the changes in the Income Tax Act that were promised by the previous Minister of Finance at the time the so-called tax reform bill was passed?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to draw this question to the attention of the Minister of Finance. I can tell my hon. friend that it is not intended to have any such measure placed before the House within the next short period.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister indicate to the House when we may expect the presentation of a budget?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if there is going to be a budget we will inform the House of that in due course.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether a budget will be presented prior to the House recessing in the spring or meeting the same fate earlier? Will a budget be presented or will the country be left in a state of uncertainty as reflected in the very disappointing commitment of private investment indicated in the report tabled today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, would depend on the plans the government has for the continuation of this session. I think I would be safe in saying there will be a budget if the House is going to sit until the end of June.



ARRANGEMENTS DURING VISIT BY PRESIDENT NIXON TO OTTAWA

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council with regard to the future business of the House. Is the President of the Privy Council in a position to make any statement regarding arrangements that may be made during the visit of President Nixon which may affect the sitting of the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise my hon. friend and members of the House that the President of the United States of America, Mr. Richard M. Nixon, has agreed to address members of the House of Commons and the Senate in this chamber at 3 p.m. on Friday, April 14, 1972, on the occasion of his forthcoming visit to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If I have the consent of the House now or later to revert to motions, I will make a motion that will finalize the arrangements for this historic event.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we revert to motions at this moment for the purpose suggested by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Benson):
The House shall adjourn at 1 p.m. on Friday, April 14, 1972;
And that the address of the President of the United States of America, Mr. Richard M. Nixon, to be delivered on Friday, April 14, 1972, before the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, together with all introductory and related speeches, be included in that day's House of Commons debates as an appendix and thus form part of the records of this parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

March 29, 1972


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. It relates to the escalation of pensions of retired RCMP and Canadian Armed Forces personnel. Can the minister say what progress the government is making in arranging for this escalation to take place in the case of those not yet 60 years of age?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is aware that the conditions of service and retirement of the RCMP and the public service as such are sufficiently analagous to make the problem an easy one. The conditions of service of members of the armed forces under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act are quite different in relation to retirement and we have not yet succeeded in working out an appropriate formula.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Now that a program, effective June 1, 1972, has been established to enable everyone to go bankrupt with decency, when will the government implement a program that will enable everyone to live decently and when does it intend to adopt a measure cancelling the national debt and enabling us to start anew?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is asking a government representative to make a statement of a general nature which should normally be made on motions.
* *
*



AIRPORTS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. During the course of his recent trip near Toronto be stated that if 51 per cent of the people in Pickering Township were opposed to the establishment of an airport there, their views would be accepted. The other day he stated in the House that a referendum was outside the regular course of democratic practice. Because of the aroused interest in that statement on his part, which was unequivocal, if bona fide owners of property in the area comprised within the general plan for the airport sign a petition to the effect that they do not wish to have their properties expropriated for an airport, will their wishes be upheld?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is really based on a false premise, an assertion of something that I was supposed to have said but which was incorrectly conveyed by or to the right hon. member. I never made the assertion-


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you not correct the press?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if there is a supplementary question I will entertain it.


John George Diefenbaker: This is not the first time the Prime Minister has run for cover after allowing his tongue to run loose.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I simply ask, will he or will he not accept a petition by 51 per cent-	.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that hon. member may join the ranks of the Prime Minister's expendables if he does not watch out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: There are more than 20 now. Twenty was the number that were going to be dumped.


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


John George Diefenbaker: I simply ask the Prime Minister, if 51 per cent of the registered owners of the land in that area sign a petition, with proper proof that they are the owners, is he now prepared to carry out his promise that the area will not be taken over as an airport?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the Prime Minister to reply to the question although I have to caution that it appears to be in the nature of a hypothetical question. I appreciate that we have taken a bit of time to consider the matter, and perhaps the Prime Minister should be allowed to reply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in my answer to the first question I stated that I had never made such an assertion relating to the property owners or inhabitants of Pickering Township. The right hon. member has repeated that assertion in his question. I do not know if it is customary or by accident that he is doing this, but I assure him by this type of question he is making assertions which are not founded on fact and is spreading things which are contrary to what I said. I do not know if it is done deliberately or by accident.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are now getting into debate.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I was simply quoting from several papers-the Canadian Press-

March 29, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: -the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and the records of the CBC. The Prime Minister knows he is in a jam over that statement and is running away from it.



SELECTION OF DOCTORS TO ADMINISTER METHADONE TREATMENT

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising from the statement he made earlier in connection with drug abuse. Can the minister tell the House what steps he intends to take to choose the doctors who will be authorized to administer methadone treatment?


John Carr Munro: I do not see it as being a highly formal process. We are already aware that some doctors are desirous of rendering this service. We shall find out how much time they are prepared to give to it and make some preliminary assessment as to their competence; of course, I shall have medical advice on that aspect. Then we shall designate them to run a particular service. We hope they will do so in a clinical setting or an outpatient department of a hospital or something of that kind with proper back-up facilities. Then we shall give them financial support.


Frank Howard: I wonder whether, in the course of assessing the qualifications of the doctors who will be chosen, the department has made any study as to the number of drug addicts that members of the medical profession have created by the careless prescription of drugs in the past?


John Carr Munro: I think the hon. member may be referring particularly to the overly liberal habit of prescription in the area of amphetamines. If he is, may I remind him I have already said that this has probably resulted in at least a high degree of psychological dependency by people on amphetamines. I have already indicated the corrective action which the government is prepared to take, with the support of the medical profession, I may add.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I take the liberty at the beginning of the question period of inviting the co-operation of all members in relation to supplementaries? There are hon. members seeking the floor today who vainly attempted to ask questions yesterday. I am anxious to give them an opportunity to be heard but we shall be able to make progress only if there is a degree of co-operation from hon. members in relation to supplementary questions.


Frank Howard: My supplementary question was not confined specifically to those doctors who have been overly liberal in prescribing amphetamines but referred generally to the medical profession creating drug addicts by being careless in the prescription of amphetamines, barbiturates, sleeping pills, tranquilizers, methadone and

so on. 1 am asking the minister how he will be selective about that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the minister might reply briefly, but we are obviously engaged in a rather lengthy debate between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the hon. member for Skeena.


John Carr Munro: Without agreeing that doctors would be criticized in all the areas the hon. member has mentioned, may I say that some of his observations are valid. The Canadian Medical Association is aware of this danger and is co-operating fully in trying to get the message to the medical profession across Canada that doctors should be far more restrictive in those areas where prescription practices are subject to valid criticism.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Canada has signed fishing treaties with Britain, France, Portugal, and Denmark. In light of the fact that the treaty with Denmark involves only the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Canadian waters within the 12-mile limit, will the minister tell us what progress the government is making in negotiations with Denmark to control high seas fishing for salmon so that this species can be conserved?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The agreements I tabled in the House yesterday related, of course, to the phasing out of fishing operations within the fishing zones of Canada. That was their purpose. The negotiations with respect to fishing on the high seas are being carried on for a different purpose; these are not Canadian waters we are talking about. We are trying to get Denmark to co-operate in conserving a fish species which is particularly valuable to Canada. These negotiations are continuing. Regrettably, we have not been able to make as much progress with the Danes as we would like. Nor has anyone else.



NECESSITY FOR RATIFICATION OF TREATY WITH FRANCE

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to correct an answer I gave to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate yesterday on the subject of fishing treaties? The hon. member asked me whether ratification would be necessary in respect of any of these proposed treaties. I answered that in one case, in the case of the treaty with France, I thought ratification would be necessary. I am now advised that the agreement is silent with respect to the time at which it comes into effect. Therefore, under international law it does not require ratification; it came into effect when it was signed.
March 29, 1972



DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S.S.R. ON ACTIVITIES OF RUSSIAN SHIPS OFF EAST COAST

James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the
Secretary of State for External Affairs whether discussions are under way with the Russians regarding their fishing activities on the east coast, particularly their gang fishing activities which are a threat to certain species and a danger to Canadian fishermen? If not, are such discussions contemplated, and when may we expect an announcement by the minister?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to the question is yes, Mr. Speaker. Discussions are under way. My colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, is gathering material. The Russians have asked us to submit it and we are in the process of doing so.



CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES AFFECTED ON AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries. Bearing in mind the implications which these agreements carry for the provinces, may I ask whether the minister is taking steps to consult with the provinces in the future concerning the effects of these agreements?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: These agreements were all discussed with the Ministers of Fisheries of the provinces and with Premier Moores of Newfoundland before they were signed.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister made any appointments at either council or agency level under the farm products marketing legislation and, if not, can the minister offer an explanation to the House bearing in mind the alleged urgency last session when special sittings were held?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The latter part of the question is argumentative. The minister might reply to the first part of the question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. Six were announced yesterday morning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. minister-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Temiscamingue has been recognized and has already started his question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am sorry; I was not able to hear Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might allow the hon. member for Temiscamingue to complete the question he has already started. I will return to the hon. member in a moment.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
The minister recently stated in Quebec that we are witnessing a curious phenomenon whereby the number of unemployed increases in conjunction with the number of jobs made available by the government.
I would like therefore to ask the minister if the economists in his department are now in a position to explain this phenomenon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does not seem immediately possible to reply to the question of the hon. member.



AGRICULTURE


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture would be kind enough to tell members of this House the nature of the appointments under the farm products marketing legislation and the names of those appointed. Would he also tell us when he made the announcement, since it was not made in the House?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it is not customary to make announcements of this kind in the House but I did take the precaution, I think, to see that the communique was sent to every member of the House, along with biographies of each appointee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he has had representations from a group of

March 29, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
Indian chiefs from northern Saskatchewan who are dissatisfied with the turning over of the educational system to the province of Sasaktchewan, and is he prepared to consider the possibility of reverting to the federal system of education?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this problem has been in existence for some time. Several months ago I had occasion to meet with the Saskatchewan Minister of Education as well as representatives of the Indian Association of that province. We discussed this problem, and we are now trying to find a solution which would be satisfactory to the three parties concerned. Only two weeks ago I received the representatives of a special committee of the Saskatchewan Indian Association, and I think we made some progress in this field.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he is seriously considering the possibility of reverting to the federal scheme?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are seriously considering any possibility for action.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board, if I may.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Cyril Deakon: In view of the recent announcement that the Ontario Conservative government will be auditing the books of the provincial auditor, would the minister consider sending the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Henderson, to audit the Ontario government's books?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is it the intention of the minister and the government to discontinue the policy of providing funds to Indian associations, such as the Union of Nova Scotia Indians, for educational and other programs while continuing, as usual, to provide such assistance to band councils?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have in no way 
revised the policy followed in the past few years. We grant funds to provincial Indian associations only with the support of Indian bands in the province.


Robert Muir: A short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether a directive has been issued to officials at Indian affairs branches in the provinces concerning this very important question, and does such directive advise that this has been a cabinet decision?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any directive in that regard but I will check and report to the hon. member.



POLLUTION


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries arising out of the untimely arrival of the Panamanian freighter Vanlene on the shores of our new Pacific rim national park. I should like to ask the minister, not only in his capacity as Minister of the Environment in charge of environmental quality but also in view of his responsibility for fisheries, what steps his department is taking to deal with the obvious inadequacies in the supply of equipment to those responsible for clean-up as well as the obvious inadequacies of navigational rules, which meant that we avoided a major ecological disaster by good luck rather than by good management in this instance?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the question of navigation is one for the Minister of Transport. However, my department is responsible as a co-ordinating agency in crises of this kind. We are developing plans to deal with similar situations on both our coasts. I gather that we have been fortunate in respect of the Vanlene and that coastal pollution has not been serious in that case.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I direct a supplementary to whoever is speaking for the Minister of Transport today. When are the regulations under the new Part XIX of the Canada Shipping Act and the recently enacted Pilotage Act going to become operative and effective so as to prevent this sort of blundering of old freighters into our coastal waters?


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently the matter is being taken under advisement. For the moment-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a point of order.
March 29, 1972


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister ol Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice in the name of the Minister of Transport.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerning the figures that he tabled in the House today respecting capital commitments by industry, which must be considered disappointing since they are at about the same level as last year's. Is it the intention of the department to take measures to stimulate investment commitments in the private sector, or does the department regard the figures as the best possible in view of the statement of the Minister of Labour that the economy is operating at its full potential? I ask the minister the question very earnestly in view of these disappointing figures and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has refused to give any indication whether or not we are going to have a budget.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, in the terminology of economics, capital expenditures are considered to be a lagger in the development of the economic cycle. I think the Leader of the Opposition will recognize that the conditions precedent to capital investment growth are already well established in our economy. I am referring, of course, to the growth in consumer demand of 8) per cent over last year and the growth of profits by over 16 per cent over the same period-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we are now becoming involved in a debate, and I am wondering whether this would be very useful in view of the fact that we are running short of time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to press the minister since we will be away for a couple of weeks. In view of the minister's statement perhaps he would explain very briefly to the House, since he has said that we are in the early stages of an expansion, why the rate of expansion in 1972 over 1971 is so much less than 1971 was over 1970?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition and to the minister, who apparently wants to reply to the question, that this is the kind of information which normally ought to be given in a general statement on motions.
Inquiries of the Ministry UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE



SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION OFFICE IN CHARLOTTETOWN

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has received a unanimous resolution passed by the Prince Edward Island legislature urging the return of the Unemployment Insurance Commission office from Moncton to Charlottetown, and can the minister indicate whether he is prepared to give such an undertaking to the legislature and people of the province of Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: I regret to say that I cannot give that assurance today, Mr. Speaker.


1976 OLYMPIC GAMES-POSSIBLE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO MONTREAL


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by a member of the Canadian Olympic Committee that the 1976 Olympic games scheduled for Montreal will be a disaster unless the federal government contributes upward of $500 million, and in view of the Prime Minister's report to the House that the federal government did not intend to contribute to the summer Olympics, does the Prime Minister not agree that an expenditure of this magnitude would be more beneficially spent on the Canadian economy as a whole instead of on one specific area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Obviously that is not a question but an argument. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Robert Simpson: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Churchill is rising on a point of order.


Robert Simpson: Perhaps I can put a direct question to the Prime Minister since this is a very important matter and the House will not be sitting for some time.


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a point of order but I will recognize the hon. member for the purpose of his rephrasing the question.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would again outline to the House the plans of the government regarding any contribution to the 1976 Olympic games.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have put this matter on the record on several occasions. It was indicated in an exchange of correspondence between the mayor of Montreal and myself as Prime Minister that there would be no special contribution by the federal government to the Olympic games. This has been agreed to by both sides. I believe Mayor Drapeau has indicated that the very substantial contribution of the

March 29, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
federal government at the time of Expo 67 made it unnecessary for us to make any particular contribution at this time. He is hoping that federal shared-cost or other programs which apply across the country will be used in Montreal in some way toward the games, to which we have no objection. The position is still as I stated: there is no special contribution contemplated by the federal government for the games.
1976 OLYMPIC GAMES IN MONTREAL-PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION OF HOUSING


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact it was announced in Montreal some months ago that some 200 or 300-I forget the precise figure-housing units of average people are going to be destroyed in the process of providing facilities for the Olympics, and in view of the Prime Minister's suggestion that he would not object to some federal funds being used for the Olympics, will he consider requesting or making it mandatory that such destruction of ordinary housing will not take place, as one of the conditions of obtaining federal funds for the Olympics?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I may have lost the meaning of the question, but it is my impression that the reference to Mayor Drapeau's position is not as I understand it. I understand the concern of the hon. member about the problem. I had occasion to discuss this matter a few weeks ago with Premier Bou-rassa. We are now in a position of having no particular request or submission on expenditures by the mayor of Montreal. There is no commitment on his or on our side beyond what I just related. The federal government will at some point want to know more precisely from the mayor of Montreal what his plans are for proceeding if, indeed, he is counting on any federal participation through these established programs. We have no precision in that regard. I repeat that I discussed this with the premier of the province. I would hope if there is any thinking along any specific lines such as this it will be conveyed to us as soon as possible.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a further supplementary
question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to allow hon. members to ask supplementary questions but it seems to me this question might well wait 15 days to be asked. My understanding of the situation is that this kind of question might well be put aside for a while. We should try to allow other questions before the end of the question period.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture who has momentarily stepped out behind the curtain. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could take notice of

it. In view of the statement made earlier this afternoon regarding assistance to the Canadian dairy industry, and in light of current reports from the textile trade and needle industry that because of the increased demand for woollen fabrics the cost of this commodity will increase by 20 per cent this year, will the minister now consider revising his policy and provide a wool subsidy to encourage the production of wool in Canada rather than having it imported to meet this increased demand?
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and report to the minister.



STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the government announced yesterday or the day before the composition of this House's portion of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, will the President of the Privy Council advise when it is the intention to put a notice on the order paper in respect of the changes in the rules of this House to provide for the working of that particular committee in light of the statutory provision in the bill we were considering yesterday, and will this be done by the time the minister has his nominating convention, knowing he would like to start an election campaign by perhaps April 22?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The question is too political for me, Mr. Speaker.



WELFARE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in answer to my question about the legality of British Columbia Bill 49 concerning the eligibility of social assistance applicants, promised to make a statement on the issue if at all possible before the Easter recess. I wonder whether the minister is now prepared to make a statement on this very important matter?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member will check Hansard she will find that I did not indicate I would make a statement but rather that I would try to answer her question by statement or by an answer to another question. I endeavoured to do so the other day.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. I might be obliged to quote Hansard if the minister will not accept the suggestion that he made an alternative undertaking to answer the question by a statement or an
March 29, 1972

answer to another question. I do not mind asking him another question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wish the hon. member would do as she has proposed and ask another question. I think it would be easier to proceed in this way rather than by way of a point of order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I should like to ask the minister whether he will now in a few words indicate the status of Bill 49 of the British Columbia legislature vis-a-vis the Canada Assistance Plan?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister can give this information briefly he should be allowed to do so. In the very few minutes we have left before the end of the question period I do not think he should be allowed to do this at length at the expense of other hon. members who wish to ask questions.


John Carr Munro: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the more contentious aspects of the legislation, the parts which have led some people to believe it is contrary to the Canada Assistance Plan, have been deleted. I refer to the expression "absolute discretion". The word "absolute" was deleted from the legislation as it was being considered by the legislature. The minister's discretion is circumscribed by the regulations to be passed under the legislation. Until such time as we see these regulations it would be almost impossible to determine whether in fact there is any contravention of the plan.



BROADCASTING OF ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT NIXON TO MEMBERS AND SENATORS

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that my question is more topical in view of the pending recess. I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council, in respect of the announcement earlier today of President Nixon's visit to Canada, whether the government intends to have the President's address in this chamber broadcast over radio and television?
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): I would hope so, Mr. Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will address my question to the Secretary of State in light of the negotiations between NABET and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the picket lines that have been set up in various parts of this country. In view of worldwide interest in President Nixon's visit to Peking a few weeks ago, will the minister discuss with the NABET people their position in respect of picket lines that could affect foreign and Canadian correspondents in covering this historic event? There might be misinterpretation if they are not able to see President Nixon on the video tube.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to have discussions with all the responsible parties.
Inquiries of the Ministry



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the minister responsible for the environment arising from a statement he made last week indicating that the federal government would be prepared to accept some responsibility in the area of crop damage by migratory water fowl. Has such a program been finalized and when will an announcement be made in the House in this regard?


John (Jack) Davis: I am
sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might ask the question again and we will not charge the question period with the additional time required to do so.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from a statement made by the minister in Winnipeg in which he indicated that the federal government would be prepared to accept some responsibility in the area of crop damage created by migratory water fowl. Has such a program been finalized and, if so, when will a statement be made in the House?


John (Jack) Davis: This subject-matter has not been dealt with in detail by the government. I have had discussions with the ministers from the prairie provinces. The program has been finalized as a result of our discussions and I am now taking it to the government hoping for its approval.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister regarding the by-election in Newfoundland and of course its effect on the general election plans. Will the Prime Minister be announcing this by-election today or tomorrow, the last possible chance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for reminding me that tomorrow is the last possible chance. I am very grateful for the reminder by the hon. member.



PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he has been informed of the theft of approximately 200 old age pension cheques in South Parkdale
1264

March 29, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
and whether he would consider sending out duplicate cheques to these pensioners before Easter?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware until now of this occurrence, but it is our practice where hardship is involved, and in theft cases such as this, to make some arrangement in order to get the necessary funds to old age pensioners.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister indicate what his plans are for the Prices and Incomes Commission? Will it continue in operation or does the government have an alternative policy to propose?
Sight Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, we have announced in the House that the Prices and Incomes Commission would be wound up by the end of June unless it were prolonged. My information at this time is that the members of the commission plan to have their report on the causes of inflation and other aspects of their mandate by the end of June. It is possible we might have to prolong it for a very short period of time but as of now we expect this report by or around the end of June.
As to the question concerning whether there are any contingency plans for an upsurge of inflation, the answer is yes. The government has been considering contingency plans for a long period now and they may involve the prolonging of the commission's mandate or other methods, but at this time there is no announcement to be made.



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State. In January this year 35 students from my area asked for reservations to attend a play in the National Arts Centre. I have now been informed that these reservations are given in the main to people within an 80-mile radius of Ottawa. I wonder whether the minister intends to change this policy which seems to prohibit people living at a distance from the national capital from obtaining tickets to these performances?


Gérard Pelletier: I was not
aware of such a rule, Mr. Speaker. I hope the information of the hon. member is not correct. Should it be he can rest assured that I will have discussions as soon as possible with the director of the National Arts Centre.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in respect of the proposed construction of the Lennox Island causeway. Can the minister indicate, in view of the lateness of the date, whether contracts have been awarded and when construction might begin, as well as whether steps are being taken to ensure safe travel for the residents of Lennox Island before the causeway is completed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the construction of the causeway between Lennox Island and Prince Edward Island comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works and I am not in a position to tell the House if the contract has been awarded. As for the security of the people who at the time of the thaw will have to cross over between the two islands we will take as usual the security measures available to us to ensure that no lives are lost.



PENSIONS


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns the pensions of retired public servants. I should like to ask the minister whether or not the government is considering any measures designed to increase the pensions of public servants to reflect the real increase in the cost of living instead of the fixed two per cent per year increase?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this is a problem which is kept continuously under review.



PROVISION OF ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY POINTS FOR FARMERS FOLLOWING SALE OF FEDERAL GRAIN TO WHEAT POOLS

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 if those farmers who were customers of the Federal Grain Company will have the option to declare an alternative delivery point immediately?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Wheat Board has examined the matter
(Mr. Haidasz.]
March 29, 1972

and found that it will not interfere with its basic collection of grain and have given until April 25 to farmers to name an alternative or first delivery point by application to the permit department of the Canadian Wheat Board.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has a decision been made concerning whether the term of service of the Canadian peacekeeping force in Cyprus will be renewed at the expiry of the present period?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have renewed the force from time to time. The question has not been before cabinet recently. I am not quite sure whether the hon. member wishes it to continue, but I shall consult with him.


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-JOB PRIORITY FOR INDIANS, ESKIMOS AND METIS
Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Yesterday the minister stated that native northerners must be given every opportunity to become an equal and participating part of our Canadian society and our advancing economy and that those who live there must have first claim to northern jobs. Is it government policy that Indians, Eskimos and Metis are to have first claim on the jobs to be created by the James Bay hydroelectric project?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the statement I made yesterday had to do with a policy for northern Canada beyond the 60th parallel, but it would be advisable for the Quebec government to implement the same policy for the James Bay Indians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. Indeed, we have gone a few minutes beyond the prescribed time. Because of a few points of order, the return to motions for one or two minutes and the entreaties of the Chair, I thought it would be proper to prolong the question period for a few minutes. If we can have one or two rapid questions, hon. members might be recognized for that purpose. I believe the hon. member for Athabasca has a supplementary.
Inquiries of the Ministry


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-MORAL APPROVAL OF PROJECT BY MINISTER
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I have two supplemen-taries, Mr. Speaker, and I shall ask the second one. Has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development approved proceeding with the James Bay project at least morally?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have no moral approval to give on this proposal. I repeat once again that I follow very carefully the talks taking place between the Indians and the Quebec government on the James Bay proposal. In due course, at the Indians' request, I shall be glad to participate in the discussions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Hamilton West has a supplementary.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is not a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might be allowed to ask his question without a supplementary.




Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the President of the United States is almost on his way here and as yet we do not know what the points of discussion will be, can the Prime Minister indicate now what the points of discussion will be and in fact whether matters such as the auto pact and DISC in particular will be discussed? I hope an answer can be given this afternoon in view of the fact that we will be absent for a couple of weeks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am afraid I cannot give a precise answer. I am sorry that the member will not be here. If he would check with me perhaps sometime later next week, I might have a final answer from the United States government.


An hon. Member:: Where will you be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will leave my forwarding address. The two governments have discussed the agenda. It will be on bilateral and international matters, but it is not yet accepted or finalized in detail and I am afraid I cannot answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. I believe the hon. member for Mackenzie is rising on a point of order.


Stanley James Korchinski: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to raise a question. Because of the fact that there is to be an Easter recess and because of the importance of the local initiatives program and the fact that it has a deadline, I
25104-21J

March 29, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
wonder whether I might be permitted one question of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate that it is irregular to ask a supplementary question or a question after the question period has expired. He is not alone. I see the hon. member for Regina East and a few other hon. members who were anxious to ask questions but did not have the opportunity to do so. The hon. member for Egmont has been very patient. If there is unanimous consent, the hon. member for Mackenzie may be allowed to ask his question. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


MANPOWER
Stanley James Korchinski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House. May I ask the Minister of Labour whether grants were denied for any projects and an announcement made that there were no more funds when in fact funds were still available?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, similar questions have been put before. What frequently arises and what appears to be a discrepancy in approvals and dates has to do with the words "approval" and "final approval". Final approval frequently relates to the time when the contract is actually negotiated and signed. Those dates are sometimes two or three weeks after others have received notice that the funds are all exhausted. There is a discrepancy there which disturbs people but which can be readily explained.


Stanley James Korchinski: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, more for clarification than for irritation. It arises out of the fact that on March 15 an answer was provided in reply to a question which I placed on the order paper, question No. 317..On that occasion I asked on what date the final project under the local initiatives program was approved in the province of Saskatchewan. I was informed that the date was March 8. I also asked on what date the town of Sturgis was informed that its project was rejected, and the answer was that it was on February 14. In a letter from the co-ordinator there is an indication that the funds had run out on Feburary 14. My question of privilege is simply this: if the funds had run out on February 14, how is it that a project was approved on March 8?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously a point of debate. I suggest to the hon. member that he may be right in his contention, but this has nothing to do with privilege. If the hon. member would consult the authorities and precedents he would see that a question such as this one cannot be raised by way of a question of privilege. In my way of thinking, privilege is a very important right of hon. members which cannot be used for the purpose of asking supplementary questions or arguing with ministers or

other hon. members regarding the accuracy of statements made outside or inside the House. I hope the hon. member will find some way of getting to the minister and trying to obtain a clarification of the statement, perhaps on motions. I appreciate that there is a difficulty in that we will be adjourning for two weeks and it may be that the hon. member might want a clarification of the matter before then. I hope that some way can be found to do this other than by privilege.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I then raise this question at ten o'clock two weeks from now?


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into any specific situation if that will help.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Egmont has a point of order and the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River also has a point of order. At this point I am trying to mend fences. I have not been looking to my right and did not realize that the hon. member was seeking the floor. Perhaps we could continue on points of order and alleged points or order so that first I might recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River, who will be followed by the hon. member for Egmont.


HIGHWAYS
Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the House. In view of the fact the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has left, I will direct my question to the acting minister. In light of the statement by the government of British Columbia that an immediate start is to be made on the construction of an all-weather road in British Columbia linking Fort Nelson, B.C., and Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories, can the acting minister advise when we may expect work to commence on the Northwest Territories section and when we may expect the completion of the road?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will secure an answer to that very interesting question.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member for Egmont, it appears that there might have been a disposition on the part of hon. members to allow the Minister of Labour to reply to the question of privilege of the hon. member for Mackenzie or to his point of order, supplementary question or whatever it was. I certainly have no objection to that if the hon. member would want the minister to do so at this time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a brief, non-controversial point of order. Earlier in the question period when the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was responding on the important matter of the causeway to Lennox Island he mentioned the Minister of Public Works who unfortunately was not here. Since
March 29, 1972

we will be adjourning for two weeks I wish to ask whoever takes questions for the minister, because of the importance of the matter, whether he would prepare an answer in the interim and give it to the House when the House reconvenes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has been as lenient as possible but in view of the circumstances we might be allowed to call orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Abram Ernest Epp: 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.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find it necessary to bring to your attention, Sir, some methods by which the government brings in bills, one in particular. My point of order relates to Bill C-183. It concerns a breach of a custom of the House with respect to the form in which a bill that amends a statute should be presented. On Monday, if I recall correctly, Your Honour was pleased to give a ruling which opened with the following words:
Last week, a number of bills were proposed for introduction to the House. The Chair expressed reservations about certain procedural aspects of those bills. While three were then accepted for introduction after serious consideration, seven were held in abeyance. On Friday last, hon. members were given an opportunity to express views on a point of order which queried whether these bills might not affect the financial initiative of the Crown. A number of members participated in the interesting procedural debate and I have now had time to study their arguments-
Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, then exhaustively analysed the acceptability of these bills. In the result, three were found wanting and four were accepted, but only by giving them the benefit of the doubt. The four acceptable bills were then introduced. Immediately thereafter the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) moved for leave to introduce an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, now Bill C-183.
I do not propose to speak about the distinction in treatment accorded the ten bills presented for introduction by private members and the bill presented for introduction by the Minister of Labour. In the Latin maxim which we use in law, res ipsa loquitur, "the matter speaks for itself."
I make the point that the government has not demonstrated that it possesses any greater skill than private members in preparing bills which are in accordance with the rules. I should like to point out that when the bill was tabled it did not have the recommendation of the Governor General. However, the day after, when the bill was
Canada Labour Code
distributed to our offices the recommendation of the Governor General was included.
Your Honour will recall the warning you issued to the government in the last session with respect to bills. You will also recall the procedural errors that accompanied the tax reform bill. Had the opposition insisted on adherence to the Standing Orders, Your Honour suggested that you might have to shut down the House for weeks while you checked the bill against the budget resolutions. You will also recall, Sir, that only by special order agreed to by the House was it possible to amend the bill. It is not, therefore, expertise that justifies special treatment for the government on the introduction of bills.
I therefore draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that Bill C-183 contains no explanatory note although it proposes to amend a statute. There is no Standing Order that requires an explanatory note in such a case, but almost 50 years of custom have made the practice mandatory. That practice has been swept aside. The Chair, in yesterday's ruling on the bill of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), referred to previous rulings on the substance of explanatory notes. You are probably better aware of the origin of explanatory notes than I am, Mr. Speaker. They are founded in the report of the committee on procedure which was adopted by the House on June 14, 1923. The report recommended that in the following session the House adopt these rules:
1.	In the preparation of bills amending existing enactments the amendments shall not ordinarily be made by clauses which add or leave out words or substitute words for others, but by clauses which re-enect the section, subsection or other minor division, as it is amended.
2.	In the text of the bill, on the left hand page, new matter shall be indicated by such typographical means as may best suit the varying circumstances of each case, such as brackets, italics, underlining, asterisks, etc. Opposite each clause, on the right hand page, the enactment amended thereby, or so much thereof as is essential, shall be printed with the proposed changes to be made therein similarly indicated.
3.	When a clause repeals an existing section, subsection or other minor division of a section, that section, subsection or division, or so much thereof as is essential, shall be printed opposite the clause.
4.	A memorandum by the draftsman explaining briefly the reasons for each clause, shall be appended to the bill, or distributed therewith. Whenever practicable the memorandum shall be printed on the right hand page of the bill, in paragraphs opposite the clauses referred to and numbered correspondingly.
5.	The above rules shall also as far as practicable apply to the reprinting of bills.
Although the House adopted these recommendations, it did not implement them in a subsequent session by incorporating them in the Standing Orders. The other place did make these recommendations rules of that chamber and they are now incorporated in rule 54 of that body. However, as rulings of this chamber bear out, over the past 50 years these recommendations have been applied to bills which propose to amend statutes.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-183 proposes to amend an existing enactment. It does not comply with recommendations 2, 3 and 4 to which I have just directed my remarks; it does not indicate new matter, it does not reprint repealed clauses, nor does it contain any memoranda explaining

March 29, 1972
Canada Labour Code
the reasons for each clause. What the bill does contain in lieu of these requirements is a preamble. That preamble has one thing in common with the explanatory note of the bill of the hon. member for Skeena: it is lyrical, to some extent it is poetical, but it is not an explanatory note.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) must make his preamble conform more with existing practice and the form that is usual for explanatory notes. I submit that the bill must be withdrawn and reintroduced with proper explanatory notes or, alternatively, that it continue at pro forma first reading stage and with unanimous consent be reprinted with explanatory notes. The bill was introduced only a couple of days ago and a measure as important as this should not be permitted to proceed to second reading stage unless it contains explanatory notes to aid all members of the House.
Mr. Speaker, in order to substantiate my argument I would refer to a bill which was given first reading on February 21, 1972. I refer to Bill C-6. Clause 2 of that bill reads as follows:
The Criminal Code is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 178 thereof, the following part-
It then gets into part IV of the bill. The important point that I bring to Your Honour's attention is that there is an explanatory note, in some detail, on the right-hand side of that bill. This fact strengthens my argument. With the bill in question, Bill C-183 which is a bill to amend the Canada Labour Code, particularly part V, industrial relations, there is no explanatory note whatsoever. I think this omission is fatal to the legal presentation of this bill. I need not remind Your Honour that if I am correct in my conclusions and my point of order, the bill is imperfect.
Lastly, I should like to direct Your Honour to Standing Order 69 which reads:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
Even though this bill has been introduced I think we are now faced with the problem of an imperfect bill and I would recommend to Your Honour that either of the two alternatives I have pointed out must be adopted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am prepared to make a ruling at this time on the point raised by the hon. member. Basically, his point is that the bill is not acceptable in form because it does not contain the proper explanatory note. The hon. member suggests that although there is no requirement in the Standing Orders for an explanatory note, there is tradition or practice in support of his contention that bills should always contain an explanatory note and it should be in a certain form.
I agree with the hon. member that the Standing Orders do not provide in any way that it is a requirement that an explanatory note should accompany a bill. In fact, it has been brought to my attention that from time to time bills are submitted to the House without explanatory notes being in them. I have two such bills in my hand. Bill C-4 does not appear to have an explanatory note, neither does Bill C-170, an act to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children. It seems that the bill before us does not contain an explanatory note. There is, therefore, nothing mysterious about this particular bill.

My intervention the other day in respect of private bills was to say that when there was an explanatory note, it should not be argumentative but should be in the form of an explanation. I fully agree with the hon. member that it is extremely helpful to the House and hon. members to have an explanatory note for their benefit and to assist in their understanding of legislation. However, the Chair, taking into account the Standing Orders and the long established practice of the House, cannot agree with the contention that the bill before us cannot proceed on the basis of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) rises on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The similarity which Your Honour has just drawn to the attention of the House between the bill before us and other bills which do not contain an explanatory note is correct, but a quick perusal of these bills shows that the majority of them are new. I think it is the practice that new bills do not require an explanatory note. However, I think it is invariably the practice of this House that when there is an amending bill there is an explanatory note.


Mr. Speaker:: I might add, as a conclusion to the ruling I was making, that Bill C-183 does have an explanatory note. This has just been brought to my attention. The explanatory note is at the back of the bill. I took the word of the hon. member for Hamilton West because he went to the trouble of making an extensive argument. I therefore assumed that there was no explanatory note. However, there is one. It may not be satisfactory, it may not be in the proper terms, it may not be in the same form as other explanatory notes, but at least there is an attempt to include one in the bill. That fact weakens the hon. member's argument and strengthens the ruling of the Chair.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I had noticed the explanatory note at the back of the bill, but you will notice also that it refers only to sections 4 and 5 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Other than that there is no explanatory note.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, in rising to initiate second reading debate on this bill, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, I want at once to acknowledge the contribution made to the legislation by my predecessor, the Hon. Bryce Mackasey. I know that hon. members will understand when I say that my colleague sincerely wishes he could be with us today when the principles of this bill are being discussed in the House for the first time.
Hon. members will recall that a bill to amend the Canada Labour Code was first introduced on June 28, 1971. At that time my predecessor made it clear that the bill was being introduced at the end of June for the purpose of stimulating public discussion. The bill did not proceed to second reading and lapsed when the previous session of this House terminated. In the intervening eight months my predecessor and I and senior departmental
March 29, 1972

officials have received representations from and consulted with most groups in the country representing management and labour. In addition, we have consulted with provincial ministers of labour. On the whole, the original bill was well received. A few provisions, particularly those relating to technological change and picketing, stimulated much public discussion and comment. The present bill incorporates a number of the suggestions received in response to the government's request for comments.
The bill before the House now proposes amendments to improve the legal framework governing the relationships between organized labour and management in enterprises within federal jurisdiction and also affirms the proper role of government as representative of the public interest in those relationships.
The present act forms part V of the Canada Labour Code and was formerly entitled the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. That act was passed in 1948 and has remained unaltered. It is no small commendation to the Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, minister of labour in 1948, and to the drafters of the IRDI Act that it is still functional today. One forgets that at that time we were still in the era of the DC-3 airplane, television broadcasting was still in the experimental stage and the St. Lawrence Seaway had not been built.
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. 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.
The government's objectives in its labour relations policy are to promote social justice and economic development. This will be done by providing the legal framework that encourages the development of an efficient and equitable system for industrial relations based on the cornerstone of collective bargaining. These principles are reflected in a new preamble. The preamble recognizes the long tradition in Canada of labour legislation and policy designed to promote the common well-being through encouraging free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes.
An essential ingredient of free collective bargaining is freedom of association and protection of the right to organize. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House that Canada has ratified International Labour Organization Convention No. 87 which was deposited with the ILO on March 23 by the Canadian ambassador, George Ignatieff. Reference to this convention dealing with the right to organize and to be represented by the union of one's choice is made in the preamble to the bill before us today.
Let me now turn, Mr. Speaker, to some of the provisions of the new bill which I believe are consistent with the over-all goal of labour legislation which I indicated earlier. First I would like to deal with the extension of bar-
Canada Labour Code
gaining rights. The bill would extend bargaining rights to professional employees who until now have not been entitled to bargain collectively. We believe that these people have tended in recent years to be put into a kind of no man's land between management on the one side and the organized worker on the other, without the right to be certified. We propose to rectify this. But in doing so we recognize that professional employees have specialized knowledge and training and that they may choose to have their own bargaining unit.
The bill clarifies in a statutory way the present practice of the Canada Labour Relations Board to grant bargaining rights to employees who have supervisory duties over other employees. If, however, such an employee exercises managerial responsibility or is employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to industrial relations, then he would be excluded from the bargaining unit as he is at present.
The legislation recognizes that share-of-the-catch fishermen and owner-operator truckers are often in a position of such economic dependency that their relationship is more analogous to that of an employee than to an independent contractor. Accordingly, bargaining rights will be extended to such persons in those industries. I must say, in fairness, that there may be some jurisdictional difficulties with respect to the share-of-the-catch fishermen and we believe that this matter should be settled by the courts.
In extending bargaining rights to persons not previously covered we were cognizant of the fact that these groups could indeed organize and at times strike, but at the same time that they were beyond the dispute settlement procedures of the code. This clearly was not a satisfactory situation and militated heavily in favour of the extension of bargaining rights. It is proposed to permit a union which seeks bargaining rights for a unit that has no bargaining agent to apply to the Canada Labour Relations Board for a representation vote if it can demonstrate membership support of at least 35 per cent in the unit.
A union seeking to displace an existing bargaining agent would still be required to claim majority support at the time of the application for certification. The requirements for the representation vote have been eased to provide that the majority would be determined by a majority of the employees actually voting. Previously, the majority was calculated on the number of employees actually in the bargaining unit whether such employees voted or not. This change reflects common electoral practice.
In addition, we have included provisions designed to put bargaining rights acquired by voluntary recognition, and those acquired by certification, on an equal basis. These provisions also offer protection against the abuse of rights granted voluntarily so that a union carrying such rights would be subject to challenge for a one-year period on the ground that it lacks majority support.
The bill also contains provisions designed to carry over bargaining rights when unions merge or when a business or undertaking is sold. In the same vein, provisions are included in the bill which carry over bargaining rights when an agency of the federal government is transferred

March 29, 1972
Canada Labour Code
from the public service to a Crown corporation covered by this bill.
The bill would strengthen and extend the provisions regarding unfair practices in such a way as to offer additional protection for employers and trade unions and for individual employees and trade union members.
The jurisdiction over unfair practices is to be transferred from the courts to the Canada Labour Relations Board because we take the view that these questions are primarily ones involving industrial relations and are not properly dealt with as matters of quasi-criminal law. We think that these questions should be dealt with in a different atmosphere. The Canada Labour Relations Board would be empowered to seek accommodation between the parties through the assistance of field officers before the complaint is processed by the board itself.
We propose, further, that the Canada Labour Relations Board be reconstituted as a full-time body. Its members would no longer be representative of employees and employers. This provision has been somewhat misunderstood. We are not saying that members shall not have had a labour or management background. We are merely saying that once appointed to the board they must sever their connection with the organization or firm of employers, as the case may be, that they formerly represented or of which they were a member. There will, of course, be consultation with employers and the labour movement with respect to appointments. The Canada Labour Relations Board would have jurisdiction over unfair practices, deal with problems of successor rights, technological change, declarations of unlawful strikes and orders granting access to premises.
The predecessor bill proposed to clarify the law of picketing. The revised bill before the House has not carried forward that provision because of the representations received from both labour and management. Employers largely held the view that it extended the right to picket. Unions, on the other hand, were of the opinion that it infringed upon well established rights in Canada, rights that have been clearly supported in recent jurisprudence.
During the lifetime of a collective agreement, grievances are resolved by an arbitration process. The bill proposes to strengthen and better define the role of an arbitrator because we believe that arbitration is the only effective mechanism for the settlement of grievances. We have attempted to protect arbitrators' decisions from excessive judicial review.
I come now to the dispute settlement area which is perhaps one of the most important areas in the day to day administration of the legislation. The Minister of Labour is to be given increased flexibility in the use of techniques to attempt to bring about settlements. The minister would have the choice of taking no action at all or of appointing a conciliation officer, a one-man conciliation commission or a conciliation board. Should a conciliation officer be appointed and should he be unable to effect a settlement, the minister would be authorized to take no further action or to appoint a conciliation commission or a conciliation board.
Thus, depending on the circumstances prevailing, the minister would be free to use the appropriate agency to assist in resolving a dispute without being required to follow the present, more rigid procedure. May I say that the right to strike or lockout would arise seven days after the minister states his intention to take no further action or after the report of a conciliation commissioner or board has been received.
In addition to the use of conciliation procedures the minister may at any time appoint a mediator to assist the parties, but the intervention of a mediator would not in any way affect the timing of a strike or lockout. Provision has been made in the bill that in the event that a serious strike or lockout is threatened at a time when Parliament has been dissolved for an election, the governor in council may postpone until after the election the date on which the work stoppage would normally become legal. This power would be available only when the stoppage would adversely affect the national interest. The Minister of Labour would be required to report to Parliament at the earliest opportunity after the election.
I have left to the last the provisions of the bill dealing with technological change. As hon. members are aware, provisions regarding technological change were incorporated in the bill presented to this House by my predecessor on June 28, 1971. These provisions have been recast for the purpose of clarification, but before I discuss them I wish to express the philosophy of the government underlying these provisions.
Rapid change has become a fact of everyday life and we must recognize it as such. This government's position is clear, that it must encourage technological change if Canadians are to compete successfully in the years ahead in the world's rapidly changing economic environment. On the other hand, the government recognizes that technological change often seriously dislocates or adversely affects those employees directly involved and that such effects ought to be minimized.
Thus, we are faced with two seemingly conflicting goals: on the one hand the encouragement of technological change and, on the other, the desirability of minimizing adverse effects on employees. In studying the options, I believe that the best solution is found in the provisions of the bill. What we are seeking in these provisions is to encourage management and labour to deal with the impact of technological change on employees at the bargaining table. Industrial precedent proves that by working co-operatively labour and management can introduce major technological changes harmoniously.
Perhaps the greatest concern expressed by management about the technological change provisions is the possibility of the collective agreement being reopened during its term. The technological change provisions have been clarified to establish clearly that the collective agreement cannot be reopened where the employer gives notice of the intended technological change before the agreement was entered into, where the agreement establishes procedures by which the effects of the change may be negotiated and settled, or where there are substantive provisions contained in the agreement that the parties specify are intended to assist the employees affected by the change. Under these circumstances the collective
(Mr. O'Connell.]
March 29, 1972

agreement cannot be reopened. The technological change provisions would not apply to existing collective agreements but only to those made after the bill comes into force.
I might point out that the technological change provisions of the act require that before an application be granted by the Canada Labour Relations Board to reopen the contract, the board must be satisfied that a significant number of employees would be substantially and adversely affected. In the event that the Canada Labour Relations Board grants leave to negotiate, the bargaining would be limited to provisions that would assist employees affected by the change; there would be no bargaining over the change itself.
I would also like to outline very briefly the commitment my colleagues and I have made that the legislation needs to be supplemented in a determined and imaginative way by a number of non-legislative initiatives to reduce the undue emphasis on the adversary elements in employer-employee relationships. Among other initiatives, we will be reinforcing the industry specialist and mediation program. We will give new emphasis to labour-management consultation and conference activity and devise means to promote improved efforts by employers and trade unions in the field of industrial relations training. Our research effort will be strengthened.
I conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that I believe this proposed legislation is a step forward in the development of a sound legal framework for the process of free collective bargaining in the federal jurisdiction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-183, formerly Bill C-253, is an attempt to update the industrial relations section found in part V of the Canada Labour Code. One is impressed with the forceful arguments for change, if only through time, considering that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act has been unchanged since 1948. Consultations over the years with those affected by its provisions, and consultations with the provinces have indicated a need for change.
The Woods task force of 1968 in its intensive study also emphasized the need for amendments which would bring about a more meaningful piece of legislation. The public, too, especially of late, has registered its concern about the future of labour-management relations. The trend as presently seen points to more strikes, to the public interest being adversely affected, to loss of dollars, to questionable motives in bargaining, to lack of stability in labour-management relations, to additions to the unemployment rolls and to the deterioration of our competitive position.
It seems to me that labour-management relations are suffering from a sickness which calls for an immediate cure. They are in a deplorable state. In bargaining, it is obvious that confrontation, with emphasis on the adversary system, far outweighs the principle of bargaining in good faith. We are today attempting to inject a serum which will cure this illness. The people of Canada are
Canada Labour Code
demanding no less, and they should expect no less. This is the challenge.
The conditions to which I have referred affect the high hopes that Canadians cherish for the future in terms of social and economic goals. At a time when our ability to reach these goals is being strained by policies of our neighbours to the south and elsewhere, we must make certain that the legal framework we finally approve as a means of dealing with labour-management relations does not in other ways strain our ability to make progress.
We cannot be unduly harsh in our attitudes regarding management or labour interests. We do not wish to inject a climate, through legislation, which would have a detrimental effect on the continuing quest for industrial peace and the stabilization of collective bargaining relationships. Two things are certain. First, business needs maximum freedom, in this age of rapid technological change, to inject new ideas and innovations thereby maintaining its competitive position and improving its efficiency. Second, the workers need protection or a reasonable guarantee that they will not be thrown out on the street when these changes mean loss of jobs.
What is involved in all this? The labour law before us applies to industries within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. These include interprovincial or international rail, road and pipe line transportation, shipping and related services, air transportation, interprovincial or international communications, telephone, telegraph or cable, radio and television broadcasting, and banks. Regardless of the jurisdictional aspect, it is well recognized that the provinces may, and often do, adopt in whole or in part legislation which is implemented federally. Here is another reason for making a conscious and determined attempt to bring forth the right bill.
I am not unnerved or impressed by the government's determination to proceed to the second reading of this measure only two days after the bill received first reading. The government can hardly construct an image of expeditious and decisive reform in this or any other area, whatever may happen in the weeks and months ahead. The fact is that this legislative statement of the government's intentions with regard to the Canada Labour Code is long overdue.
I should like to refer to a few of the highlights of the legislation before us because careful scrutiny must be directed toward all these aspects. I have a great deal of respect for the minister. I know he will recognize that our interest in this subject is as great as his and that he will turn a receptive ear to the suggestions we offer. We shall be dealing, as does the legislation, with questions which include the extension of bargaining rights, the appointment of a full-time labour relations board, a new definition of unfair practices, easier certification of unions, dispute settlements through the minister, enforcement procedures following collective agreements, technological change during the term of a collective agreement and rules in connection with strike action and picketing.
I heard what the minister said about the appointment of a full-time labour relations board. I am pleased he was able to explain some of the uncertainties. I was interested, too, in the new definition of unfair practices and in what was said about the certification of unions. There seems to
1272

March 29, 1972
Canada Labour Code
be some contradiction implicit in the procedure for certification as compared with de-certification. All these questions, as well as others, will be looked into.
The clauses dealing with technological change during the term of a collective agreement are concerned with a matter which has caused frustration and misgiving not only in business circles but among many who will be indirectly affected. The minister has already explained his stand with respect to the picketing aspect of the bill.
The extensively researched proposals of the Woods task force were made public in December, 1968. We waited until June 28, 1971, for the government's legislative response and now, in March of 1972, we are debating on second reading an amended version of that response. Mr. Speaker, the range, the soundness and the originality of the bill before us today hardly justifies such a prolonged gestation period. In fact, it has not been good for the country. Bill C-253, which was introduced on June 28, 1971, was ill-advised and added to the unacceptably high degree of uncertainty which already existed in the business community. The fact that industry and business has been waiting for this amended bill for the last eight months has undoubtedly cost people their jobs. After studying the highlights I can see no reason why the bill itself, or at least a declaration of intent, could not have been made public months ago.
A government can be excused for taking eight months to reach certain decisions, but not the kind of decisions embodied in this bill. To agonize for eight months over the changes which appear in this measure is pathetic; it is another indication of awesome indecisiveness and bad government. This is not the time for the government to seek to undertake a pretentious effort to speed the present bill through the House. To do so would not serve the government's cause, nor would it serve industrial relations in Canada.
My party wants to see this mini reform debated and decided before the next election. If this does not happen, it is only the government which is to blame. Proper consideration of this bill will call for open and serious discussion at the committee stage. The government has a high responsibility to ensure that experts from the labour, management and academic fields have an opportunity to comment on the legislation and suggest improvements. It is questionable whether this will actually be done when the bill gets into committee. I would remind hon. members that Bill C-253 created a furore because we did not know whether the proposed amendments, particularly those concerning technological change, were soundly based.
I will say that the minister did allay many of the fears which existed. I want to know whether there will really be an opportunity to become involved in discussions with the people I have mentioned. I notice the minister is nodding his head. I am grateful for that attitude. This is important when we are trying to improve the structure of labour legislation which directly affects the community. I am pleased that the minister should agree.
The success of this task will not be known simply by debate in this chamber but, rather, by how the reform is received in the human arena of free collective bargaining.

Our party is prepared to give cautious approval to this bill at the present time in view of the great number of changes relating to the technological aspects of the legislation. I say cautious also in view of the new innovation in regard to strikes.
We want to know whether in fact labour and business are happy with the subsequent amendments that will be brought in. We say that free collective bargaining has been the main foundation of industrial relations in a free society, and this bill does provide improvements to the structure of collective bargaining. Although I should like to say a few words on this matter, may I simply say we accept the use of bargaining procedures in preparing and equipping both employees and firms to deal with technological change.
As I said earlier, if technological change is not faced up to and not made more humane, we will not have adequate or sustained development or as fulfilling and just a society as possible. In scope, this bill provides an acceptable basis for parliament to reform the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. However, let me emphasize that sometimes we get into a hang-up on second reading. Some members seem to think that because a bill has had second reading that is the end of it, that the bill has been agreed to in principle which means it cannot be further amended. I do not accept that argument. I contend we are constantly improving the principle of bills and I want to make it very clear to this House that our party will be making extensive and substantial suggestions in committee for improving these proposals. We will be open and responsive to any suggestions and comments made by those in the community who have an interest and a stake in industrial relations.
However, Mr. Speaker, we are disappointed by the timidity of the entire bill. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on a task force to provide ideas for a comprehensive overhaul of our industrial relations legislation. A plethora of creative and sound proposals was made by the task force and by many others concerned with industrial relations. There has been ample time and willingness in this House calmly and rationally to undertake a really comprehensive reform. However, I submit that the government has shied away from its big opportunity and I say it has let the country down. This is most evident in the challenge to find some way more effectively to reduce the necessity for strikes and lockouts and more reliably to protect the public interest.
I am very pleased with one part of the bill that has been brought to our attention and I am amazed that this provision has not been heretofore included in the code. I refer to what would happen if the members of the House of Commons were away beating on doors in June and strikes were called. I understand there is a provision in the bill to give the Governor General, or the governor in council, whichever is the correct terminology, power to deal with the situation. I recall one of my hon. friends in the New Democratic Party saying that when one of the members of my party wanted to inquire what would happen in such circumstances he was resorting to Nazi tactics, the tactics of fascism, I was quite surprised to hear that.


John Leroy Skoberg: Let us use the War Measures Act.
March 29, 1972


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member has answered my question, but I did not mention his name. However, I do not want to get sidetracked because I want to give my hon. friends an opportunity to speak on this bill in which I understand they are greatly interested. Strikes and lockouts are an integral part of free collective bargaining. As long as free collective bargaining remains the best way peacefully to settle industrial disputes, we must accept strikes and lockouts. Hon. friends to my left may laugh at this, but a noted labour leader in the United States has remarked that labour strikes are not in keeping with industrial, social or economic development.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Did you say "noted" or "notorious"?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It has also been noted that after the technicians' strike it was also questioned whether the strike was a proper weapon. Perhaps we would have to go into the psychological reasons for strikes, whatever that may mean, but I shall not deal with that question now.
In our increasingly fragile and interdependent society, certain strikes and lockouts cannot be endured and must be disallowed. It is nonsense to suggest that they are always the only course of action. Parliament has intervened to protect the public interest when strikes in essential services have become unacceptably harmful. When the public interest is or has been adversely affected, then common sense is required and we should act in defence of the public interest. I subscribe to that contention, and so do some labour unions. Common sense has required such action in the past and will do so in the future. This subject is neither perverse nor academic, and the bill should have addressed itself to this area. I do not think it has, though it may have made an attempt. Perhaps when we get into committee the minister will explain why the procedure to which I have referred was not followed.
The Woods report dealt with this problem and made several proposals to improve the relationship of free collective bargaining and strikes and lockouts which have an intolerable and measurable effect on the public interest. This key suggestion was strongly endorsed at the annual meeting of our party and it should be in this bill. When parliament is not sitting, the minister has agreed that there is a procedure by which the Governor General can deal with the situation. We believe that when the public interest requires such action, it must remain the responsibility of parliament. Therefore, we feel that the recommendation of the Woods task force regarding a public interest disputes commission-I wonder where it went to-should have been developed legislatively. Such a body would be charged with determining special procedures for resolving industrial disputes in essential services. In addition, where strikes or lockouts occurred in essential areas this body would be responsible for advising parliament on how the public interest was being affected and on what action parliament might take.
This step would not roll back the right to strike or to lock out, nor would it end industrial conflict. However, it would provide parliament with a more comprehensive and informed basis on which to exercise the power it now has to legislate an end to a strike or lockout. Such a proposal is missing from the bill. I know the minister is charitable and I have a great deal of respect for him. I
Canada Labour Code
hope he will be able to convince his deputy that there is need for this sort of body charged with looking into the entire area of labour-management relations, thereby creating a climate that would eliminate the strike as a weapon because both sides are better informed.
Contrast this situation with the lack of information we are given by Treasury Board in regard to the Post Office Department. And who knows what is happening in the NABET negotiations? Ministers take the position that they feel it is not right to disclose matters that may affect negotiations while the negotiations are going on. We are about to go home for Easter and we cannot find out what is going on. Perhaps somebody knows. This sort of cat-and-mouse game, not only with labour-management but also with members, should not be permitted in an area of such vital concern. I think the establishment of an industrial disputes commission is a good idea and I see no reason why the government should not take action in this direction.
I want to deal with some of the amendments that the minister has brought in regarding technological change. He is quite right when he says that previously there was no opting out provision if notification was given of changes prior to the time of the signing of the contract. There was no reference to whether in fact the bill affected contracts in existence or which would come into existence at the time the bill was being debated. I think the minister has cleared up this matter, but there is still one point left. The right to strike is still there and we must look into this question.
As I said before, there is a feeling permeating the country, supported by labour, which I think is important, that perhaps we should look at another area. I will not deal with the amendments because I think the minister explained them well. The issue of technological change which creates such concern in terms of the amendments before us is of importance. We are hoping the committee's study will provide a basis acceptable to both labour and management-but we do not know that and this concerns me. I know labour was not happy with the 30-day notice they had to give. Whether this legislation has appeased labour, or whether business is prepared to go along with it remains to be seen. During the debate I think we have had co-operation. No one has bothered anyone, and I do not quite understand this. Perhaps because we know we are going home, and we have just been paid, has made everybody charitable.
The provision for collective bargaining during the length of a contract is not to be taken lightly. I emphasize this fact. Let me refer for a moment to this productive form of collective bargaining. Bill C-253 was certainly a mistake. The proposal of the former minister of labour would have weakened the efficacy of free collective bargaining in the interests of the workers of this country. My friends on my left, with their enthusiasm for that proposal, I would say are intellectually bankrupt. This bill places emphasis on dealing with the effects of technological change during the time a contract is renegotiated. It does not allow the reopening of a contract unless more sensible and available procedures are neglected. We can tighten up this provision. With his expertise, the minister perhaps
25104-22.!

March 29, 1972
Canada Labour Code
can tighten it up sufficiently. In any event, we can explore this area.
This bill covers some 500,000 Canadian employees, many of whom are already negotiating contracts in respect of technological change. Even if this proposal provided such rights to unionized workers in both federal and provincial jurisdictions, which it does not, the two-thirds of the Canadian workers who are not unionized and are just as much affected by technological change would get nothing. We must admit that one-third of the working force is unionized while two-thirds are not. Even if every Canadian worker was unionized and reached by this reform, free collective bargaining could not do a complete job.
This is the main point we make this afternoon. As the Woods report pointed out, and as my party has, the achieving of a more humane and secure community in these times of rapid technological change requires the effective involvement of government in a whole range of economic and social areas. In meeting that challenge it seems to us this government has failed miserably and has made the situation worse. I will not get into that matter again during the debate this afternoon. Everybody knows what we on this side think of the government, but we will stick with this bill and see what happens.
The best climate for technological change for the worker is when there is growth of economic opportunity. Under this government we have had to endure restrictive, timid economic policies, a slowing down of assistance to research and development and no contemporary industrial strategy. Hopefully, this will change in the future under this government or the one that will be formed after June 27.
It is a fact that many of the effects and challenges of technological change to employees are primarily the responsibility of the federal government. Income maintenance, manpower mobility and retraining programs are essential instruments to help individuals deal with change. What is the government's record in this regard? Unemployment insurance reform which does not provide cost of living escalators will soon be inadequate. There have been no reforms or amendments to manpower mobility programs. We have seen a token in-industry retraining programs designed primarily to pad unemployment figures. There have been no changes to the manpower training program which has proven to be inadequate and inaccessible to those most poorly equipped to participate in our fast changing economy.
This bill will receive approval in principle because of the many good things it contains for the Canadian people. But, as I have said, we reserve the right to bring forward serious and substantial suggestions and amendments to improve the bill. In conclusion, I would like to state that the Toronto Star of yesterday reported in accurate terms what this whole thing is all about. I know hon. members have read the article, because we read everything we can get in this place, particularly when there is talk about labour-management relations. The last paragraph of this article reads:
The important thing to remember is that the interests of employer and worker may be in conflict in the short-term, but never in the long. Unless the employer can adapt to change and keep his

plant competitive, there will be no jobs. But if the employer does not manage change so as to cushion the impact on his work force, he will have bad labour relations whatever the law says.
We must arrive at an acceptable balance between the interests of business and labour. Hopefully, we will be able to arrive at the necessary solution in this regard.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members on this side of the House listened as attentively to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) as they did to the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) when he was explaining the provisions of this bill. It is difficult to criticize the hon. member for Hamilton West on his presentation, but he leaves me a little confused as to the stand his party takes on the legislation. This suggests to me the plight of people who become bowlegged from riding fences.
The hon. member suggested that we must maximize business freedom, but at the same time we must give the workers protection. I am wondering whether business needs maximum freedom and workers need only protection and a reasonable guarantee. What is wrong with workers having maximum freedom in dealing with environmental and social conditions? The hon. member, when speaking of the rights of labour, talked about the right to strike but then suggested that we must tighten things up. I ask him, through you, Mr. Speaker, what he was referring to when he said we must tighten things up. First he wants maximum freedom for the business community, and then he suggests we tighten things up in so far as collective agreements are concerned.
I believe the hon. member was being very considerate to one type of individual, but I do not think he would support any legislation which would weaken labour. I do not think his party would bring in the type of legislation, if perchance they had the opportunity to form the government, that would do harm to the Canadian worker. However, I am not certain I would want to give his party that opportunity. Only time will answer that question.
The legislation before us, Bill C-183 to amend the Canada Labour Code, the industrial relations process, is of the utmost concern to all organized workers, management and to most of the unorganized or John Doe people, the public of this country. All too often the non-organized and underpaid millions make no headlines. These people are so easily overlooked. Many people seem to doubt their existence in our society. This is why I believe it is necessary to bring in legislation that will put everybody on an equal footing so that the people of Canada may realize that those who are unorganized should have a say in so far as protection is concerned.
One might ask what this has to do with the bill now before us. I suggest the Canadian public wants legislation that would allow both management and labour to face modern-day, fast moving changes on an equal footing. I do not subscribe to one side having any advantage in this regard. Job security is the most important concern of the working man. The need to control mass lay-offs brought about by technological change is always uppermost in the minds of Canadians because whenever there is a technological change there are lay-offs which affect the purse
March 29, 1972

strings of the community. The community concerned must accept the situation.
Unless common sense, honesty and decency are practiced by employer and employee, there is room for concern. There must be a restoration of dignity in the job because this brings profit to industry, workers and the general public. Suspicion and hostility have cost the country dearly and this can be reversed only by a feeling of enthusiasm, understanding and co-operation. This bill in a small way does provide that type of relief from the never ending fear of employees that their jobs will be phased out without warning or consideration.
This legislation should also relieve the high tension of the employer in attempting to bring about technological change in the closed period of a contract. At least to some degree advance notice will have to be provided. Management must abandon the idea that the worker is bound to do what he is told simply because obedience is right, desirable or necessary. Every worker must be given the right to plan for change and must be told how change will affect him and his fellow workers.
The real purpose behind good industrial relations must be understanding and moderation. I believe the minister has understanding and I believe he will use moderation in the type of regulations which may be introduced with regard to this bill. If a worker is faced with new machines, new methods and organization which follow one another in rapid succession, if he is confronted with further changes before adaptation is completed, his tensions are multiplied and his fears become greater. If in fact he is told, without consultation with himself or his union, that his job is being sacrificed in the interest of alleged progress, his alarm and resentment will burst out in hostility. I suggest this is the reason we have had wildcat strikes and dissension throughout the country.
This is the type of consultation which should be carried on in respect of good industrial democracy as between management and labour. I hope the bill will provide some stability in this direction. I hope both management and labour can successfully work out industrial peace and contracts where little legislation is required. After all, legislation must be enforced, and this means third party intervention which should be required only in exceptional cases. It is not necessary to have the intervention of a third party if there is good will by the two parties concerned.
We in the New Democratic Party subscribe to the preamble of Bill C-183. While it may not add to the effectiveness of the bill, it does set out the desired goals for free collective bargaining in a democratic society. Sometimes I wonder if the Treasury Board negotiators and, indeed, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) have ever read, studied or employed good relations and constructive bargaining practices. One has only to read a reply to a question asked of the President of the Treasury Board to realize how shallow a government department is in so far as good industrial relations are concerned. I refer to issue No. 1 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the miscellaneous estimates committee. The President of the Treasury Board was asked a question in committee and his reply was as follows:
-I can assure you that strikes are not the kind of thing that the
Canada Labour Code
employer, particularly the federal government, encourages or tries to precipitate-
A member of the official opposition then asked:
Does this pose problems in a negotiating way to the federal government as the one employer with a very large bank roll?
The response to this question is what I am getting at in order to show that there are no meaningful negotiations by the Treasury Board in an attempt to bring about a solution to labour strikes. The response was:
In so far as the employee group-and this is one expectation they may have with a private company-hopes to bankrupt, if need be, the employer, the public service employees I do not think should nourish this particular hope. This is one significant difference.
A philosophy based on a test of economic strength obviously is not appropriate and should not be satisfactory to the public service employee. I think a number of them are recognizing this.
I suggest that with this type of approach to industrial relations it is no wonder we are in a mess in respect of the various contracts being negotiated by that department. As one goes through the bill, various words are used which need clarification if a battle as to legal interpretation is to be stopped before it begins. I am sure that those of us who are involved in looking at words in official contracts realize that the lawyers in this country have made millions of dollars because of the difficulty involved in interpreting sometimes just a small word.
Sometimes I think we would be better off if we used professors of English to write contracts rather than the legal people who normally write them. One word can make a great difference in the interpretation of a clause in a collective agreement. If we look at the interpretation placed on the word "strike", we see where work to rule could be considered to come under the interpretation. Sometimes work to rule or a slowdown can be, and has been, substituted for a strike. I am sure the minister is aware that this is so.
Many observations and representations have been made on the composition of the Canada Labour Relations Board. I was pleased to hear the minister say there will be consultation with employees and employers before people are appointed to the board. We will take him at his word, but we must be concerned about how another minister might do it. There may be merit in establishing a full-time Canadian Labour Relations Board with broadly increased powers and duties. However, nowhere does the bill spell out that members of the board will be equally representative of employees and employers-and one questions giving the governor in council such far reaching authority.
It is necessary to establish a board which fully represents management, labour and the public. All too often boards of this type are composed of learned friends without practical experience in the field for which they are given responsibility. It is absolutely necessary that this board not be composed of politicians, friends of the government, pork-barrel type of appointments, if we are really interested in bringing about sound, respected decisions affecting labour and management relations.

March 29, 1972
Canada Labour Code
I believe that the Minister of Labour will ensure proper representation on the board. We have heard his commitment with regard to the Canada Labour Relations Board. However, the minister and this government may not be here tomorrow or the day after and a new government may have an anti-union philosophy and fill the board with right-wing reactionaries. We should all be concerned about this. That is why we should have a form of guarantee that the Canada Labour Relations Board will be equally representative of the public, labour and management.
I believe that no provision should be embodied in the legislation which would permit anyone beyond the age of 65 to hold office on the board. This is my personal opinion. I see that there is a provision under which office can be held by a person up to the age of 70. The minister is aware of the many appointments being made of people close to retirement age and all too often an important body becomes strictly a hobby-horse for the people concerned. However, we agree that there are many exceptions in this regard. At the same time, if we had sound rules and sound legislation in so far as the age provision is concerned, I am sure it would be to the advantage of all concerned.
I believe, also, that the legislation should specify that women be represented on the board. I say this specifically for the hon. lady member of our party. Many male chauvinists see women only in a motherhood role, but the majority of the female species have much more than that to contribute. The fact remains that if there is to be a full-time board there must be effective communication between the minister and parties involved, otherwise the whole area of good industrial relations will fall down before the legislation gets off the ground.
In all seriousness I suggest that a woman should be appointed to the board. I think this would be a recognition of the views of the general public. My friends are suggesting just one woman, but I would not hesitate to say that there could be more than one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leroy Skoberg: This suggestion should be given consideration because all too often male chauvinists are appointed to boards and they are the people who end up on top. I am certain all members of the House recognize the importance of freedom of choice in deciding membership for various jurisdictions. Therefore it is important that we recognize the right of unions to apply for certification, and even more so, the importance of making a decision on the matter at the earliest possible time. In the past there have been lengthy delays in granting a vote to unions applying for certification.
A typical example is a union which applied for certification in April of 1971 in the Saskatoon area. On March 13, 1972, they received an acknowledgement that the situation was being considered. In the meantime the turnover in the plant had been tremendous, three of the key members were fired, which cut back on the certification application. Because of the passage of time and withdrawals from the company, the certification which they attempted to obtain no longer merited consideration by the board.
I hope that in spite of the amount of work the Canada Labour Relations Board will have, they will not become

bogged down in such situations because this can only result in the stirring up of hostilities. With hostility there is bound to be suspicion and work stoppage.
I should now like to speak about one of the most important concerns of the average worker whether he be in the retail business, in transportation, in industry, in the service industry or in any other industry. I refer to the provisions regarding technological change which are in the bill. It is becoming increasingly apparent that workers in all sections of our economy want some assurance with regard to job security. They are concerned, and rightly so, about technological changes which will make them obsolete or which will allow an insensitive management to charge them with being featherbedders.
Workers have a right in our democracy to expect humane treatment and consideration for the years of service they have contributed to industry. At the same time, surely no one disagrees that management has the right to expect a fair return on their investment. But this cannot be construed to mean that an employee can be turned loose without consideration being given to the contribution which he made to the success of that industry.
That is why the technological change provision in Bill C-183 is so important. That is why I consider that a loophole exists in the bill which may create unnecessary labour disputes between now and the time when many contracts will be open for negotiation. All contracts, whether open or closed, should be treated in the same way in so far as the technological provision in the bill is concerned. When enacted, this legislation should apply in exactly the same way to both open and closed contracts.
It may be expected that a number of industries will try to beat the gun by bringing about changes in their operation under the guise of introducing new operations, although I hope I am proven wrong. Such could be the interpretation of the wording in the legislation where reference is made to a change that is directly related to the introduction of equipment or material. I believe that a change is a change, and whether or not it is directly related to the introduction of equipment or material will not soften the impact.
I should also point out that concern is expressed because no coverage is provided for the shutdown or transfer of a railway terminal. Perhaps this matter is covered in collective agreements. I believe that is the case with most of them. But one has only to refer to the words of Mr. Justice Samuel Freedman to realize the seriousness of the matter. What he said is very important. The minister referred in committee to what Mr. Justice Freedman said. I should like to quote a chapter from the report by Mr. Justice Freedman on technological change-an economic and human problem. He quotes Dr. John T. Deutsch, chairman of the Economic Council of Canada. The quotation reads as follows:
We are confronted with the problem of how to deal with displacement and dislocation, with the need for retraining, with the development of new skills, with the survival of an enterprise and the investment of new capital, with material and human losses, and with the question of how to distribute new benefits between wages, social welfare and leisure. These are complex and rapidly changing issues which cannot be tackled successfully unless; first, there is mutual concern and mutual recognition of the legitimate role of each party; second, there is realization that neither the
March 29, 1972

responsibility for nor the cost of adjustment can be imposed solely upon one of the parties or let fall upon the weak; and third, there is a comprehension of the need for objective analysis, for information, for prior study, for consultation and forward planning, and for a readiness to deal with realities,
Mr. Freedman quoted Dr. Deutsch and there is much wisdom in the words quoted. Mr. Freedman wrote:
There is much wisdom in the words above quoted, and the commission is pleased to adopt them as the basis of its approach to the problem now being considered. So well do they define that problem and expose its implications that an extended treatment of it by the commission is hardly necessary.
In the same vein, Mr. Speaker, he quotes Messrs. Somers, Cushman and Weinberg's "Adjusting to Technological Change" as follows:
This differentiation between beneficiaries and sufferers from technological change presents us with a moral as well as an economic problem. Society as a whole is, by and large, a beneficiary. Is it morally acceptable for most of us to enjoy the benefits of new technologies without utilizing every possible means of minimizing the losses and assisting the readjustment of those who are not beneficiaries but sufferers? Society has a moral obligation to accept the cost of necessary programs to this end as a charge against the benefits of technological advance.
In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I suggest we should realize that whether the contract is open or closed, or whether it has another three years to run, there should not be any technological change that would bring suffering to the workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leroy Skoberg: I assure the minister that the New Democratic Party will be pressing for this change consistently, and until it is brought about debate will be protracted. We consider this to be one of the most important areas omitted from this bill, and of course we will be watching it.
Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will be watching a number of other areas very closely. We question why a change was made from the previous act in that "approximate" is now used in referring to notice being served concerning technological change. Why would the positive approach as to how many employees are likely to be affected be replaced by the word "approximate", which leaves room for argument and interpretation and long and costly legal battles? Why is a word such as "significant" used, which again leaves a veil of doubt and suspicion, and a word like "substantially" when talking about an order to serve notice to bargain? Why the change from the first to the seventh day when talking about the right to strike or lockout being limited during the period between parliaments?
These and other questions will be asked when this bill goes to committee and we have an opportunity to question the minister and hear briefs from interested parties. Even with reservations, we in this party intend to vote for this bill on second reading. When that is completed it will go to committee and there we will ask the type of question that is in the minds of many, in order to find out precisely whether industrial relations are adequately covered in this bill.
We all want equality and a healthy nation. However, no one relishes compulsion because compulsion in one area
Canada Labour Code
can only lead to more compulsion. When some hon. members talk about how we will bring about compulsion in regard to labour, we question where this leads. The answer is that it will lead to more compulsion in other areas. This is not what Canadians desire; rather, they desire good labour management relationships bringing peace and stability through true, uninhibited collective bargaining.
Mr. Speaker, we wish the minister well with this bill. We hope that at some time he or one of his colleagues will stand in this House and state that some of the thoughts we have expressed will be given favourable consideration. All employees are entitled to this.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is normal to make a few remarks at this stage of the proceedings on Bill C-183, entitled "An Act to amend the Canadian Labour Code". I wish to point out that I took some time to peruse the preamble of the bill. It is very interesting to note the good intentions showing through the purported principles of this bill.
Unfortunately, we see that the purpose aimed at is not always achieved, since the tensions that exist in labour-management relations are certainly no indication that those relations are good and that the methods of settling disputes are effective.
The recommendations contain provisions for the remuneration of the members of the Canada Labour Relations Board, the establishment of offices where it is deemed necessary, the remuneration and expenses of members of the Board in relation to matters investigated and, lastly, the setting up of the whole bureaucracy deemed necessary for the implementation of the various provisions of the act.
I can very well understand that it is not always easy to maintain a constant balance between the fair claims of labour and the requirements of the common good. However, labour legislation must aim at such an objective.
Bill C-183 contains a few amendments as to the administration of the law, in cases of technological changes. It varies somewhat from the present legislation in that its clauses relating to technological changes will not affect collective agreements already in effect, but they will apply after the adoption of this bill. From now on, any employer who is bound by a collective agreement and who intends to effect a technological change must advise the union in writing 90 days prior to the proposed change and he must indicate: (a) the nature of the change; (b) the approximate number of employees who will be so affected and (d) the effect of the changes on employment security.
Should the employer not comply with these requirements, the union is empowered to appeal to the Canada Labour Relations Board and request action. The Board will order the employer to suspend the application of the clauses relating to technological changes for a period of 90 days. Upon a request by a union, the Board will also be empowered to order the employer to negotiate new labour conditions if the changes affect clearly and unfavourably the terms and conditions or security of employment.

March 29, 1972
Canada Labour Code
What happens in the case of failure to negotiate? Will the unions be able to strike? The new bill does not throw any light on this point.
In fact, it would appear from clause 180 dealing with the right to strike, that the union involved in technological changes allowing for a re-examination of the collective agreement will be in a position to strike provided all the requirements set forth in clause 180 are met. One exception deals with a strike during an election campaign when it goes against the national interests. The governor in council can then prohibit such a strike by order in council until 7 days after the elections have taken place.
There has been also a new amendment to insure that an employee must pay his union funds, at the source or directly, when it is so stipulated in the collective agreement. This is a very strange concept of union freedom. I would now like to point out that in my opinion, real freedom for unions should be clearly established by taking into consideration two points in particular: the freedom to join the union, or to get out of it. This is real freedom for unions.
This bill also proposes to continue the Canada Labour Relations Board in order to make it, as had been suggested by the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), a full-time body made up of a chairman, a vice-chairman and four members. If necessary, another vice-chairman and four other members at the most could be added.
Under present circumstances, I think we should rather set up a board of experts secure from undue influences, a group experienced people familiar with labour and management problems; a few experts who could provide accurate data on variations in the cost of living and determine basic wages for workers in various types of industries or services, taking into account all the necessary factors to ensure normal production of goods or services.
There is such a thing as a labour board made up of competent men! What we have to do is assure them of a fair salary and give them the power to make decisions.
In public services, the economic power resulting from the right to strike could be replaced by some adequate mechanism for salary adjustments based on the cost of living index. Let us stop thinking in terms of compulsory contributions or arbitration and start considering a fair and equitable distribution of corporation profits and of workers' salaries, and we will have peaceful labour-management relations. The solution will not be arrived at without effort, but the present situation makes it mandatory that we take appropriate steps if we truly want to avoid anarchy.
Responsible workers, a high percentage of whom have families to support, are entitled to demand some degree of happiness for their dependents, but they should be able to do so without being forced to resort to strikes, when they can unwittingly be the instrument of an enemy using them to promote subversive interests.
Strikes merely lead the worker into a vicious circle. He might get a little more, but will he be better off, after the effects of the strike have ceased and new taxes bring down the value of money and make him consider another strike?
I have here an editorial of Station CJRC on strikes. I quote:
Strikes are in style. They have become so frequent that they are no longer being kept count of.
We shall be asked to keep calm, told that the rights of workers are sacred and that the strikes of others always seem more reprehensible. But facing that rising tide of walk-outs, all equally costly, let us ask whether such folly will not lead us straight to disaster.
Here is a typical example of a stupid strike: the air controllers. Basically, their 11-day strike gained them a 7 per cent increase in salary. Arbitration, it will be remembered, suggested 15.8 per cent over a period of 27 months. They were offered 17 per cent a few days later. Confrontation led to another arbitration decision, granting them 16.5 per cent. To obtain a 7 per cent salary increase, the controllers lost 11 days' pay-they have no strike fund-causing a loss to the air companies of $22 million, not to speak of inconvenience and expense caused to passengers, who had to bear them with patience and selflessness. Was it worthwhile?
Those in favour of strikes could perhaps benefit by such soulsearching. This might avoid the catastrophe which seems imminent. It is not a matter of being pessimistic, but of being realistic. It is high time.
Before deeper involvement in strikes, workers should give it serious thought. They do have rights which must receive recognition, but there are also rights, and responsibilities related to young people to whom other alternatives than strikes should be taught.
Unions remain democratic instruments of protection for workers, provided they are directed by leaders aware of their responsibilities to their members and the means resorted to in order that management recognize its social responsibilities.
In view of the trend towards centralization, one is often inclined to forget the adequacy of human communication required in order to understand employees' grievances. Necessarily, an instrument of consultation must be established and maintained constantly on the alert, particularly as concerns changing working conditions. It is not normal to give up the morale and well-being of employees for the sake of efficiency, service or performance.
In a fluid situation, as a result of the rigidity of policies of the authorities in command, there grows among employees the desire to test the right to strike.
Labour laws should be formulated with clarity, thus allowing the average worker to grasp their meaning without having too often to consult lawyers, who do not seem to need to go on strike to increase their fees.
Let all those responsible for legislation get their inspiration from the same principles behind the salary adjustments put forward in the case of ministers, hon. members, senators, judges and a group of senior officials, and we will then undoubtedly have laws which will be aimed at preventing useless and harmful strikes.
The right to live, for every individual, stems from a natural right. It must be recognized way before the right to strike or to make exaggerated profits, and the necessary steps must be taken by those who are responsible for legislation, to ensure first of all that each and every one has in fact the right to live. We should be clear-sighted enough to set up a system for the intelligent distribution of existing goods without having recourse to strikes, when the majority of the citizens want to work.

March 29, 1972

Hopefully, this bill will improve somewhat the situation in a field where solutions are imperative.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, since we expect the messenger from the other place to arrive at any minute and we shall shortly adjourn for the Easter recess, I suggest it is hardly worth the while of any hon. member to begin his speech now. Could we, therefore, not sit here quietly until the messenger arrives?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Do hon. members agree that we suspend the proceedings until the messenger arrives from the other place?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps we could take my unemployment insurance bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or my bill to abolish the Senate, which is even more appropriate.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Stanley, there is still a chance for you.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if someone on the government side could undertake to advise the opposition parties, if he cannot advise them at present, several days before the House resumes its sitting on April 13 what the business for that week will be.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to convey that suggestion to the government House leader.
Royal Assent



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-55, an act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Chapter No. 3.
Bill C-74, an act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Chapter No. 4.
Bill C-92, an act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Chapter No. 5.
Bill C-167, an act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Chapter No. 7.
Bill C-172, an act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Chapter No. 6.
Bill C-8, an act to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces, and to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act-Chapter No. 8.
Bill C-169, an act to amend the Income Tax Act-Chapter No. 9. Bill C-164, an act to incorporate Unity Bank of Canada.
Bill C-175, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1972-Chapter No. 1.
Bill C-176, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1973-Chapter No. 2.
Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, on Wednesday evenings there are no adjournment proceedings. With the consent of the House the "late show" will be advanced to 6.15 this evening and we might adjourn for that purpose to room 16.

I remind my hon. colleagues that they are invited to Room 16 to exchange the usual good wishes.

At 6.10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order, until Thursday, April 13.

Thursday, April 13. 1972